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

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#151

Post by andreyf » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 12:01 AM UTC

aoeusnth1 wrote: post #150

andreyf wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a straw man argument. Andrew said that the reason the court doesn't decline a lot of requests warrants is because the cases that are not "airtight" never make it to the court. I think this is a fair response to the original comment analyzing the court's "historical performance" as being too lax.

Why should we believe Andrew?

Good question. I don't know if we should, although I've heard similar things said about requests to non-FISA judges, as well. It makes sense to me that if investigators' careers involve learning to cross their t's and dot their i's before they go to a judge requesting an intercept, and they spend years doing it, they get good at it.

Separately from belief, which is somewhat subjective (i.e. it involves more inputs than is practical to list in a discussion), it's important to realize that on a logical level, there are at least two interpretations to a 99% acceptance rate: (1) the bar is really low and (2) there are pre-filters. The certainty with which I often hear (1) being declared or implied seems to miss this point.

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#152

Post by AndrewKemendo » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 12:52 AM UTC

aoeusnth1 wrote: post #150

andreyf wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a straw man argument. Andrew said that the reason the court doesn't decline a lot of requests warrants is because the cases that are not "airtight" never make it to the court. I think this is a fair response to the original comment analyzing the court's "historical performance" as being too lax.

Why should we believe Andrew?

It's so existential when it's about you...

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#153

Post by on_and_off » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 9:53 AM UTC

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 personally fear that it might be equally pointless to try to encrypt your data. There are just too many point of failures. Some futurists like David Brin have been pushing the idea that encryption will ultimately fail and that sousveillance and a push for transparency were the only adapted responses.

I think it would be interesting to push in that direction (it does not prevent from trying to encrypt your data as well).

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#154

Post by tootie » Thu, Jul 02, 2015, 1:39 PM UTC

john_b wrote: post #133

tootie wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> "Secondly, surveillance is an essential tool in fighting crime." This is a very dubious assertion. I'm not aware of any evidence that mass surveillance deters or prevents crime at all, much less is "an essential tool" for doing so. But even if one, for the sake of argument, concedes the point that mass surveillance does significantly deter or prevent crime, you still have a system set up where the costs of that sur…

I'm not talking about mass surveillance. I'm talking about the targeted surveillance that comes from the warrants they sign off on.

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#155

Post by fapjacks » Sat, Jul 04, 2015, 8:37 AM UTC

aoeusnth1 wrote: post #149

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…

Totally agreed with you. Just look at anything David Cameron says for incontrovertible evidence of your last paragraph.

I've put a lot of thought into it, and the only reasonable description of David Cameron is that he is a fascist.

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#156

Post by jasonlotito » Thu, Jul 09, 2015, 2:13 PM UTC

john_b wrote: post #133

tootie wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> "Secondly, surveillance is an essential tool in fighting crime." This is a very dubious assertion. I'm not aware of any evidence that mass surveillance deters or prevents crime at all, much less is "an essential tool" for doing so. But even if one, for the sake of argument, concedes the point that mass surveillance does significantly deter or prevent crime, you still have a system set up where the costs of that sur…

> I'm not aware of any evidence that mass surveillance deters or prevents crime at all, much less is "an essential tool" for doing so.

Oh, you think you are sneaky. This is so carefully worded. You explicitly twist the words of the GP, where they use "fighting crime" you turn that to meaning "deters of prevents crime." They mention "surveillance", and you turn that into "mass surveillance."

That's like me saying "I don't see how fingerprint analysis helps to deter or prevent crimes." Oh sure, it helps capture people after the fact, but I don't think there has ever been evidence show that fingerprint analysis has actually deterred or prevented crime.

So, while you can stand their, smug with your "technically correct" remark, the reality is "surveillance is an essential tool in fighting crime" has been proven to be correct time and time again, and has been instrumental in handing convictions for a long, long time.

Re: FISA court rules NSA can resume bulk data collection

#157

Post by unics » Thu, Jul 09, 2015, 2:53 PM UTC

andreyf wrote: post #151

aoeusnth1 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should we believe Andrew?

Good question. I don't know if we should, although I've heard similar things said about requests to non-FISA judges, as well. It makes sense to me that if investigators' careers involve learning to cross their t's and dot their i's before they go to a judge requesting an intercept, and they spend years doing it, they get good at it. Separately from belief, which is somewhat subjective (i.e. it involves more inputs th…

You make good points to ponder. In this sort of situation I find that looking at the outcome or the end result provides more information towards the intent or competency of the subject questioned. In my opinion the only real reason for a FISA court existence is to prevent civil laws from being broken. Has the FISA court overstepped the constitution in favor of securing our liberty? Has the FISA court been successful in securing privacy for those they serve?