from the don't-care-what-you-want-we're-going-to-do-this dept.
A secret US tribunal ruled late Monday that the National Security Agency is free to continue its bulk telephone metadata surveillance program—the same spying that Congress voted to terminate weeks ago.
Congress disavowed the program NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden exposed when passing the USA Freedom Act, which President Barack Obama signed June 2. The act, however, allowed for the program to be extended for six months to allow "for an orderly transition" to a less-invasive telephone metadata spying program.
For that to happen, the Obama administration needed the blessing of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court). The government just revealed the order.
In setting aside an appellate court's ruling that the program was illegal, the FISA Court ruled that "Congress deliberately carved out a 180-day period following the date of enactment in which such collection was specially authorized. For this reason, the Court approves the application (PDF) in this case."
Original Submission
(Score: 5, Informative) by skullz on Wednesday July 01 2015, @07:15PM
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of server fans suddenly screamed back to life
(Score: 5, Funny) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday July 01 2015, @07:34PM
That much rotational momentum must be why NIST had to add the last night leap second.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 3, Funny) by RobotMonster on Wednesday July 01 2015, @07:38PM
Argh. +1 Funny. Normally I have many unused mod-points to spend. Right now I have none. Please, time your jokes better.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2015, @09:54PM
> Please, time your jokes better.
Hey, they announce the leap second; it's not my problem if you didn't set your watch.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday July 01 2015, @07:48PM
Neat. It explains global warming too.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2015, @08:02PM
You are mistaken. That is simply cognitive error due to accumulated decades of NSA bull$hi7.
There are no servers, there is no NSA. They certainly didn't resume something they certainly never did in the first place - certainly not before congressional approval.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by ghost on Wednesday July 01 2015, @07:40PM
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Wednesday July 01 2015, @07:50PM
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2015, @07:47PM
"As described more fully below, the Government submits that Section 1861, as amended by the USA FREEDOM Act, authorizes the Court to approve the Government's application for the bulk production of call detail records for a 180 day transition period." -the application PDF
This reauthorizes the bulk collection for the 180 day transition period beginning June 1, 2015 because of sections in the PATRIOT Act pertaining to this being renewed.
I had to read the application to be sure. So this is 180 more days of bulk use and collection. Then it goes away.
(Score: 2) by cmn32480 on Wednesday July 01 2015, @07:54PM
Providing that Congress doesn't pass something in the dead of the night on Christmas Eve to allow it indefinitely again.
"It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday July 01 2015, @08:05PM
Recall that they started this back in the bush administration, not because of language in the patriot act authorizing it, but because of legal memos interpreting that language somewhat broadly.
There's not necessarily reason to believe that loopholes being reopened necessarily has to be an act of congress. They could just find some other parts of that or another law and use it as an excuse.
In fact, broadly speaking, there's a lot of collection going on that isn't the now-killed "bulk metadata collection", such as the overseas data monitoring.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday July 01 2015, @11:03PM
You recall wrongly.
Fisa courts were authorized in the Carter Administration in 1978.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act#FISA_court [wikipedia.org]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday July 02 2015, @01:20PM
No, I don't "recall incorrectly". I was talking about bulk collection, not the creation of FISA.
Stupid goddamn pedantic corrections that don't look at the wording used.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Wednesday July 01 2015, @11:25PM
They already did.
Instead of the NSA violating the Constitution by collecting the data itself, for its own purposes, all it needs to is ask the corporations, that are now required to collect the data, to turn over the data when properly asked in the context of due process
Now, of course all that is bullshit. One of the reasons Ma Bell was taken apart last century was precisely that they were slowing down the FBI with their departments full of compliance officers verifying court orders. Ma Bell didn't listen to the FBI when it complained that it needed faster and more ubiquitous access, so Congress took care of it.
So where are we now?
- AT&T, Verizon, etc. will collect and store the records.
- FBI, NSA, $Shithead$ will send an electronic warrant to be evaluated by the telecom's server
- Validation is of course instant since no such software can possibly exist to look over a warrant, and no humans can be involved as they are too slow
- The warrants themselves will largely remain secret, since the flag saying it's a secret warrant will be abused terribly. The telecoms won't be able to talk, or dispute *anything* anymore.
- Liability will be removed with a whole bunch of twisted legal weaselese that the executives demanded in their weekly blowjobs from Senators on their knees, which is also incidentally why nobody at the telecoms will care that could do anything about it.
- Auditing will be a complete joke, and more red tape than a FOIA request to know if they're behaving like they're supposed to. We will just need to trust them, and their completely unblemished and pure record of high integrity.
- The current director of the NSA will go golfing with the director of the FBI, and both will laugh and congratulate themselves on how they now have the telecoms working for them by law, with no resistance, and due process is nothing more than a concept on a piece of paper they wipe their asses with - The Constitution of the United States Of America
- Near 90% of Americans wishes will be disregarded in one of the worst examples in US history where the government has wildly diverged from the will of the people. Not even Vietnam and the Hippies had as many people on the same page on how the government is shitty, corrupt, and disconnected from the people.
- The NSA is exactly in the same place it was a year ago.... all of the meta data on their servers... and their code is mining it to find the "undesirable" Americans that need further surveillance, and possibly "re-education".
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 02 2015, @12:54AM
Instead of the NSA violating the Constitution by collecting the data itself, for its own purposes, all it needs to is ask the corporations, that are now required to collect the data, to turn over the data when properly asked in the context of due process
A commonly repeated myth is that if the government asks corporations to do X (where X is some task that it itself wants done and would do if no restrictions were present), then suddenly it's constitutional; that's false. Corporations become a de facto agent of the government in those situations, so they're bound by the same rules. Otherwise, the constitution would be useless, which clearly wasn't the intent. And that last part is a joke. The FISA court rubberstamped a grand majority of data requests, so you can't think there will be actual due process involved.
The "freedom" act is a joke; it fixes nothing, and perhaps makes things worse by giving the appearance that things were fixed.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday July 02 2015, @01:28AM
Perhaps that is better :)
That was one of the reasons why I will punch Obama in the face if I see him on the street (which is never of course). That cock monkey lied out his ass when he said he would take AT&T and telecom executives to task over this stuff. At the end of the day they submitted to unconstitutional demands from law enforcement, and *nobody* faced justice, or even stern words.
Obama let happen exactly what you're saying shouldn't happen. We had a Presidential candidate promise to enforce the rules if he got elected, and instead, he made it even worse over the next 8 years. When you can't even get a Presidential candidate, who becomes elected, to enforce the Constitution and his campaign promises, you know you are fucked proper. They sat that moronic asshole down in the first week of his administration and he immediately towed the 'party' line like a little toady. Went from a President who was all talk, all moron, no substance... to pretty much the same :)
It was at that point it was made abundantly clear to me that the rule of law was non-existent in telecoms and the intelligence agencies. It's them literally doing whatever the fuck they feel like, and damn all of our civil rights while they do it.
Let's check the SCORECARD of the public will:
1 - Beat down the Patriot Act with massive public outcry for it to be so, and a Senator performing filibusters talking about our Constitutional rights........ repealed almost immediately with hidden language and started right back up with a slightly different playing field, but the same game.
2 - Obtained Net Neutrality at great effort......... FCC will now be defunded by appropriations bills that are being helped written by Comcast and industry.
Yep. Representative Democracy. Text book Representative Democracy at work. Fine job our elected officials are doing with listening to the people.
I feel so free.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Wednesday July 01 2015, @08:34PM
There exists no context, even in theory, in which a secret court is consistent with a government of, by, and for the people. A Star Chamber such as this can only serve the purposes of an unrepresentative ruler; it is utterly useless, worse than useless, to the people.
Even though I recognize the prudence of obeying the orders of the nice men with guns when they tell me to do what this court says, I do so not out of recognition of the court's authority. There is never any true authority to be recognized in the shadows where this court lurks.
...and that is especially true considering that the court has such an astonishingly near-flawless record of saying exactly what the nice men with guns asked them to say....
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday July 01 2015, @10:58PM
Agreed, I still can't understand why this court exists. War time exigencies have long since passed, if they really existed at all.
The problem appears to be that there is nothing explicit in the constitution that forbids such a court.
You can get a "secret" (undisclosed) search warrant or Arrest Warrants from any court, which is often used by fugitive task forces, where things have to be kept quiet till the police have a chance to serve the warrant.
But having an entire court to work in secret is just wrong.
Fisa courts [fff.org] arose in the Carter administration. (Everybody wants to blame Bush.). They laid in the weeds for 20 years doing just about nothing till 9/11.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday July 01 2015, @11:12PM
I can't remember the language (not well enough to search for it), but I believe that somewhere in the Constitution secret courts ARE explicitly forbidden. But it could have been the declaration of independence.
If I thought they still paid any attention to the constitution I might do the appropriate research...but they clearly don't.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday July 01 2015, @11:25PM
I suggest that the Constitution is not so long, nor the language so opaque, that your search for such a prohibition, if fruitful, would be a great service to all US Citizens.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by TrumpetPower! on Thursday July 02 2015, @01:19AM
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fnj on Thursday July 02 2015, @01:42AM
October 4, 2013: Rep. Poe on FISA Courts as "The 21st Century Star Chamber" [fas.org]
Either the Constitution has a massive hole in it, or the Supreme Court is not doing its fucking job (Ha! big revelation).
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Thursday July 02 2015, @01:47AM
Not even vaguely pertinent until some one is brought to trial.
The quote talks about trials, not the issuance of warrants.
And by that time, there will be a great deal of parallel construction, and much later (and open) warrants. Meanwhile the mass surveillance is authorized by the secret court on the slimmest of pretenses.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday July 02 2015, @08:31PM
Well, if you don't think that relevant, then I understand why you didn't think it was there (your clear implication). But try also this:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It doesn't explictly state that the warrant must be issued with the intention of prosecuting for a crime, but to my mind there is a clear implication that that was the intent of the law, and thus the way it should be interpreted.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday July 02 2015, @08:52PM
Topic drift.
Remember way back when you yourself said:
I can't remember the language (not well enough to search for it), but I believe that somewhere in the Constitution secret courts ARE explicitly forbidden.
You've now drifted off to something totally different. Lets get back to you finding a prohibition of secret courts.
What you quoted above doesn't address that issue. It says there must be a warrant, it doesn't say it must be issued by a non-secret court, it doesn't even say you have to show the searched person the actual warrant.
You made an assertion. I just want you to back it up with a citation prohibiting secret courts.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday July 03 2015, @07:32PM
As I consider that warrants have only been authorized in the context of a criminal trial (very early stage, of course), to me the clear implication is that warrants that aren't intended to facilitate a public trial are not authorized. And the constitution doesn't give any power to the federal government that isn't explicitly stated in it's wording.
I will agree that a civilization with a dense population with fast transportation and communication could not function under a strict reading of the constitution, but the appropriate remedy is to amend the constitution, not to ignore it. But the chosen course has been to ignore it, and to willfully misinterpret the clear wording.
E.g., the "well organized militia" is nowhere stated to be governmentally organized or approved. NOWHERE. And, in fact, many of the founders would have been strongly against such a requirement. (Not to mention that it would have been unworkable in remoter areas at the time...slow transportation and communication.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday July 03 2015, @10:24PM
As I consider that warrants have only been authorized in the context of a criminal trial (very early stage, of course), to me the clear implication is that warrants that aren't intended to facilitate a public trial are not authorized. And the constitution doesn't give any power to the federal government that isn't explicitly stated in it's wording.
But see, here you've done it again!!!
You've wandered off the reservation into your own bizzaro opinion land, rewriting the law and the constitution to meet your needs as if someone had appointed you king!
Search warrants need not be issued in the context of a criminal trial. They are an evidence gathering tool. The tool is most often used WAY before there is a trial. You are afforded protection against UNREASONABLE search and seizure. You aren't afforded an absolute protection against a search. You need not be guilty of a crime to have a search warrant served upon you.
But more importantly, (and I can't stress this enough, and I mean it in the most helpful and respectful way) YOU don't get to decide what is or is not unreasonable. We have judges appointed to that task. And NO, we are not going to amend the constitution to conform to your wishes. Just not going there. Look, you REALLY have to get over yourself here, or run for president, get yourself appointed to the supreme court, (9 times) or take up heavy arms with several million of your friends and impose your own way.
Your understanding of the Constitution (or what is left of it) is seriously flawed. The constitution is a FRAMEWORK, not a detailed item by item authorization for every act the government might take. There is no authorization in the constitution to allow mowing the grass along a Federal Highway. There isn't even authorization for the highway. That's not how the world works. Nobody specifies each and every future act of a government in advance. (They tried in the EU, evens specifying how people should think!). A lot of shit gets hidden in "Congress shall make such laws as necessary.., Congress shall establish such inferior Courts...)
A secret court is an anathema to the ideals that the United States was founded on.
But some how Jimmy Carter got it set up, Congress thought it was NECESSARY, several supreme court cases decided that it was REASONABLE, and here we are.
The secret FISA courts issue search and seizure warrants just about every week. Most of these will never lead to a trial. Most of these will never even lead to an arrest.
But the fact remains, a Judge in a secret court was convinced that there were REASONABLE grounds to allow the search. He issued a warrant, someone's email queue, or phone logs, or browsing history was searched. And I wager 98% of them were guilty of nothing at all, or at least never charged.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 04 2015, @09:01PM
YOU don't get to decide what is or is not unreasonable.
This looks like the "Judges are always right." fallacy again. Anyone can decide what they believe is reasonable, but that doesn't necessarily mean their opinions will be valued in the legal world; that doesn't invalidate their opinions, however.
The constitution is a FRAMEWORK, not a detailed item by item authorization for every act the government might take.
Actually, the constitution explicitly states that the federal government only has as much power as it is given. Inconvenient or not, the government is doing many unconstitutional things right now. But I guess you choose to ignore that for convenient, instead of going the proper route and amending the constitution. Many of the fixes could be done, because few people would oppose them.
Nobody specifies each and every future act of a government in advance.
Which is why it can be amended. But I guess that's hard, so just violate it instead.
But the fact remains, a Judge in a secret court was convinced that there were REASONABLE grounds to allow the search.
Well, he's wrong. Nothing more to say about that.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday July 02 2015, @12:57AM
War time exigencies have long since passed
In times of true peace, our civil liberties are in less danger because people are more rational and vigilant. It's in times of war when we need to protect our civil liberties the most, as politicians will be able to more easily play on people's fear and manipulate them into giving the government powers it should not have and possibly cannot have. The "It's a time of war, so X is okay." excuse should not be accepted. Secret courts are bad even during times of war. There is no excuse for violating people's fundamental liberties, war or no war.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday July 02 2015, @03:24AM
This is why the U.S. has been in a state of war (usually undeclared) almost continuously since the late 1800's.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 01 2015, @10:44PM
The USA Prison Act just reauthorized the spying. Having some data stored on company servers does not make any of it less-invasive. The real invasive part is that the data is being collected at all.
(Score: 2) by VortexCortex on Thursday July 02 2015, @01:22AM
Excellent! Now to call my local congress critter and have the secretary on the other end record a message recorded by any of the various numbers stations. [wikipedia.org] Be sure to have the message read it back, to ensure it's recorded.
When I have trouble sleeping I oft listen to the droning on of these enciphered messages. I either have insomnia cured by something akin to a 3rd party counting of sheep, or am deeply worried about the state of my mission.
If the spooks are already looking at citizens with a critical eye, let's ensure they do so for representatives and senators as well. Bonus, you don't even need to know what the spy messages say to relay them!
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday July 02 2015, @01:49AM
Sky-king Sky-king, do not answer....
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday July 02 2015, @01:27AM
They need to cover the negative press.
So just like clockwork, here it comes U.S. boosting security measures ahead of July 4th [cnn.com]
One interview on a news program had New York Representative King [foxnews.com] saying:
King told Megyn Kelly that behind the scenes, law enforcement agencies that are monitoring this situation are very concerned.
"People should be concerned," King said. "ISIS has called for attacks during Ramadan. This July 4th occurs during Ramadan."
He added that this is "the most concerned" he has seen the FBI, the DHS and local law enforcement agencies since 9/11.
Never mind the small print further down in the story from CNN you read this:
"There is no specific, credible intelligence to indicate any threats against celebrations over the Fourth of July weekend," the official said. "However, we have seen repeatedly calls for violence over the past year by leadership and supporters of (ISIS) against members of the military and military installations, law enforcement, the U.S. government, and the American public. These threats are always taken seriously and we continue to work with state and local law enforcement to ensure their safety."
He indicated NYC was filling garbage trucks with sand to act as blast barriers and had nuclear explosive detection equipment at the ready.
It would be laughable if it weren't so predictable.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by linkdude64 on Thursday July 02 2015, @02:50AM
"The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."