Slashdot Mirror
US Courts Approve 30,000 Secret Surveillance Orders Each Year
An anonymous reader writes "U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen Smith estimates in a new paper (PDF) that 30,000 secret surveillance orders are approved each year in U.S. courts. 'Though such orders have judicial oversight, few emerge from any sort of adversarial proceeding and many are never unsealed at all.' Smith writes, 'To put this figure in context, magistrate judges in one year generated a volume of secret electronic surveillance cases more than thirty times the annual number of FISA cases; in fact, this volume of ECPA cases is greater than the combined yearly total of all antitrust, employment discrimination, environmental, copyright, patent, trademark, and securities cases filed in federal court.' He also adds a warning: 'Lack of transparency in judicial proceedings has long been recognized as a threat to the rule of law and roundly condemned in ringing phrases by many Supreme Court opinions.'"
Greater transparency would enable meaningful oversight not only by appellate courts but also by Congress and the general public.
"Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
Due process? The people put on secret surveillance cannot defend themselves against those surveillance warrant. They can't go to court and attack the arguments of the police. There's judge oversight but not due process.
As for rule of law... Well there certainly aren't 30k terrorists in the USA. The people put on surveillance must then include criminals and innocent people. I'd love to see statistics on what crimes these 30k are accused of and how many of them do not get convicted (or their case never goes to trial to being with).
While this is horrifying, it's at least a little comfort that there is any rule of law or due process left at all.
Rule of law? It looks like the judges just rubber stamp it.
That itself will probably be gone given a decade or so.
No. even if it makes the nightly news, folks won't give a shit. You see from what I've seen, generally speaking my fellow Americans don't really know what freedom is. To them freedom means being able to drive where they want, eat what they and watch what they want - plenty of bread and circuses. Protections from Government abuses and viloations of Civil Liberties is off their radar or they consider it to be some pinko Liberal value. They can still own a gun, after all! Although gun ownership is in our Constitution, slowly, all so slowly, that right has been chipped away - gun laws in most states have become incredibly restrictive to LAW abiding citizens. Guns rights have become one of the bones, if you will, to be thrown to a very vocal portion of our society so that they'll ignore some of the real scary things that are happening with our rights.
Nevermind. Most folks won't give a shit until they're stopped and asked to show their papers. Even then, there will be plenty of folks who won't mind because they think it keeps them safe from all the: drunk drivers, drug addicts, rapist, child molesters, terrorists, and every other public threat due jour.
People are too stupid to be free.
Oh, wait....
Sure 30,000 is a big number. But on balance, this means that .01% of the U.S. population is being surveiled.
That seems like a low number to me.
I think I see what the problem is.
http://transparency.gov/
The connection has timed out
The server at transparency.gov is taking too long to respond.
With that sort of response, you have got to go looking elsewhere in order to get anything done.
Nevermind. Most folks won't give a shit until they're stopped and asked to show their papers. Even then, there will be plenty of folks who won't mind because they think it keeps them safe from all the: drunk drivers, drug addicts, rapist, child molesters, terrorists, and every other public threat due jour.
Yo, try driving within 100 miles of the Mexican border. They've got permanent checkpoints that are not at all at the actual fucking border.
They all broke the same law. Not donating enough to the politicians and judges.
Since the summary didn't say, ECPA is The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, an updated version of the 1968 Federal Wiretap Act.
FISA is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the FISA court (technically the FISC, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) generally rubber stamps wiretapping warrants, even after the fact.
So that's 30,000 that went through the courts, nice PR spin. How many surveillance ops were mounted WITHOUT court orders?
Take Nobody's Word For It.
The secrecy of the surveillance orders is what actually creates the uncertainty and doubt, and EVERYONE should be fearful of people in power starting to hide behind secrecy, because all the ages of history of mankind have shown that power corrupts.
Due process? The people put on secret surveillance cannot defend themselves against those surveillance warrant. They can't go to court and attack the arguments of the police. There's judge oversight but not due process.
As for rule of law... Well there certainly aren't 30k terrorists in the USA. The people put on surveillance must then include criminals and innocent people. I'd love to see statistics on what crimes these 30k are accused of and how many of them do not get convicted (or their case never goes to trial to being with).
Your indignation appears to be based on misconceptions. First, the police never give you a chance to defend yourself before they get a warrant to search or surveil you. They get the warrant and the first you know about it, if you ever do, is when they show up to search your property or arrest you. So in that regard, these secret warrants are not greatly different from standard warrants. When getting a warrant, probable cause means establishing that there is substantial reason for suspicion that a crime has been committed and substantial reason to suspect that surveiling you will produce evidence relevant to the investigation. They don't need to suspect YOU of a crime.
The secrecy regarding these warrants has to do with the fact that there are (supposed) national security aspects to the proceedings, and if it became known that the FBI was investigating you, or the reason for which they are investigating you, that fact of itself might compromise the country's ability to carry out military operations, foreign surveillance, etc.
Probably few of these cases involve possible terrorism. They might involve espionage, military secrets, etc.
I hope everyone realizes that while 30,000 seems like a large number... that means less than .01% of the US Population is under surveillance.
I'm fine with that.
The "secret warrants" I really want to know about are the ones the judges turn down.
First, are there any? Second, on what grounds do any get turned down? Is it, "No, you knucklehead, that 82 year-old nun who goes to anti-war meetings is not a threat to national security" or is it, "Hey, this bit here about "capture or kill" that 82 year-old nun, is that really necessary?".
You are welcome on my lawn.
The secrecy of the surveillance orders is what actually creates the uncertainty and doubt, and EVERYONE should be fearful of people in power starting to hide behind secrecy, because all the ages of history of mankind have shown that power corrupts.
I don't disagree but enough FUD is coming off the surveillance orders without a bunch of hyper sensitive politically motivated individuals running around adding to it; a well thought out and moderated approach is the only viable answer.
Unfortunately we aren't capable of that in modern history.
Part of a well-thought-out approach would involve finding out what is so secret. We cannot have an informed discussion when so much is kept from us. When the actions of the state are kept secret from us, all we have are conspiracy theories. And further, when people are being spied on in secret with no possibility of public scrutiny the appropriate response is suspicion and derision. With the poor track record for honesty that the government has, I can't give them the benefit of the doubt.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Are you advocating becoming one of those countries?
You get two choices, rule of law and procedure which is upheld, or whatever the hell the state security apparatus wants to do. I doubt anybody who has ever lived in a country where the latter prevails would advocate for it.
When you stop following your own laws and rules, you cease to be a free society.
So if warrants aren't properly obtained, and the legalities aren't observed, they should get thrown out. Walking all over procedure and people's rights in the name of expediency is never a good solution.
But, hey, if you want a world where people get rounded up in the middle of the night without any real legal recourse or process ... well, there's always someone trying to do that. Me, I'll stick with advocating for someone keeping tabs on what's going on and making sure the police are playing by the rules.
It's easy to forget those rules and safeguards were put in place to prevent abuses. You have nothing to fear if you've done nothing wrong or have nothing to hide is never going to work out in the long run.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
But how do we know they didn't donate enough? Without a right to face your didn't-bribe accuser with bribe receipts in the courtroom, there's serious risk that the value of bribes may be nullified. Without a free press publishing statistics to correlate donations with respect for the donator's privacy, how can the public make informed choices about if, or how much, they should donate?
Is that the society we want to live in? One where you slip government officials a little something on the side with the understanding that you will be treated as a preferred citizen, and then the government welches on the deal? That's not the social contract I was brought up to expect.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
We cannot have an informed discussion when so much is kept from us.
I agree, the only solution I see is to assume the worst. If our leaders can't operate with secrecy being the exception rather than the rule; we must assume they are tyrants unfit and unworthy to govern. We must assume their actions are contrary to the general welfare, and the founding principles of our nation and vote accordingly in elections and treat them accordingly in our day to day dealings.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I don't disagree but enough FUD is coming off the surveillance orders without a bunch of hyper sensitive politically motivated individuals running around adding to it; a well thought out and moderated approach is the only viable answer.
A well thought out and moderated approach is what happens when enough hyper sensitive politically motivated individuals make enough noise. Otherwise, the issue is ignored. This is exactly our politics works in America today.
As for rule of law... Well there certainly aren't 30k terrorists in the USA. The people put on surveillance must then include criminals and innocent people. I'd love to see statistics on what crimes these 30k are accused of and how many of them do not get convicted (or their case never goes to trial to being with).
The article doesn't even mention terrorism. This includes all cases where someone's phone was tapped or his e-mail read under a court order. For the police to tell someone that they have tapped his phone or are reading his e-mail would defeat the whole purpose of doing so.
The judge in the article does not want to stop tapping the phones of suspected mobsters and shady politicians. He wants to have the warrants unsealed automatically after a certain number of years have gone by. That way, anyone who was not a legitimate suspect would have a chance to complain in court.
The secrecy regarding these warrants has to do with the fact that there are (supposed) national security aspects to the proceedings
Yeah, because being able to claim "national security" so that no one can know a thing is a great power for a government to have...
I'd rather people find out the information, to be honest.
I read stories like these all almost every day, going on for years now. Then I read the comments and see angry American citizens decrying Americas descent into a police state. But I don't see any actual real protest, only angry comments online ... Why are you so timid?
There are a number of reasons that can be mixed and matched for any given individual.
First, some of us do protest. There were huge protests around the Iraq war back in 2003. But media coverage was lacking (odd, eh?). There have also been the "Occupy" protests which have been widespread and some quite large. The corporate media have a funny way of downplaying or casting aspersions at these protests though. And business seems to go on as usual in spite of them. But they are there, and they do have an impact.
Second, the American people are fractured as a society. We are as suspicious of each other as we are of the government. That makes it harder to organize people around things they agree on. We have been taught to fear our neighbor and look to the state for authority and protection. Organizations like unions that used to be a political force have been systematically beaten back by business and other interests.
Third, many of us buy in to the hype and don't perceive that we are slipping into a police state. Many of my friends and family don't see it. They think totalitarianism has to look like Nazi Germany, and even then it has to look like it does in the movies. I am not forthcoming to most people about my political opinions, and those with whom I am think I'm a little "out there".
Fourth, there are real risks to protesting in the United States. If I get arrested at a protest, my employer will not be happy and I could lose my job. I would probably need to take time off work to join a protest. I can do that, but many of my hourly-wage fellow citizens cannot; especially on a sustained basis. If you work for a company that does business with the government, your employer might not like your protesting either. People can be fired for just about any reason in the United States.
Fifth, many people's lives are still fairly comfortable and they don't want to upset the apple cart. It's plain old short-sighted self-interest.
Lastly, and this is related to point three, the American people don't really know what's going on. See my signature for more insight. They know things are bad, but they don't really know why. And the "news" where they get their information is not going to explain it to them. How does the Fed's zero interest rate policy affect their savings account or their ability to borrow money? How many Wall Street firms engaged in fraud over the past decade? When is the right to free speech most important? Was there a state of emergency declared after 9/11/01 and if so has it ever been repealed? Why does it matter? Most Americans don't know the answers to these questions. They don't even know the questions. They are too busy with keeping their jobs and raising their kids (most families need two incomes these days) to pay close attention. Or they think the government is corrupt and unresponsive anyway, so why bother. In short they are disengaged. Those in power who really know the score are interested in keeping them that way.
Well, you asked... ;-)
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
48% of families receive government assistance. As long as that check comes every month (actually, it's now a debit card) they don't care what's going on.
Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but you do realize how misleading that is, right? I.e., Pell grants, tax credits, mortgage deductions, school lunch/breakfast programs, hell, even right-of-way payments technically qualify as 'government assistance.' Also, does that percentage include state and local government assistance, or just federal?
I for one would love to see a breakdown of what assistance is received by whom.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Yeah, that's the most damning thing about it. Even if you decide it's best to be very lenient with the government, the volume of search warrants to prosecutions suggests that most of the time that they asked for the warrant, it turned out that it was unjustified and probably did not actually lead to useful evidence.
In real life, if someone cried wolf that often, eventually the wolf-crier would lose credibility with you. If you thought back to all the times they previously cried wolf and gave persuasive arguments that there was a wolf, but now realize that most of those arguments were bullshit, then you would rethink what is truly a persuasive argument.
Yet the FISA court appears to not have this memory and intelligence. Less than my dog it seems. Believe me, it takes far fewer than THIRTY THOUSAND "psych! I didn't really throw the ball!" lessons for her to learn I didn't really throw the ball.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.