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

The Door To The FISA Court Doesn't Even Have A Sign On It

konklone.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 59 posts

Re: The Door To The FISA Court Doesn't Even Have A Sign On It

#41

Post by DannyBee »

speeder wrote: post #4

Kinda off-topic: Why cameras are banned on courtrooms? I remember the last US trial news all of them had sketches like this instead of photos and videos... EDIT about the argument below about google: I always search Google first, but I found lots of random answers, and I don't have enough domain knowledge to know what one (or ones) are correct or resemble how things really are, asking here usually spark people to pos…

"Why cameras are banned on courtrooms? I remember the last US trial news all of them had sketches like this instead of photos and videos... "

In general, because the judiciary has watched what the "news media" has done to every other aspect of life, and doesn't want trials and judging to become a popularity contest.

They try to strike a balance by doing things like having most court of appeals release live or near-live audio versions of arguments, allowing tweeting from court rooms, whatever.

Just not the "let's put up the satellites and get nancy grace on live"

Re: The Door To The FISA Court Doesn't Even Have A Sign On It

#43

Post by aspensmonster »

>...the employees in the first floor District Clerk's office (gently) laughed at my attempts to find anything about the Court. They referred to it as the "Room of Requirement", and said they had no idea what floor it was even on.

In a maelstrom of political chaos, it's nice to see at least a bit of humor every now and then. It seems Life Imitates Art. This pleases the Potter fan in me.

Re: The Door To The FISA Court Doesn't Even Have A Sign On It

#44

Post by redthrowaway »

rohansingh wrote: post #30
3825 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must be reading this incorrectly because if this is what I think this is then states and local governments cannot discriminate based on citizenship. Please correct me (and sorry for going off a tangent) but doesn't this make what they're doing in Arizona unconstitutional?

Yes, that was part of the basis of the DoJ's case there. The Fourteenth Amendment extends protection to all persons , not just citizens.

How does that jive with the US citizen / non-citizen split in what the NSA feels entitled to do? Does that not imply all people are granted 4A rights?

Re: The Door To The FISA Court Doesn't Even Have A Sign On It

#45

Post by joonix »

jasonkolb wrote: post #13

When I was doing real estate investing I ran into a kangaroo "court" that the local corrupt city set up to handle property code violations. They would have a cop set up at the front and an appointed "judge" (they had some other name for him to not offend the law too mightily) who wore robes and asked everyone to stand up and sit down. The person in the robes would arbitrarily make up fines for the offenses according…

There is a such thing as Administrative courts. IRS has them. Department of Justice has them for immigration. So, as long as this court was authorized by Congress the Executive can implement it.

Re: The Door To The FISA Court Doesn't Even Have A Sign On It

#46

Post by sjtgraham »

redthrowaway wrote: post #44
rohansingh wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that was part of the basis of the DoJ's case there. The Fourteenth Amendment extends protection to all persons , not just citizens.

How does that jive with the US citizen / non-citizen split in what the NSA feels entitled to do? Does that not imply all people are granted 4A rights?

IANAL but I think the constitution only applies to people under the jurisdiction of the US, i.e. in US sovereign territory.

Re: The Door To The FISA Court Doesn't Even Have A Sign On It

#47

Post by wwweston »

philwelch wrote: post #28
ferdo wrote: post #5

No sign on the door indicates that they know they should be ashamed even though shame doesn't appear to be one of their guiding lights. edit: great little piece, btw. I'll pass it around.

By law it's a secret court to begin with. Whether or not there's a sign on the door, it's still a secret court. Would a secret court that advertised its location be more palatable to you somehow? Because a sign on the door adds zero significance to the substance of the FISA court's existence or powers. And, given that it is a secret court, well it wouldn't be very secret if everyone knew where the courtroom was, woul…

> Would a secret court that advertised its location be more palatable to you somehow?

For me, yes, what is secret about a secret court matters.

Classified proceedings? I think there could be room for that, within reason and with some kind of oversight.

A court that makes a secret of its existence? No way. That makes oversight more difficult -- one of the few who oversees it can't make a democratic issue of how it operates.

A court that makes its rules and workings secret? Nope.

A court that makes its location secret? Not sure if that's particularly bad if everything else is on the level, but I also don't know if it's necessary, and keeping the location secret seems like a step towards forgetting it's there and what it's doing. So I'm less comfortable with that.

Re: The Door To The FISA Court Doesn't Even Have A Sign On It

#48

Post by superuser2 »

redthrowaway wrote: post #44
rohansingh wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that was part of the basis of the DoJ's case there. The Fourteenth Amendment extends protection to all persons , not just citizens.

How does that jive with the US citizen / non-citizen split in what the NSA feels entitled to do? Does that not imply all people are granted 4A rights?

The government argues (and many lawyers agree) that 3rd party business records are not covered by the 4th amendment and reading them is not a "search." The amendment is very clear on the government's authority to come into your house and look around, and while it seems like it should protect electronic communication, it doesn't (necessarily).

It's actually the Wiretap Act that protects telephone calls, not the 4th amendment. But there's no real analogue of the Wiretap Act for things like email and Facebook.

Re: The Door To The FISA Court Doesn't Even Have A Sign On It

#49

Post by Spooky23 »

jasonkolb wrote: post #19
jwoah12 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your sentiment, but the Constitution gives congress the power to establish inferior courts.

Thanks... I actually hadn't thought about that aspect of it (that real estate court was still not established by Congress ;) I've been reading up on that a bit since your comment, it's a pretty interesting topic because it touches on one branch's ability to influence another. It's a little troubling that a supreme court justice (Roberts, in this case) has the ability to fill this oversight court with whoever he wants…

That real estate court was headed by someone more like an administrative law judge. Some states allow that sort of thing. In New York, towns and villages have elected justices who go to judge school for 60 hours. They preside over minor cases like traffic and "police court" type matters.

One of the more serious issues with the FISA court is that they appear to be only nominally distinct from the Executive. The staff seems to come from the DoJ, for example. I think this reflects the fact that this was until recently a sleepy backwater of the court system.

I wouldn't focus too much on the Chief Justice's ability to appoint the judges. Federal judges are very powerful people, and that power (and the permanence of their position) gives them more independence in terms of judgement than just about anyone.

Re: The Door To The FISA Court Doesn't Even Have A Sign On It

#50

Post by D9u »

superuser2 wrote: post #48
redthrowaway wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that jive with the US citizen / non-citizen split in what the NSA feels entitled to do? Does that not imply all people are granted 4A rights?

The government argues (and many lawyers agree) that 3rd party business records are not covered by the 4th amendment and reading them is not a "search." The amendment is very clear on the government's authority to come into your house and look around, and while it seems like it should protect electronic communication, it doesn't (necessarily). It's actually the Wiretap Act that protects telephone calls, not the 4th am…

I think that the 3rd party doctrine is flawed in that the 4th Amendment specifically states that we are to be secure in our "persons, papers, and effects," which equates to the communications medium of the era of the Constitution's authors, and a parallel can be drawn with the US Postal Service, as our mail is supposed to be secure against external perusal except when the final provision of the 4th Amendment is met by issuance of a warrant describing the things to be seized or inspected.

The wiretap law should be revised to include other forms of electronic communications in order to thwart such applications of the feeble 3rd party doctrine.

I find it reprehensible that in the "Land of the Free" we allow our government to circumvent the letter and intent of the Bill of Rights in the name of "security" when these very circumventions are the antithesis of freedom.

Post reply on HN