FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection • Hacker News Board

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#111

Post by nickbauman » Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 1:17 PM UTC

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…

If this is true, it doesn't help at all. Getting a patent approved by the USPTO takes literally years (plural plus). Yet look at all the terrible patents and how the patent system has essentially become the opposite of encouraging innovation.

Government agencies will use FISA because it's there and they know it will get them what they want regardless of whether it makes sense to do it or not, leaked documents have shown.

http://exitpromise.com/patent-approval-process/

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#112

Post by tootie » Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 1:18 PM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #24

coldcode wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet no one has standing to request the Supreme Court look into this. Ah the joys of secret courts.

If I'm reading it right, the plaintiff here was appointed an "interested party" in some legal sense, which would give them the right of appeal? Am I misunderstanding that?

The Second Circuit clearly thought they had standing. SCOTUS can disagree though and punt on un the underlying issue.

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#113

Post by haylem » Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 1:51 PM UTC

tootie wrote: post #110

gjm11 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

That's a terribly analogy. The bureacracy isn't there as just a speedbump. It's there to make sure you don't waste time on cases doomed to fail. Secondly, surveillance is an essential tool in fighting crime. Assassinations are not.

It's not a great analogy indeed.

However, you also don't provide much proof that "surveillance is an essential tool in fighting crime". Its efficiency to deter/prevent crime, or even to help catch offenders a posteriori, is also highly debatable (I guess it's more likely to be helpful for the latter, but that still makes the definition of "fighting crime" rather vague as well).

For kicks, I like this paper on how street-lighting and CCTV cameras are apparently equally efficient as deterrent: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2004.... .

In the case of digital surveillance, I'd be extremely cautious about its actual efficiency. And that something is legal and efficient doesn't necessarily warrant that its ethical and should be used.

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#114

Post by JadeNB » Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 1:54 PM UTC

harry8 wrote: post #73

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 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 delus…

> Lunatics with bombs cannot destroy democracy & freedom.

Indeed, the idea of lunatics with bombs seems to be far more effective at that kind of destruction than actual lunatics.

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#115

Post by fnordfnordfnord » Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 2:00 PM UTC

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…

Sounds a lot like a grand jury stuffed with hand-picked jurors. We know how that sort of thing usually turns out.

>"During a single four-hour workday last week, a Mecklenburg County grand jury heard 276 cases and handed down 276 indictments.

That means the 18 jurors heard evidence, asked questions, weighed whether the charges merit a trial, then voted on the indictments – all at the average rate of one case every 52 seconds…".

http://www.cato.org/blog/grand-jury-system-joke

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#116

Post by jebblue » Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 2:06 PM UTC

tempodox wrote: post #106

harry8 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 delus…

Your last two sentences should be framed and displayed in every office of every agency concerned.

Agree.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” ― Patrick Henry

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#117

Post by Bartweiss » Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 2:06 PM UTC

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…

Honestly, this isn't meaningful reassurance. I'll grant that the FISA approval rate is a bad number to look at - most approval systems eventually get into a pattern where people only submit things that will get approved.

On the other hand, saying that it's hard to get something to the court means basically nothing unless we trust that the bureaucracy and the court share our standards for "good requests". Having seen what things the FISA court has approved in the past, we can say that the system doesn't work simply because it already hasn't worked.

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#118

Post by nathan_long » Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 2:09 PM UTC

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…

So you're saying that the pass/fail ration we see is meaningless because there's effectively a prior filter.

What's the pass/fail ratio for it?

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#119

Post by saosebastiao » Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 2:10 PM UTC

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…

If the evidence bar is so high, why exactly have there never been any arrests made using the data? That is an awful lot of people affected negatively for a zero benefit program. You would think a massive bureaucratic battle to only submit valid warrants would result in at least one arrest.

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#120

Post by Bartweiss » Wed, Jul 01, 2015, 2:11 PM UTC

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…

It's believable that FISA approval is hard to get, but it's not reassuring. What gets through FISA and what people want the government to do don't match well at all. We've already seen leaked examples of what gets through FISA, and a lot of them are sweeping, invasive, and don't respect the US persons standard in the ways most people would like.

Basically, there's no way to claim the system works when we can watch it produce bad results.