Verizon

[OregonSmock]

Most Liberals 7-8 years ago: "We've got Hitler in the White House"!!! 

Most Liberals today (after Patriot Act strengthening and multiple re-signings, after indefinite detention, after NDAA etc. etc. etc.):  "We must have these measures to protect American Lives".   "Why is anyone surprised that this is going on, it's been going on for years, this is just the ongoing fight against terrorism."

Conservatives 7-8 years ago:  "Anyone who doesn't support the Iraq war is un-American!"

Most conservatives today (after Patriot Act, Gitmo, abu ghraib, 9/11, NDAA, etc, etc):  "Obama is the worst President of all-time!  He makes Nixon look like a choir boy!  He must be impeached - NOW!!!"

The first sentence is not even debately, of course that was the case. 

But this was the administration of Hope and Change remember?

Oh yeah... I can't defend Obama's extension and escalation of Bush's neo-con policies.  Our defense department went nuts after 9/11, and as a result, we have things like the PATRIOT Act and PRISM.  I'm not going to pretend like I'm surprised by any of this stuff, though.  We've all had suspicions that programs like this existed.  At least now this information is out in the public.

[Cartierfor3]

http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/

http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/10/pew-democrats-cool-with-nsa-data-diving

 

[michigancat]

No matter which party invented spying on citizens, it's just as concerning. I mean, it clearly has bipartisan support and probably always will.

[0.42]

So the majority of the American public is comprised of dumbasses?

Huh, who knew.

[mortons toe]

I have to admit, the Obama of 2007 was a smooth talker, and I can agree with alot of the content of his speeches. But the change in tone over his years in office is what is disturbing...



Perhaps this has some relevancy in the Bilderberg thread. 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Liberals:  I was vehemently anti-police state until I rationalized it away as ultimately inevitable when Obama was elected leader of the Nazi party, and soon wielded unchecked power through his SchutzStaffel IRS and EPA.  Now I march in step and with my right arm raised to the sky.

#thanksobama

[Cartierfor3]

I have to admit, the Obama of 2007 was a smooth talker, and I can agree with alot of the content of his speeches. But the change in tone over his years in office is what is disturbing...



Perhaps this has some relevancy in the Bilderberg thread.

awkward.......

[sonofdaxjones]

At one point do we have to just sit back and enjoy it? 

[felix rex]

Felix, what did you think of the Friesdorf piece? Do you think this surveillance saves a high number of American lives?

How many is high?

1000/year?

10000/year?

Let's phrase it another way.

Do you think the loss of life is the only or most damaging consequence of terrorist attack, in terms of a country's overall well-being?

Probably.

I guess I disagree.

[Kat Kid]

Felix, what did you think of the Friesdorf piece? Do you think this surveillance saves a high number of American lives?

How many is high?

1000/year?

10000/year?

Let's phrase it another way.

Do you think the loss of life is the only or most damaging consequence of terrorist attack, in terms of a country's overall well-being?

Probably.

I guess I disagree.

I would argue our response to deaths caused by terrorism is the most damaging in terms of the country's overall well-being. 

Of which I would group this effort at building an enormous database with the potential for egregious abuse on the list along with: torture, the Iraq War, Guantanamo, the overuse of the designation "enemy combatant"....and on it goes.

[felix rex]

And dlew, if it helps, no one is reading your emails. There's a huge difference between the ominous sounding "intercept" and actual "surveillance".

Imagine if the discovery phase in a case worked slightly different, and instead of requesting documents, you had access to a huge repository of potentially relevant data. But if you used your subpoena to access a document you weren't sure was discoverable and hadn't been vetted, you were thrown off the case, suspended without pay and faced possible termination and criminal charges (even if you discovered an unrelated crime and even if that crime was serious).

No one is haphazardly rooting through your stuff.

Yeah but that's not how discovery works and there's a reason for that and I think the reason is more than "we've never had the capacity to create a repository of potentially relevant data."

I understand that no one is reading through my email, but it's still troubling, right?

I'd be interested in hearing your take on whether or not this poses some 4th amendment problem and if so, to what degree?

My legal background consists of a year as a paralegal in business litigation, so I honestly don't feel qualified to say anything too intelligent on it (as my clumsy discovery analogy suggests).

The problem with the discovery analogy is that, in this case, the "other side" would never willingly hand over documents and would likely destroy existing evidence and adjust their communications to avoid creating new evidence if they were made aware of an inquiry.

And again, despite what Snowden says about being able to wiretap the president with a few clicks from his desk in Hawaii, the process doesn't work that way. Every person with access to or even tangential involvement in the system has to pass several tests each year displaying knowledge of the legal restrictions on accessing such information (and the ramifications of doing so incorrectly or irresponsibly). Requests go through layers of approval and authorization and constant oversight from people whose job (and primary incentive) is to detect errant use and discipline those responsible.

So, I guess my take is that the information is already out there. This system makes the info accessible to the relevant authorities but only after probable cause (and a "foreign factor") are established.

I'd be interested how people with your background view that regarding the fourth amendment. FWIW, in my experience our legal department has been very cautious in these sorts of issues (for instance, government agencies or their contractors absolutely cannot run analytics on social media site users, even for the ostensibly benign purpose of measuring the effectiveness of the engagement efforts of our embassies with foreign audiences).

But again, I am by no means an "insider". Maybe it's as Orwellian as kstatefreak and dax think it is. I'm just going by what little non-classified knowledge I have of the program coupled with what I think is an obvious analysis of the irrational statements made so far from Snowden himself, who doesn't strike me as a particularly reliable source. Of course, perhaps I'm casting Snowden as a Benjy Compson while ignoring my own role as Jason.

I think the oversight is perfunctory with regard to consideration of privacy concerns.

A quick search through the Electronic Privacy Information Center’s nice table on FISA court applications submitted, accepted, and rejected shows that this is no more than a kangaroo court. Between 1979 and 2012, 33,942 applications were submitted. Of those, a mere 11 were rejected. (The difference between applications proposed and accepted is only 7, but I decided to go with the upper bound they report in their ‘Applications Rejected’ column to give the government the benefit of the doubt.) So the government has a whooping 99.967% batting average in these courts.

http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html

Would a higher percentage of erroneously requested warrants make you feel better?

[michigancat]

Felix, what did you think of the Friesdorf piece? Do you think this surveillance saves a high number of American lives?

How many is high?

1000/year?

10000/year?

Let's phrase it another way.

Do you think the loss of life is the only or most damaging consequence of terrorist attack, in terms of a country's overall well-being?

Probably.

I guess I disagree.

Feel free to elaborate.

Of which I would group this effort at building an enormous database with the potential for egregious abuse on the list along with: torture, the Iraq War, Guantanamo, the overuse of the designation "enemy combatant"....and on it goes.

yeah, that's what I was getting at in my response to felix that he edited out.

[Kat Kid]

Would a higher percentage of erroneously requested warrants make you feel better?

To me the number indicates one thing for sure:

1) the FISA court approves almost every single request that is issued

Everything else is conjecture.  Why?  Because secrets.  So unless you are sure that everyone involved is competent and ethical then the margin for error would probably seem to be a little absurd.  I don't have enough information to evaluate the process.  But so far we have seen the following:

From 2001-2007 Bush thought the FISA process too onerous, too public or whatever and choose to create a separate NSA project that surveilled Al Quaeda bypassing FISA oversight by claiming exigent circumstances and Congressional approval through the PATRIOT Act or whatever.  He got absolutely grilled because some of the communications were purely domestic in nature and because people did not like the lack of a process.  Fast forward to now, Obama apparently got millions upon millions of records (one hearing per company database?) with one approval through this same panel.

I guess Obama's approach is "better" because it adds a layer of oversight and accountability, but I'd really have a hard time calling the FISA more than a rubber stamp considering it has been four years since they denied a warrant and the scope of their approval is so far reaching.  So what is the difference between just doing something and asking the FISA court?  In practice, it seems like not much difference.  I mean we aren't talking about going to the secretary to ask for some office supplies.

[sonofdaxjones]

Yes, I am enjoying the latest argument that this was all legal because they were approved by what is essentially a secret court.  As I recall secret courts would also play a major role in NDAA and indefinite detention.

So, everyone just needs to relax, the secret courts are on the case and ready to protect 'merica and your constitutional rights.

[michigancat]

Yes, I am enjoying the latest argument that this was all legal because they were approved by what is essentially a secret court.  As I recall secret courts would also play a major role in NDAA and indefinite detention.

So, everyone just needs to relax, the secret courts are on the case and ready to protect 'merica and your constitutional rights.

who are you arguing with?

[Kat Kid]

[0.42]

Definitely just imagined a bunch of egyptians (all stacked 15-high on motorcycles) watching dax get on a horse and go after felix rex doing the windmill in the middle of Tahrir Square.

[sonofdaxjones]

Why do you fellas regularly think everything is directed at you?

There's a very strident effort by noted liberal figureheads to downplay this situation.   

[sonofdaxjones]

You fellas aren't taking the final nail into the coffin of Hope and Change very well.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Yes, I am enjoying the latest argument that this was all legal because they were approved by what is essentially a secret court.  As I recall secret courts would also play a major role in NDAA and indefinite detention.

So, everyone just needs to relax, the secret courts are on the case and ready to protect 'merica and your constitutional rights.

The fact that they've identified that nuance as something worth discussing is hilarious, and shows a complete disconnect from reality. 

Can we call the current administration the Neo-J. Edgars?

[OregonSmock]

Yes, I am enjoying the latest argument that this was all legal because they were approved by what is essentially a secret court.  As I recall secret courts would also play a major role in NDAA and indefinite detention.

So, everyone just needs to relax, the secret courts are on the case and ready to protect 'merica and your constitutional rights.

Would you agree that the nature of our intelligence programs would be compromised if we held public hearings on secret and sensitive information?  Could we even have spy agencies if they were required to disclose sensitive information to the public?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Yes, I am enjoying the latest argument that this was all legal because they were approved by what is essentially a secret court.  As I recall secret courts would also play a major role in NDAA and indefinite detention.

So, everyone just needs to relax, the secret courts are on the case and ready to protect 'merica and your constitutional rights.

Would you agree that the nature of our intelligence programs would be compromised if we held public hearings on secret and sensitive information?  Could we even have spy agencies if they were required to disclose sensitive information to the public?

Absolutely, while we're at it, let's get rid of grand juries, juries, the right to trial, the right to counsel, the 4-8th amendments, due process, warrants. etc.  The SS can be trusted to try the accused, in good faith.

[OregonSmock]

Yes, I am enjoying the latest argument that this was all legal because they were approved by what is essentially a secret court.  As I recall secret courts would also play a major role in NDAA and indefinite detention.

So, everyone just needs to relax, the secret courts are on the case and ready to protect 'merica and your constitutional rights.

Would you agree that the nature of our intelligence programs would be compromised if we held public hearings on secret and sensitive information?  Could we even have spy agencies if they were required to disclose sensitive information to the public?

Absolutely, while we're at it, let's get rid of grand juries, juries, the right to trial, the right to counsel, the 4-8th amendments, due process, warrants. etc.  The SS can be trusted to try the accused, in good faith.

wut


None of that incoherent babbling has anything to do with my question.

[sonofdaxjones]

Secret Congressional Hearings to discuss National Security Matters are not an issue.

Secret Courts consolidating power amongst a select few is an issue.

[Kat Kid]

Interesting if true.

Your reader claims that the FISA Court must be a “kangaroo court” because it never denies applications. I, too, do not like the appearance of a court that grants almost every warrant application.  But this is much more complicated than it looks.

First, the warrant process can be back-and-forth.  I have heard FISA Court judges explain that in reviewing applications they sometimes find some aspect deficient, and tell the DOJ of their concern.  The DOJ then, if possible, tries to improve the application (say, with additional facts) to satisfy the court’s concern.  If they know they cannot, the DOJ may simply withdraw the application.  This means the “granted versus denied” number is much less informative than it first appears.

Second, FISA applications are complex and often lengthy.  The government does not bother with one unless they really want one, and then they put the time in to make the application thorough.

Third, it’s worth looking more carefully at who some of these judges are (and have been).  In many ways the court is secretive, but one thing we do know is the members.  They are all sitting federal judges.  Here are a few who served recently:  Judge James Roberston, of the D.C. district court, was on the FISA court for a number of years until he resigned in 2005 to protest the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.  He was appointed to the federal bench by President Clinton, and early in his career worked for the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights under Law.  His public judicial work shows that he is anything but a rubber stamp for government police powers.  Yet he (apparently) rejected almost no applications, as there were only 11 rejections out of almost 34,000 from 1979-2012.  Or consider Judge James G. Carr, who served on the FISA Court from 2002-2008.  He was appointed to the federal bench by President Clinton, and is a former law professor who wrote an extensive treatise on wiretapping law.  I have practiced in front of Judge Carr; he, too, is no rubber stamp.

It is definitely worth scrutinizing the FISA Court, but it is not a kangaroo court.