[HN Gopher] FBI: FISA Section 702 'absolutely critical' to spy o...
___________________________________________________________________
FBI: FISA Section 702 'absolutely critical' to spy on, err, protect
Americans
Author : rntn
Score : 201 points
Date : 2023-06-10 14:05 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theregister.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theregister.com)
| EMCymatics wrote:
| I wonder how we are protecting the public square for or against
| private interests?
| hunglee2 wrote:
| [flagged]
| pyinstallwoes wrote:
| That's probably where algorithms can shine, given its rules are
| public within. certain lagging window and inspectable. The
| automated bias is a good thing in that case because it's at
| least predictable compared to human corruption in surveillance.
| AI kind of emerges as a perfect middle mediator between parties
| by being not of the same species.
| nathan_compton wrote:
| I can't help but find this a bit disingenuous. People on
| Hackernews are posting publicly and voluntarily with the
| expectation of moderation. Reading hackernews comments would
| be, for the FBI, regular detective work.
|
| The issue here is the public's expectation of privacy in
| certain situations. In fact, no one (or very few people,
| anyway) dispute the need for states to surveil sometimes. The
| question is when and what oversight should be required. And in
| this case the the argument is that oversight was sidestepped.
| EMCymatics wrote:
| I don't know what has been posted before this all I see is
| [flagged].
|
| >posting publicly and voluntarily with the expectation of
| moderation
|
| I find this statement a bit difficult when it is perhaps a
| duty to participate in the public square or whatever square
| is used to embody the desires of common or public will. If
| people are deterred from this arena without cause and abuse
| then perhaps we have failed. This entire ecosystem rests on
| the belief of decency or fairness. I have yet to see it.
|
| >The issue here is the public's expectation of privacy in
| certain situations. In fact, no one (or very few people,
| anyway) dispute the need for states to surveil sometimes. The
| question is when and what oversight should be required. And
| in this case the the argument is that oversight was
| sidestepped.
|
| That is incorrect. During the oversight committee they
| identified there was a consistent mis-interpertation of the
| law (now corrected) from one side to the other under 702
| which perhaps enabled unauthorized use (which perhaps was
| appropriate under other sections). It was up to (not just due
| to mis-interpertation) 30% of searches in error in the
| potential to be in the millions of incorrect searches. I dont
| see much oversight for other codes. We have possibly 10,000
| people with access to obtain information and we are not close
| to consistent oversight given moving codes and
| authorizations. Congress has failed the bodies that keep us
| safe but not without some significant non-compliance. [1]
|
| Private access to information probably has great advantage
| over public ones. I believe we should consider carefully how
| we want to yield the power the public sector has given us.
| The potential for private and public conflict on this matter
| is significant.
|
| We should not shoo people away with differing opinions. If
| language models are the future for communication and teaching
| while they are learning with data off of 'public' and
| 'accurate' discorse we are very much in danger of having a
| future led by biases inherent in these models (from
| moderation and 'weeded garden' environments) that 'isnt a
| problem' to the people creating the future.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIEqAjRKVyE
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| Is this a joke?
| ok123456 wrote:
| Germany does it now without a surveillance state.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| To any HN community that was here prior to the Edward Snowden
| releases:
|
| Prior to 2013, we had enough evidence (Mark Klein, etc) that US
| Gov was actively conducting bulk warrantless surveillance of
| Americans (not suspected of a crime).
|
| Back then, was there a dominant HN vibe about domestic spying
| (eg: yawn, apologist, anger)?
| eastbound wrote:
| The mood back then was that domestic spying didn't exist.
|
| As in: Imagine the scale it requires, you're stupid if you
| believe, what, that the NSA tapes all of our records?!? Put
| your tinfoil hat back.
| jerkstate wrote:
| I dunno, there's always been a greybeard contingent here
| that's been in or around telecom or otherwise know about
| Operation Shamrock, Echelon, room 641A, and so on, before
| Snowden.
| fnordfnordfnord wrote:
| Yeah and it was pretty common to be voted down and called a
| crank over it too.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Hence, "greybeard." Even when people are talking about
| something that they know to be true, they ground
| themselves in derogatory stereotypes about the people who
| were right.
| colordrops wrote:
| You were called a nutjob for trying to bring it up.
|
| Once it became public, a lot of the narrative that you see now
| was developed behind the scenes by the people responsible for
| these systems. The (yawn, apologist, anger) was created as a
| playbook, and most people don't think for themselves, so they
| parrot this narrative.
|
| It is 100% clear that domestic spying in the US is
| unconstitutional and unethical. There is no debate, and those
| that present it as a debate, or even that you are naive for not
| wanting it, are in service of the narrative.
| activiation wrote:
| Secret courts violate all laws....
| 666satanhimself wrote:
| [dead]
| EscapeFromNY wrote:
| When it comes to the US, a lot of people treat "freedom" as a
| euphemism for war. (see: Team America)
|
| I wonder if "protection" will start becoming a euphemism for
| surveillance.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| If? We're already there. That's the crux of this article.
| sneak wrote:
| The US Department of Defense (renamed from Department of War)
| is currently waging offensive war in a half dozen foreign lands
| right now.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Which foreign lands?
| joecool1029 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_conflicts_invol
| v... < look for present, it's probably more than a half-
| dozen. Falls under the same Authorization for Use of
| Miltary Force of 2001.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| There are five conflicts under "present", none of which
| are offensive. Two are helping countries put down
| insurgencies, two are fighting piracy from Somalia and
| two are involved in civil wars in the Middle East. (They
| add up to six because insurgents and pirates are allies).
| Most of them are as part of a giant collation. Only the
| Syrian one is actually being led by the US.
|
| None of them are to conquer territory or any other
| description of "offensive war" I've ever seen.
| sneak wrote:
| None of them involve defending the US.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| None of them are terribly US specific. The UK is involved
| in all the same conflicts. France, all but the
| intervention in Somalia. Three of them have countries
| like Belgium and Canada involved.
|
| The two fighting pirates who are attacking US ships
| overseas are clearly "defending the US" under
| international and US law. (And the coalition there
| includes Russia and North Korea fighting _on the US side_
| ). The others are the US honoring it's treaty obligations
| by defending her allies or honoring the request of a
| government for help, usually by providing training and
| logistics support.
|
| Except for Syria, where the US is actually leading a
| coalition. But that is more a humanitarian intervention
| than anything else.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > Except for Syria, where the US is actually leading a
| coalition. But that is more a humanitarian intervention
| than anything else.
|
| The intervention is what created the humanitarian crisis.
| Currently, its humanitarian goal is to guard oil
| production.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Moving the goalposts. Original claim was _offensive_
| wars.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Are these _charitable_ wars? _Decorative_ wars? What 's
| the right term for entering into war with countries that
| aren't attacking you?
| sneak wrote:
| Well given that they're not engaging in the _defense_
| which is in the title of the organization, they must be
| offensive - there is no third option.
|
| Point being that we already invert terms like "defense"
| to mean "offense".
| asveikau wrote:
| Team America was satirizing a specific moment in history, where
| they used fear of 9/11 to support an unjust war. That moment
| has passed. We may be vulnerable to that kind of crap again,
| but I don't see it right now.
| xbar wrote:
| I am not sure. I feel more surveilled than I thought would
| ever be possible. My car watches me in my own garage, and the
| FBI can pull that data without telling me, without a warrant,
| just to learn my impressive laundry habits (I'll skip you the
| trouble, FBI: I use Gain and Downy and Borax, always on cold,
| tumble dry low).
| asveikau wrote:
| And how is that related to using freedom as a reason to
| invade a sovereign state and suppress opinions not in
| favor?
| colpabar wrote:
| Sure, but to be fair, how many 9/11's have happened since
| the first one?
| monocasa wrote:
| How many have been attempted since then?
| drewcoo wrote:
| They happen annually.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| 9/11 was the extreme statistical anomaly. US Citizens
| have been historically safe from domestic terrorism for
| 50 years.
|
| ref: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/
| 16/eight... (2013 but the numbers are about the same.
| Odds of dying in a domestic terror attack vary between
| 1:12000000 & 1:40000000 or the same as picking the
| correct inch between DC and NYC).
|
| It is interesting this period of safety coincided with
| the release of the Pentagon Papers and the Church
| Committee that followed. One result of which was forcing
| the FBI away from domestic surveillance and refocusing it
| into a law enforcement mission. This lasted for about 40
| years (after which the FBI officially abandoned it's LEO
| mission to pursue the power that comes with NatSec
| operations).
| HWR_14 wrote:
| The FBI never needed a warrant to get information you give
| to companies freely. That's why they never needed a warrant
| for phone records.
|
| _You_ have rights to protect _your_ data, but you (and
| Tesla, et al) don 't have rights or legal responsibilities
| to protect data you collect on others.
| justinclift wrote:
| No. Team America was satirizing the general US approach of
| trampling over all other countries in the name of "The
| American Way".
|
| That's not really changed.
| asveikau wrote:
| Not really.
|
| I haven't seen the thing since 2004. But I thought it was
| pretty dumb and ironically very US centric in its treatment
| of these topics. It wasn't a deep criticism. It also at the
| same time mocked celebrities for being against the war.
|
| For the record I was very vehemently against the Iraq war
| from day one.
| [deleted]
| smegger001 wrote:
| that would be double-plus-ungood.
| HPsquared wrote:
| That's a word to be avoided in branding, I think.
|
| The former German SS (Schutzstaffel) translates to "protection
| squadron" in English.
| Slava_Propanei wrote:
| [dead]
| supernova87a wrote:
| For those interested in a genuine intellectual debate about it, I
| offer the following point.
|
| Do you believe that there is no role / need whatsoever for a
| court in the United States that needs to hear confidential
| matters having to do with law enforcement, where to reveal it to
| the subject would compromise the investigation?
|
| If you do believe there is the role for such a court, then the
| question is not whether it should exist, but how well it is
| overseen / checked, and what mechanisms there are to make sure it
| operates on correct information and has an advocate for the
| parties that are not allowed to participate in its decisions.
|
| If you believe that there is never a need for law enforcement
| decisions to be made that cannot be revealed to the accused
| party, then that is a separate (and in my opinion,
| impractical/unreal) point. We might as well ban judge-issued
| search warrants unless the person whose property is being
| searched gets a chance to hear the evidence and object.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| There is unequivocally no role for a top-secret _court_ in a
| democratic society. You can argue that there is a role for a
| top-secret investigative body, but that is not, and cannot be
| called, a _court of law_ in a free society. It also cannot, in
| turn, have the powers reserved for a court.
|
| If the FBI wants a warrant, they should have to go through a
| process where they are held accountable to the public and
| afterwards the accused can challenge the validity of the
| warrant. End of story. That is how a free society works. Plenty
| of people go through the normal warrant process without hearing
| about their warrant (so evidence is not destroyed) and then get
| a chance to challenge it after the fact. The FISA courts close
| off any chance to challenge your warrant. I think the bare
| minimum for an enforcement body to get a warrant is _to reveal
| the information being used to get the warrant to the party
| being served the warrant_. The fact that the FISA court does
| not have this requirement makes a mockery of democracy.
|
| You may not like it. It may make your job inconvenient (if you
| happen to be a fed). I don't care. As the person holding the
| gun to the peoples' head, you should have to do a little extra
| paperwork if you want to pull the trigger.
| ccooffee wrote:
| > If you believe that there is never a need for law enforcement
| decisions to be made that cannot be revealed to the accused
| party, then that is a separate (and in my opinion,
| impractical/unreal) point.
|
| Well, uhh, thanks for inviting a "genuine intellectual debate"
| and then out-of-hand dismissing any disagreements as
| "impractical/unreal".
|
| We already have the grand jury which is a secret process and
| can deliver so called "sealed indictments" which prevents the
| indicted party from knowing they have been indicted. Grand
| juries have significant oversight and a long history of legal
| oversight.
|
| FISA "courts", on the other hand, operate in an intentionally
| ill-defined legal space. To me, FISA courts are just as
| nonsense as the "unlawful enemy combatant" Bush-era policies.
| "This system is not _technically_ against the law because we
| built-in enough loopholes to prevent any actual legal
| oversight" should not be a valid argument for upholding a
| corrupt status-quo.
|
| I don't accept the premise that some information is _too
| dangerous_ to be heard by a grand jury. We already have legal
| processes to limit exposure, including many trial processes
| that are done without the jury being present.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Grand juries are sworn to secrecy already, with pretty strict
| penalties if that secrecy is broken. There is no reason that
| this can't apply to so-called "Top Secret" information (a
| label that is already applied _far_ too liberally) if you run
| a background check on them. Over a million people have a TS-
| level clearance already. Grand juries would add another few
| hundred.
|
| People who like the FISA court want that grand jury to have
| the powers of a court. This is ridiculous.
| joshspankit wrote:
| There's a very good reason we have the process of investigate >
| accuse > bring to court and in those cases the accused party is
| detained while the facts are reviewed and the matter decided.
| Judge-issued search warrants are done as a part of the
| investigation and the investigation itself is secret.
| stainablesteel wrote:
| a need for that? i suppose, but i wouldn't call it a court
|
| why can't all of this secrecy stuff be done behind the scenes,
| then brought before a real court once finalized? federal courts
| even have some layers of secrecy so i don't see the issue with
| implementing the plain-jane judicial system here
| zug_zug wrote:
| I think as a starting point maybe a good thing to agree on is
| that we want more transparency around alleged threats.
|
| Iirc this all started around 9/11 and there was this shroud of
| secrecy mentality that revealing _anything_ , even whether the
| operation had even caught a single terrorist, was somehow going
| to empower terrorists. I think in hindsight that doesn't hold up
| to scrutinty.
|
| I think some good metrics to be made public before a renewal is
| considered should be: what crimes were being investigated (e.g.
| was this drugs, pornography, domestic election tampering,
| international spying, exfiltration of government secrets, money
| laundering?). And how many total cases? And what % of cases lead
| to a conviction? And also a way for everyday citizens to request
| an FOIA on whether they had their data looked at.
|
| There are world where I could see this hypothetically being put
| to good use, and if people know what they use this for becomes
| visible to the public I think it forces us closer to such a
| world.
| drewcoo wrote:
| > Iirc this all started around 9/11
|
| Added in 2008.
|
| https://www.intel.gov/foreign-intelligence-surveillance-act/...
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > a good thing to agree on is that we want more transparency
| around alleged threats.
|
| I'll separate out digital threats here as evidence you are
| beyond correct.
|
| 1) Decades of taxpayers funding the hoarding of ~100% of threat
| data, away from qualified netsec experts, so that it could be
| reserved to protecting US Gov interests (noting that NatSec
| typically includes US Gov, Gov partners, major campaign donors
| and that's about it).
|
| 2) One agency head after another sounding klaxons w/o evidence
| (eg:Digital Pearl Harbor), to influence policy in a way that
| would ratchet up agency power.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| They could definitely do a better job of communicating what
| they're doing, why they need to do it, risks, and their
| successes or failures. With that said they _do_ communicate
| with Congress who are all directly elected by us.
|
| I think that we should also agree that secrecy is sometimes
| necessary.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| if i recall correctly, a three-letter agency was spying on
| the congress comitee that oversees them.
|
| When was the last time a senior official of a 3-letter agency
| was fired/jailed for exceeding his authority? Did it ever
| happen?
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| [dead]
| AmenBreak wrote:
| [flagged]
| cornflake23 wrote:
| So long as it first, and only applies to the plebes, most of whom
| are too caught up in just surviving, these arguments will just
| remain as doublespeak.
|
| Problems in any institution are systemic to large degrees. From
| hiring to training and culture. Those take time to change too.
|
| Checks and Balances, the Supreme courts etc are just the tail end
| of the endemic issues. Add the military-corporate-oligarchy
| complex and you have what we got here.
|
| And in spite of saying all this, I too am juggling with high rent
| and trying to secure a future for my family. Ie no "time" to do
| anything but offer just words. I suspect many are in situations
| like me.
| cyanydeez wrote:
| Forgive me, but it's hard to believe 2 years ago a far right
| supremacist president tried to overthrow democracy and we are
| supposed to believe the FBI is using this to protect Americans?
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| I think the two aren't closely tied to each other. Here are >15
| years of stories that show an fairly unbroken line of this
| particular abuse.
| https://www.google.com/search?q=site:techdirt.com+"fbi"+"702...
| dwringer wrote:
| Tbf he did fail, was prevented from going himself in person,
| and over a thousand of the people that he got to go have all
| been arrested as a result now.
| djfobbz wrote:
| You are living proof that propaganda works. Thanks for
| confirming.
| HyperSane wrote:
| What propaganda?
| anonymousiam wrote:
| The FBI has been mum, but some sources indicate a large FBI
| presence among the Capitol rioters, and some incitement by them
| too. If true, this would be typical FBI behavior.
|
| https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2022/08/11/w...
|
| https://www.techdirt.com/2010/11/30/fbi-celebrates-that-it-p...
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| I don't know why this is particularly contentious or
| controversial. The FBI played a huge role in the Chicago 7
| incident in the 70's, which hit progressive democrats. They
| did the same thing with many other progressive movements in
| the 70's and 80's. Incitement of riots using informants and
| undercover agents is a time-honored tradition for the FBI.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| yes the insurrection without weapons led by FBI informants.
| meanwhile the govt is trying to jail the leading opposition
| candidate for 100 years is not overthrowing democracy?
| HyperSane wrote:
| Trump shouldn't blatently commit crimes if he doesn't want to
| be charged with them. Willful retention of
| national defense information: This charge, covering counts
| 1-31, only applies to Trump and is for allegedly storing 31
| such documents at Mar-a-Lago. Conspiracy to
| obstruct justice: Trump and Nauta, along with others, are
| charged with conspiring to keep those documents from the
| grand jury. Withholding a document or a record:
| Trump and Nauta are accused of misleading one of their
| attorneys by moving boxes of classified documents so the
| attorney could not find or introduce them to the grand jury.
| Corruptly concealing a document or record: This pertains to
| the Trump and Nauta's alleged attempts to hide the boxes of
| classified documents from the attorney. Concealing a
| document in a federal investigation: They are accused of
| hiding Trump's continued possession of those documents at
| Mar-a-Lago from the FBI and causing a false certificate to be
| submitted to the FBI. Scheme to conceal: This is
| for the allegation that Trump and Nauta hid Trump's continued
| possession of those materials from the FBI and the grand
| jury. False statements and representations: This
| count concerns statements that Trump allegedly caused another
| one of his attorneys to make to the FBI and grand jury in
| early June regarding the results of the search at Mar-a-Lago.
| False statements and representations: This final count
| accuses Nauta of giving false answers during a voluntary
| interview with the FBI in late May.
|
| According to the indictment, each one of those charges
| carries a maximum fine of $250,000, with maximum prison
| sentences between five and 20 years.
| creato wrote:
| Some of which that Trump himself signed into law,
| specifically because he was trying to jail _his_ political
| opponent at the time.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| either Trump, the only elected official of the executive
| branch has the highest authority over the executive branch
| or the archivist has a higher authority than him? if the
| latter is true, then effectively your third branch is no
| longer run by a president. The documents where created by
| his administration. He can have a copy as much as you can
| have a copy of your business record or tax returns. Further
| every dictator in existence was claiming to rule under the
| authority of the law, and claimed arrest opposition
| candidates under such authority. Resorting to arresting
| your opposition rings hallow to anyone with some shred of
| common sense.
| HyperSane wrote:
| You are speaking complete rubbish. Trump didn't have a
| right to those docs, and he knew it. And speaking of
| dictators, Trump did try very hard to overturn a fair
| election he lost.
|
| Indictment says Trump lied, schemed to keep highly
| classified secrets The former president faces 37 criminal
| charges. His longtime valet, Walt Nauta, faces six
| charges. Former president Donald Trump stashed sensitive
| intelligence secrets in a bathroom, his bedroom and a
| ballroom at Mar-a-Lago, according to a scathing 49-page
| indictment unsealed Friday against him and a loyal
| servant who is accused of lying to cover up his boss's
| alleged crimes.
|
| The grand jury indictment tells a story of hubris and
| hypocrisy, describing a wealthy former president living
| among neck-high stacks of boxes with classified documents
| scattered inside them, sometimes literally spilling out
| of their containers. In the prosecutors' telling, neither
| Trump nor any of his aides or lawyers appeared bothered
| by the sprawl of sensitive papers until government agents
| came calling. Then, the former commander in chief
| allegedly set out to hide some of what he had.
| acdha wrote:
| Trump is not above the law. At least some of the
| documents (nuclear secrets) are not ones that the
| president has the legal right to declassify - the statute
| specifically limits that process - so his only option
| would have been to pardon himself, but he didn't even
| want to admit having done this at the time and likes to
| pretend that he's innocent, so he didn't.
| HyperSane wrote:
| Shocked by how many Trump Cultists are on Hacker News.
| acdha wrote:
| There's been an intense, well-funded libertarianism
| outreach effort for decades and it's been especially
| pronounced in the tech sector where relatively high wages
| and negotiating power let a lot of people tell themselves
| that they're in the same group as their CEO, and should
| vote to give them a tax cut (surely I'll need that, too!)
| and freedom from paying for externalities, etc. That
| meant voting for Republicans over the years and saying
| that the people they voted for probably wouldn't really
| do all of the anti-liberty things they promised to do.
|
| After doing that, for some it's easier to support Trump
| than admit making so many mistakes for years. There's an
| entire media empire devoted to supporting that decision.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Shocked by how easy it was to convince liberals that the
| Espionage Act was a wonderful thing. The ACLU was started
| to oppose it.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Mobility scooters can be dangerous. Also, the rioting
| insurrectionist revolutionaries that dropped dead of heart
| attacks could have caused a tripping hazard.
| autoexec wrote:
| > yes the insurrection without weapons
|
| https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-
| rioters...
| deviantbit wrote:
| Secret courts have no place in the United States. The
| constitution guarantees you the right to defend yourself against
| an accuser (5A). You are not allowed to be in that court when
| you're accused. Also, the government is prohibited from
| unreasonable search and seizures (4A). When they get a court
| order, you're not allowed to defend against. FISA has never been
| before the Supreme Court, as you need a defendant. Since the
| court is secret, and no defendants allowed, it is never going to
| the supreme court. If you're accused, and go to trial, FISA
| evidence remains secret, and discovery is never given to your
| attorney. When you're on the receiving end of this, you will beg
| for your rights. The government has unlimited power, and
| resources to destroy you.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| > FISA has never been before the Supreme Court, as you need a
| defendant. Since the court is secret, and no defendants
| allowed, it is never going to the supreme court.
|
| Golf clap for the chum who yanked this loophole
| supernova87a wrote:
| Do you take the position that there is no role / need
| whatsoever for a court in the United States that needs to hear
| confidential matters having to do with law enforcement, where
| to reveal it to the subject would compromise the investigation?
|
| I think your desire to paint it as some evil government
| bogeyman + some philosophy that everything should be open is
| over simplistic and honestly a little naive in how a country
| needs to defend itself.
|
| Now I am no fan of all that the FISA court has allowed. There
| are legitimate criticisms of how the lack of transparency has
| allowed some rubber stamping of investigations without good
| adversarial oversight.
|
| But to fundamentally assert that such a court should not exist
| is a bit ridiculous.
|
| You might as well suggest that every time before knocking down
| the door of a drug dealer, the drug dealer's attorney must be
| notified and get a chance to argue against the search warrant
| in front of the issuing judge, because in a couple of cases,
| they knocked on the wrong person's door.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| That you think the government should be in the business of
| kicking in doors without due process over mere chemical
| intoxicants is telling. It is anathema to the founding
| ideals, and historically illiterate with respect to alcohol
| prohibition.
| mu53 wrote:
| Looking back through history, the abuses that happen behind
| closed doors always outweigh the negatives of transparency.
|
| The inconvenience of being targeted by an illegal search
| warrant is nothing compared to what is going on right now.
| Political repression, killings, extreme corruption, and
| dictators want secret courts.
| tomohawk wrote:
| The past several years have shown that while the intentions of
| FISA are probably good, it is too easy to abuse.
|
| The FBI and many high government officials have abused FISA again
| and again. Crossfire hurricane is just one obvious instance.
|
| The FISA court has admonished FBI officials for the abuse, but
| that's about it.
|
| If they're going to have FISA, there needs to be real penalties
| for abuse. Loss of position. Prison time. There needs to be real
| consequences for breaking the laws on this.
|
| Otherwise, it need to go.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| The FISA process is seeing a lot of much needed scrutiny
| because of perceived political persecution towards Republicans
| and Trump. I think it'll be a good thing whether or not
| Republicans intentions are selfish or noble.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > The past several years have shown that while the intentions
| of FISA are probably good
|
| When did the past several years show this?
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| The state won't subjugate and punish itself
| drewcoo wrote:
| FISA originated as a response to Nixon's snooping, as an
| attempt to secure Americans' privacy against potential threats
| from (rogue elements of?) the government.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveilla...
|
| I agree that Ted Kennedy had good intentions in 1978. The stuff
| today is out of control and completely contrary to the original
| intent.
| xbar wrote:
| It's been this way for decades. Consider Feinstein's permanent,
| steadfast, and sweeping support. She asked completely a
| performative set of "questions" about its abuse in 2017, along
| with a lot of pro-702 data.
|
| Mostly, she was chock full of softballs under the false
| pretense of being concerned about privacy, that obviously led
| to no improvement.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8Fa-G6pGmI
|
| Laws like 702 of FISA and the Patriot Act seem to be 2 of the
| 1,000 cuts against the legitimacy of government.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-10 23:02 UTC)