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

91–100 of 157 posts

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#91

Post by Aoyagi »

titzer wrote: post #89
themeekforgotpw wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Caveat here that the crypto needs to actually be good, and key management and negotiation needs to be good, and key sizes and algo parameters need to be good, and that hardware needs to be good, and that key escrow systems ("Secure" Enclave, "Trusted" Platform Module) need to be good, you can not use computing services - everything must be done locally (the third party doctrine means that copies of this data must be…

We're making progress on all those fronts. And even ROT-13 is better than sending everything in plain text.

Spooks are making progress as well, and they are very well funded.

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#92

Post by SturgeonsLaw »

shadowmint wrote: post #66
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…

> an average of 33 a week Sounds pretty reasonable, until you read: > Every few months, the FISA judges set aside their regular, public cases, travel to Washington, and take the bench inside a secure, windowless courtroom at 333 Constitution Avenue. Oh, so what actually happens is that every few months the judges get together and do a "rigorous review process of applications" of hundreds of applications ? Sounds legi…

And we're expected to believe that the three letter agencies just sit around, twiddling their thumbs, patiently waiting all those months for FISA approval before commencing surveillance on their targets?

Something here is not adding up.

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#93

Post by csandreasen »

shadowmint wrote: post #90
rhino369 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe they rotate who has the duty.

A pair of judges every six months with 800 applications to review? Or a pair of judges every month with 150 applications to review? In what time period? Do they spend an hour? A whole day? A whole week? All we have to go on is one vague article. ...and that article suggests that ( if we accept they rotate duty and meet monthly say) they spend, on average, (8 hours / 133 * 60 minutes) ~3.5 minutes carefully evaluating…

> A pair of judges ... Do they spend an hour? A whole day? A whole week? All we have to go on is one vague article.

The FISC has its own website which happens to answer your question right on the "About" page[1]:

The Court sits in Washington D.C., and is composed of eleven federal district court judges who are designated by the Chief Justice of the United States. Each judge serves for a maximum of seven years and their terms are staggered to ensure continuity on the Court. By statute, the judges must be drawn from at least seven of the United States judicial circuits, and three of the judges must reside within 20 miles of the District of Columbia. Judges typically sit for one week at a time, on a rotating basis.

> ...and that article suggests that (if we accept they rotate duty and meet monthly say) they spend, on average, (8 hours / 133 * 60 minutes) ~3.5 minutes carefully evaluating each application. If not, it's ~30 seconds per application.

No, the article says 33 per week. The judges aren't meeting together every few months; the sitting judge is replaced by the next every week or so. Assuming an 8 hour work day and 33 warrants per week, that (8 * 5) / 33 = 1.2 hours per warrant on average.

[1] http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/about-foreign-intelligence-surv...

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#94

Post by DanielBMarkham »

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…

Ok, let's assume anecdotally that this is true. This is your experience.

How would this be any different from the bar that a prosecutor has for bringing a criminal trial to court? Lost time, lost reputation, chance of losing the election. Every time a prosecutor decides to go all in, they're taking what could be a huge risk -- if not in that particular case then in the aggregate.

Yet we see much different numbers from courts when an open adversarial system is used.

So a reasonable outside observer is left to conclude that either the federal government is full of incredibly competent legal minds, for whom the slightest mistake would be anathema -- or it's a rigged game. Doesn't matter what they bring.

I understand I'm making a bit of a false dichotomy for rhetorical effect, but my argument is still sound. One of these options is much more likely than the other one.

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#95

Post by fleitz »

jfoutz wrote: post #63
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…

I've been thinking about this for a while. This is a very compelling argument. You must have left on horrible terms though, the FISA court has just approved tracking your personal calls. I realize it's not personal, heck, they did the same to me. Nonetheless, there is a warrant to track your personal data. I'm not sure how reliable you could be. Why would they collect your data if you aren't under investigation? Anyw…

General warrants are unconstitutional. That's all you really need to know.

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#96

Post by ngoede »

billions wrote: post #64
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…

The FISA court is unconstitutional.

I don't know that this is true but I think we ought to pass a law or constitutional amendment banning secret/private courts if it is not.

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#97

Post by gjm11 »

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…

Imagine a system that works as follows. You can have people assassinated. In order to do so, however, you need to fill in a hundred-page form with exhaustive details of your personal finances, your medical history, and the contents of your computers' hard drives; and then you need to play six sets of tennis against a strong player and win at least two; and then you need to play a 7-game chess match against a holder of FIDE's International Master title, and win at least two. Oh, and then there's a fee of $100k. Once you've done this, your application takes six months to be processed. Every week during this time, you get a callback and are asked intrusive personal questions about your sex life, your religion, and how you have voted in past elections. And then, at the end of the six months, the person named on the form gets assassinated by government agents.

Can we agree that (1) this would be a "massive bureaucratic battle", and (2) the bar would be "incredibly high" ... but (3) this shouldn't reassure us much, because jumping through the bureaucratic hoops and meeting those difficult criteria doesn't actually constitute good reason for having your target assassinated?

Your comments about the FISA court seem a little like this. Let's stipulate that getting approval is a tiresome process, and that there are difficult criteria to meet. That doesn't in any way guarantee that it only happens in cases where it's actually a good idea.

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#98

Post by ikeboy »

bitJericho wrote: post #85
higherpurpose wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

NSA: Aw man the supreme court just told us to stop. Fisa: Don't worry about them I'll approve it for "six" more months lol.

That's not what happened here.

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#99

Post by ikeboy »

higherpurpose wrote: post #79
ikeboy wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I didn't say that, I actually have little idea what has been requested. I was just explaining what the above comment meant.

Also, my "reasonable" meant "legally reasonable".

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#100

Post by robogimp »

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…

Essentially this is the "we know who is guilty" argument.
Post reply on HN