Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Saturday December 12 2015, @06:54PM   Printer-friendly
from the gov't-appointee-fights-for-the-people dept.

The appointment of a FISA Court amicus to argue on behalf of the American public -- part of the surveillance reforms contained in the USA Freedom Act -- seems to be working out pretty well. FISC judge Michael Mosman appointed Washington DC attorney Preston Burton to examine one issue facing the court: whether the NSA can retain the bulk records it collected under Section 215. According to the new limitations, the NSA must immediately destroy any records that are not "foreign intelligence information." Unsurprisingly, the NSA is reluctant to begin this purge.

There are a certain amount of records the NSA must retain as they are part of ongoing lawsuits against the government. The NSA has stated that it's impossible to separate the phone records relevant to the lawsuits from the rest of the collection.

Burton -- in his response to the government's response to his original amicus brief -- doesn't find the NSA's claim of limited technical capabilities believable. In his first brief, he asked the following question:

Why has the government been unable to reach some stipulation with the plaintiffs to preserve only the evidence necessary for plaintiffs to meet their standing burden? Consider whether it is appropriate for the government to retain billions of irrelevant call detail records involving millions of people based on, what undersigned understands from counsel involved in that litigation, the government's stubborn procedural challenges to standing- a situation that the government has fostered by declining to identify the particular telecommunications provider in question and/or stipulate that the plaintiff is a customer of a relevant provided.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @09:17PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @09:17PM (#275541)

    What are you talking about? I don't use fecal media. You've assumed something about me that simply isn't true.

    Do you really think for one second that they would avoid selling - or just giving - that info to the. gov?

    Yes, the same government that has far more power than the companies themselves. In the end, the government is more dangerous. However, do not mistake this for saying that the companies are not dangerous at all.

    I don't ever recall saying that companies are not dangerous.

    That is, if you were serious - not trolling or an astroturfer.

    Astroturfers tend to be anti-privacy, whereas I am fiercely pro-privacy.