Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 157 posts

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#71

Post by juliangregorian »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #42
dmix wrote: post #9

Just a reminder about FISA's historical performance: > Between 2001 and 2012, the FISA judges approved 20,909 surveillance and property search warrants - an average of 33 a week. During that 12-year period, the judges denied just 10 applications. Prosecutors withdrew another 26 applications. > From 2007 to 2012, FISA judges also approved 532 "business record" warrant applications, the category used in the order that…

I can tell you from first hand experience that getting a warrant TO the FISA court from a sponsoring agency is a massive bureaucratic battle in and of itself. Reason being, the agency powers that be don't want to send something up that will be disapproved because it takes significant time and effort of general counsel and leadership of these agencies to process, implement and track to maintain compliance - even if th…

Is there any reason at this point to believe that FISA is less than an NSA organ? Secret courts in the USA, what has the world come to?

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#72

Post by cubancigar11 »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #42
dmix wrote: post #9

Just a reminder about FISA's historical performance: > Between 2001 and 2012, the FISA judges approved 20,909 surveillance and property search warrants - an average of 33 a week. During that 12-year period, the judges denied just 10 applications. Prosecutors withdrew another 26 applications. > From 2007 to 2012, FISA judges also approved 532 "business record" warrant applications, the category used in the order that…

I can tell you from first hand experience that getting a warrant TO the FISA court from a sponsoring agency is a massive bureaucratic battle in and of itself. Reason being, the agency powers that be don't want to send something up that will be disapproved because it takes significant time and effort of general counsel and leadership of these agencies to process, implement and track to maintain compliance - even if th…

I am sorry but did you just say that bureaucracy is against the will of the government? Bureaucracy is the government!

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#73

Post by harry8 »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #42
dmix wrote: post #9

Just a reminder about FISA's historical performance: > Between 2001 and 2012, the FISA judges approved 20,909 surveillance and property search warrants - an average of 33 a week. During that 12-year period, the judges denied just 10 applications. Prosecutors withdrew another 26 applications. > From 2007 to 2012, FISA judges also approved 532 "business record" warrant applications, the category used in the order that…

I can tell you from first hand experience that getting a warrant TO the FISA court from a sponsoring agency is a massive bureaucratic battle in and of itself. Reason being, the agency powers that be don't want to send something up that will be disapproved because it takes significant time and effort of general counsel and leadership of these agencies to process, implement and track to maintain compliance - even if th…

I don't believe you, sorry. You may be telling the truth but there are so many lies we've been told that I just don't. Sorry, that's how it is and I'm sure a very large number of people would agree with that. The FISA court /is/ a rubber stamp, how do we know? Ed Snowden told us about all the incredible amounts of overreach that the FISA court approved in secret.

We're at far more risk from public servants with delusions of grandeur and infallibility going unchecked than lunatics with bombs. Lunatics with bombs cannot destroy democracy & freedom.

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#74

Post by nitrogen »

anigbrowl wrote: post #57
fru2013 wrote: post #13

I personally think that creating laws to prevent government surveillance is a pointless endeavor. The NSA has ignored and broken laws in the past, why would we expect them to follow new ones that are passed? The only way to prevent surveillance is with a technical solution (encryption), not a legal solution (more laws).

Don't look to technical solutions for human problems. You'll be disappointed.

Apparently we can't look to humans for solutions either. So now what?

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#75

Post by harry8 »

davesque wrote: post #56

So, would someone please hack the NSA's collection of bulk metadata and use it to reveal embarrassing information about politicians and NSA employees who support this program? Why hasn't this happened yet?

Why do you think it hasn't? People who drop endless resources into that kind of thing would use it for blackmail.

Are you sure people aren't being blackmailed? How sure?

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#76

Post by 0x5f3759df-i »

fru2013 wrote: post #13

I personally think that creating laws to prevent government surveillance is a pointless endeavor. The NSA has ignored and broken laws in the past, why would we expect them to follow new ones that are passed? The only way to prevent surveillance is with a technical solution (encryption), not a legal solution (more laws).

I'm sorry but no.

https://xkcd.com/538/

You need both. By that same logic do you think the constitution and bill of rights is a pointless endeavor? Our government has violated these rights many times in our history. I could just as easily say that the constitutional amendments passed after the civil war were pointless because there was still institutionalized discrimination and racism for another hundred years.

How much did encryption help Lavabit? The court forced them to hand over the encryption keys anyway.

We need to change the laws and place proper oversight over the NSA and other intelligence agencies with real penalties for the violation of our rights. Encryption alone is not enough.

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#77

Post by pluma »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #42
dmix wrote: post #9

Just a reminder about FISA's historical performance: > Between 2001 and 2012, the FISA judges approved 20,909 surveillance and property search warrants - an average of 33 a week. During that 12-year period, the judges denied just 10 applications. Prosecutors withdrew another 26 applications. > From 2007 to 2012, FISA judges also approved 532 "business record" warrant applications, the category used in the order that…

I can tell you from first hand experience that getting a warrant TO the FISA court from a sponsoring agency is a massive bureaucratic battle in and of itself. Reason being, the agency powers that be don't want to send something up that will be disapproved because it takes significant time and effort of general counsel and leadership of these agencies to process, implement and track to maintain compliance - even if th…

The problem isn't whether passing FISA is difficult or not. The problem is what does pass FISA.

That something is not illegal does not mean it shouldn't be illegal. The FISA process legitimises a kind of mass surveillance that shouldn't be legal to begin with.

This is why people call it a rubber stamp process. Even if they're only approving valid requests, the put problem is what is being considered valid.

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#78

Post by higherpurpose »

bazillion wrote: post #53
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can tell you from first hand experience that getting a warrant TO the FISA court from a sponsoring agency is a massive bureaucratic battle in and of itself. Reason being, the agency powers that be don't want to send something up that will be disapproved because it takes significant time and effort of general counsel and leadership of these agencies to process, implement and track to maintain compliance - even if th…

This is exactly the case. The reason there are almost no denials is that there would have been a great amount of due diligence performed to ensure that FISA collection was warranted. The fact that there are any denials after such analytic rigor takes place, suggests that the FISA court is not a rubber stamp. Every single year people who are read onto FISA must complete a comprehensive course on how to deal with FISA…

The NSA has re-interpreted the meaning of the word "relevant" (for investigation) in order to collect millions of people's data at once. How can the FISA judges ever approve that?

Also, you're forgetting that a federal Court has just said that the Patriot Act NEVER allowed for bulk collection. Yet the FISA Court allowed it. Why?! But that's what you get with a secret spy Court that has no accountability.

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#79

Post by higherpurpose »

ikeboy wrote: post #52
JoshTriplett wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, it's OK that the court is effectively a rubber-stamp, because we can trust that the agencies requesting warrants won't ask for things they don't think are reasonable? No.

I believe you misunderstood him. He seems to be saying that almost no invalid requests were submitted, because there was a rigorous review before submission. The court might not be a rubber-stamp, but the agencies happened to only send reasonable requests, so they got approved.

The NSA asks for "general warrants" and you think that's "reasonable"?

NSA: Can we spy on everyone at once?

FISA: Why yes of course you can - BUT, you have to fill out this form first...and do it properly or we'll never approve you!

NSA: Oh..but that's such a drag! Okay, fine, we'll do it.

That's kind of what seems to be happening.

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#80

Post by higherpurpose »

rtpg wrote: post #26
3pt14159 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also the FISA court has been called an "almost parallel supreme court" by the New York Times, and given that it only hears one side of a case, makes this all the more troubling.

people have talked about only hearing one side of the case, but that's the same for all warrant proceedings. FISA court isn't about declaring people guilty, it's about declaring whether there's reasonable suspicion.

So how does the FISA court determine that "3-hop" people (millions) are "suspicious, then?

The standard for an NSA "general warrant" is FAR, and I mean FAR weaker than for a regular warrant. Literally orders of magnitudes weaker, to the point you could barely consider it a "standard". Especially when the FISA court approves for for 3 months at once (and now for 6).

What kind of "warrant" is that? Does that sound reasonable to you?

Post reply on HN