Slashdot Mirror


FISA Court Extends Section 215 Bulk Surveillance For 90 Days

Trailrunner7 notes that the bulk telephone collection program was just extended another 90 days. "The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has authorized a 90-day extension to the Section 215 bulk telephone collection program used by the National Security Agency, giving the agency through the end of February to run the program in the absence of legislation establishing a new authority.

On Monday, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence revealed that the administration had applied for a 90-day extension to the existing Section 215 authority, and that the FISC had approved the request, extending the authority through Feb. 27.

'The Administration welcomes the opportunity to work with the new Congress to implement the changes the President has called for. Given that legislation has not yet been enacted, and given the importance of maintaining the capabilities of the telephony metadata program, the government has sought a 90-day reauthorization of the existing program, as modified by the changes the President directed in January,' a statement from the Office of the DNI and the Office of the Attorney General said."

83 comments

  1. Courts? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

    Isn't a court supposed to rule on the current law, rather than extending laws that have gone away?

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:Courts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Isn't a court supposed to rule on the current law, rather than extending laws that have gone away?

      They aren't a court.

    2. Re:Courts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      yes, but this is the kangaroo court extending kangaroo laws that were never actually voted for, they were just entered into the law books by the alphabet soup agencies without congress ever knowing they existed.

      Every member of the NSA, CIA and the FISA court should be arrested and shot for treason.

    3. Re:Courts? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Isn't a court supposed to rule on the current law, rather than extending laws that have gone away?

      They aren't a court.

      Sorry, I misinterpreted the word "court" to mean "court" in "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court"

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    4. Re:Courts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Really? Congress had no part? You're going with that, when TFA cites Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which was passed by Congress in October 2001? I mean, sure, rage against the machine, but don't flail about wildly because you're too stupid to read up on the issue. I'm pissed off about the dragnet spying too, but at least I understand that their power wasn't pulled out of thin air. The keys to their power: they don't need probably cause for a warrant, warrants can be extended indefinitely, and they can access all electronic communications(which was stated that way intentionally to case the widest net. they cover everything from telegraphs to the latest radios and fiber technologies).

    5. Re:Courts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congress had no part, it was crammed down their throat, and they were forced to vote on it under threat of death.

    6. Re:Courts? by zlives · · Score: 3, Funny

      you probably also read the "foreign" incorrectly

    7. Re:Courts? by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      I have altered our agreement. Pray I don't alter it again.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    8. Re:Courts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So can we create a kangaroo court to round up all these lawbreakers and throw them into a jail outside of their kangaroo jurisdiction, just like they do?

    9. Re:Courts? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe it's the 'Intelligence' part that's wrong, thus explaining the other two problems.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    10. Re:Courts? by buckfeta2014 · · Score: 1

      Only if you're bum-buddies with Obama.

      --
      Buck Feta. You know what to do.
    11. Re:Courts? by msauve · · Score: 1

      That just shows that their plan is working perfectly. See: Newspeak.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    12. Re: Courts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes fuckin damn right shoot all those shit eating nerdowells

    13. Re:Courts? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      The "Surveillance" part is right on target, though.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    14. Re:Courts? by zlives · · Score: 1

      one outta four, well i guess that's something.

    15. Re:Courts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I misinterpreted the word "court" to mean "court" in "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court"

      They are most definitely not a court, at least not in the legal sense. Wikipedia defines a court as

      A court is a tribunal, often a governmental institution, with the authority to adjudicate legal disputes between parties and carry out the administration of justice in civil, criminal, and administrative matters in accordance with the rule of law.

      There are no other parties in a FISC court, only the government demanding permission to violate existing laws. Read the above again where it says "in accordance with the rule of law", this also proves that FISC is not a real court as they believe that the government is above all existing laws. They only call themselves a court because it sounds better to the plebs than "ministry of rubber stamping government demands for more power".

  2. Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Isn't this grossly illegal?

    Congress must change the legislation or the expiration date
    stands.

    What happened to the horror of 'legislating from the bench'?!

    1. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the executive can change the date when whatever laws start, then the judicial branch can change the date when whatever laws end.

    2. Re:Illegal? by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What happened to the horror of 'legislating from the bench'?!

      This is it.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    3. Re:Illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, neither side can do either of these and both entities should be charged with treason for attempting to do so.

    4. Re:Illegal? by sjames · · Score: 1

      The executive cannot change the start date of a law, but it can choose to be incredibly slack in enforcing it for a while.

      Neither the courts nor the executive can just make up a new law from nothing. That includes continuing a law that no longer exists.

    5. Re:Illegal? by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      Funny how nobody in the GOP is up in arms about these "activist judges" from the FISA star chamber usurping their authority.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    6. Re:Illegal? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      That only applies when the courts do something one of the major political parties dislikes that happens to favor the other major political party. In this case they both want it but don't want the very small blow back. This also provide talking points so that one side can blame the other for not acting thus the court did the right thing further legitimizing this court's existence.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  3. They can extend legislation without legislation? by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

    Which means they can just go forever, without telling anybody. Of course, they could do that anyway, but this *admits* that they can do that anyway.

  4. When are Americans going to wake up? by neo-mkrey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And realize they now live in a police state?

    1. Re:When are Americans going to wake up? by faraway · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Right after American Idle.

      And I know what idols are.

    2. Re:When are Americans going to wake up? by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And realize they now live in a police state?

      Most don't know the difference.
      We've been in a police state since the Civil war.
      Once the feds take power... no matter how justified they are in that... they never give it up again.

    3. Re:When are Americans going to wake up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Feds gave up a huge chunk of power when they ended Reconstruction and largely let the old Southern establishment regain control of the Southern states. In some cases, this was because of backroom deals between Democrats and Republicans, in some cases due to Democratic obstructionism (sometimes aided by a few Republicans like Karl Schurz), and in still other cases because the Supreme Court kept limiting the applicability of 14th Amendment throughout the late 19th century.

    4. Re:When are Americans going to wake up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And realize they now live in a police state?

      I must be one of those asleep because I fail to see how the USA is a police state. Care to provide any evidence?

    5. Re:When are Americans going to wake up? by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      We've been in a police state since the Whiskey Rebellion.

      FTFY

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    6. Re:When are Americans going to wake up? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I must be one of those asleep because I fail to see how the USA is a police state. Care to provide any evidence?

      The answer has its own Wikipedia page.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

    7. Re: When are Americans going to wake up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When are we going to rename Stockholm Syndrome to America's Syndrome?

    8. Re:When are Americans going to wake up? by davydagger · · Score: 1

      Shay's Rebellion

      FTFY. although much love to our peeps in the whiskey revolution as well.

    9. Re:When are Americans going to wake up? by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Go to the airport. See how close to a plane you can get (with ticket in hand) before someone demands to see your papers (and x-ray your bags and scan your body/pat you down). Crack a bomb joke and see how that goes for you. When they fondle your junk, be sure to tell them you expect a happy ending.

      You may or may not have big trouble if you try to video record cops. Let us know when you get out.

      We have a secret court that has decided to continue permitting a spy agency to spy on citizens in their homes in spite of an explicit expiration date on the law.

      We have the highest incarceration rate in the world. Most of the people in prison were coerced into waiving their right to a trial.

    10. Re:When are Americans going to wake up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we please not insult the memories of all the people killed by actual repressive, murderous police states like the Gestapo, the NKVD, and the Stasi by claiming that every single secret legally-dubious not-so-constitutional thing our government does makes it a police state?

      In an actual police state, people like Snowden and Assange and Manning and Glenn Greenwald and Matt Tiabbi either live lives of continuous fleeing or die in the middle of the night when the police catch up to them. They don't flee legal prosecution and incarceration, and police states don't invent fake charges as an excuse to put out arrest warrants a la Assange.

      This is the /. equivalent of all the idiots out on Bundy's ranch jerking their gherkins about how they're "standing up to Obama's police state." No, you bunch of utter fucking wankers, in a police state they murder you all, take away all the bodies on both sides to an unmarked mass grave, and the state-run media says nothing whatsoever about it.

    11. Re:When are Americans going to wake up? by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      Well AC, ploice states do make up false charges, and have public trials to show they can win. Which happens in the US, especially since the cops can take cash I have on me if they say they "think" it's going to be used for illegal purchases.

    12. Re:When are Americans going to wake up? by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      All they did was replace "papers, please" with tracking your cell phone, recording your calls, monitoring your internet use, tracking your flights and maintaining a "no fly" list, and on and on. Making the surveillance invisible doesn't make it any less insidious. A prison is a prison, whether you can see the bars or not.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    13. Re:When are Americans going to wake up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How are those 'Free speech zones' working out for you then?

  5. Powerful, highly stealthy Linux trojan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Powerful, highly stealthy Linux trojan may have infected victims for years

    Backdoor tied to espionage campaign that has targeted governments in 45 countries.

    http://arstechnica.com/securit...

  6. Clarification: expires June 2015, law says court r by raymorris · · Score: 5, Informative

    Let me clarify, as the two current posts indicate a misunderstanding. Currently, the law authorizing the snooping is set to expire in June 2015. Under that law, NSA must get court approval or any wiretaps, and those approvals can't last longer than 90 days. The court has been approving "spy on everyone" each 90 days.

    Obama asked Congress to renew the law rather than letting it expire in June, but change it in a couple of ways:
    Make the authorization permanent rather than requiring re-approval every 90 days
    Add some smokescreen language to say the dragnet isn't allowed under section 215, it has to be done under a different section.

    The Senate voted 58-42 to not extend the law as Obama asked, so currently the snooping must stop by June, when the law authorizing it expires.

    Only the current 90-day "warrant" expired, renewing that is standard operating procedure. The big deadline is June, when the whole program will have to stop if Congress doesn't re-authorize it.

    Democrats in Congress want to move the program around, so they can say they got rid of the section 215 authorization. Republicans have refused to do that, some like Paul want to let the whole thing expire. Others say the Democrat smokescreen plan only makes it harder to perform legitimate national security activities, without actually doing anything good for privacy.

  7. Shitter Was Full! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  8. Next: name change - Soviet USA by mamba69 · · Score: 1

    Can't wait when comrad Putin arrives and two great nations become One.
    I announce: The Great Sovietico USA_RUSSIA State. Envy of all dictators.

    God Bless Soviet USA

    1. Re:Next: name change - Soviet USA by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Politics are dated of course, but the message is still relevant.
      https://www.youtube.com/playli...

  9. The power to spy is like any addictive substance by Trachman · · Score: 2

    Once one start using, one needs to continue doing.

    The same thing with those kangaroo courts. They will stick to whatever "their legal opinions" are, because the moment you stop all predecessors will be questioned. They have to remember that Nurnberg defense, "we just followed orders" does not work all the times. They KNOW what they are doing and, rest assured, they do not have clean conscience and do sleep well even if they say they do.

    Expect this to be election issue. Rand Paul's maximalistic approach will earn a lot of political capital, and Hillary Clinton will look like a big sister from 1984 Apple commercial. Perhaps this thing along will win former Obama's voters.

    One would be a fool to believe that anything in substance will change even when Rand Paul will stop renewal, but at least there will be a debate.

  10. Re:Clarification: expires June 2015, law says cour by TheCarp · · Score: 2

    > Democrats in Congress want to move the program around, so they can say they got rid of the section 215
    > authorization. Republicans have refused to do that, some like Paul want to let the whole thing expire. Others say
    > the Democrat smokescreen plan only makes it harder to perform legitimate national security activities, without
    > actually doing anything good for privacy.

    This is what I have come to expect on matters of personal privacy. Republicans hate your privacy and don't know why you think you should have it... Democrats hate that you might suspect they are the same as the republicans, and really want to implement the same policy while looking like they care about your privacy.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  11. Re:They can extend legislation without legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which means they can just go forever, without telling anybody. Of course, they could do that anyway, but this *admits* that they can do that anyway.

    Yeah. It's kind of like the difference between Fuck You and Fuck You Very Much.

    Both methods rape our rights, but they've at least decided to be polite enough to tell you about it.

  12. Re:Clarification: expires June 2015, law says cour by zlives · · Score: 1

    and neither of them have any knowledge or clue as to what is actually happening and if it is actually worth keeping the program.

  13. Limitless power in perpetuity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is truly startling to view the United States run by a government with absolutely no checks and balances on their power.

  14. Irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Does anyone actually think it matters whether this bill passed or not?

    If they want to keep doing it, they're going to keep doing it. What the law says is irrelevant.

  15. Hope and change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hope and change at its finest.

    And, yes, Obama defenders I know you think this is somehow Dubya's fault despite not being president for 6 years.

    1. Re:Hope and change by ZenDragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The patriot act was passed under Bush's watch, and is partially what has enabled this mess in the first place. I'm not defending Obama, he officially became a scum bag in my book after he campaigned on the premise that he would get rid the Patriot Act, but renewed it shortly after taking office. My point is, they are both equally responsible, and equally douchey.

    2. Re:Hope and change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The patriot act was passed under Bush's watch, and is partially what has enabled this mess in the first place. I'm not defending Obama, he officially became a scum bag in my book after he campaigned on the premise that he would get rid the Patriot Act, but renewed it shortly after taking office. My point is, they are both equally responsible, and equally douchey.

      I do wonder if you think the 2nd Amendment really only applies to "militias".

      Beginning to see why it's there, aren't we?

    3. Re:Hope and change by ZenDragon · · Score: 2

      Not sure what you're getting at there. But, I will say that I own a hand gun and have a concealed carry permit, so no I don't think it only applies to militias. That said, if it ever came down to it; a million citizens revolting against their government with hand guns and rifles isn't even going to make a dent in armor of a fleet of tanks, jets, drones, long range missiles, lasers, rail guns, and whatever else they have cooking up at DARPA. I have no illusions about it... I'm glad to have the right to do so, but don't pretend that it makes any difference in regards to what was probably the original intent of the second amendment.

    4. Re:Hope and change by jcr · · Score: 2

      a million citizens revolting against their government with hand guns and rifles isn't even going to make a dent

      Don't forget the great lesson of the Soviet debacle: all governments ultimately depend on the consent of the people. When that consent is withdrawn, the government collapses.

      The great lesson of Romania is that a government shouldn't count on its armed forces to violently suppress their own people.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    5. Re:Hope and change by crunchygranola · · Score: 2

      a million citizens revolting against their government with hand guns and rifles isn't even going to make a dent

      Don't forget the great lesson of the Soviet debacle: all governments ultimately depend on the consent of the people. When that consent is withdrawn, the government collapses.

      The great lesson of Romania is that a government shouldn't count on its armed forces to violently suppress their own people.

      -jcr

      Quite so. And in both cases the possession of small arms was utterly irrelevant. They played no role at all in the collapse of tyranny. Why do Americans suppose that they are less capable of peaceful overthrow than Russians or Romanians?

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    6. Re:Hope and change by Endymion · · Score: 1

      As you examine larger and larger groups of people, no matter the type of group, their similarity to the the average population approaches 1.0. A small group is brought together for some specific reason that may differentiate the group. At the other end, a sufficiently large group of people would is the entire population.

      National armies and other armed forces will usually be some of the larger groups. So they will have a lot of similarities with the average population... including most of the political argguments. If the army was given such exteme orders,, I suspect they would end up just as divided as the rest ofg the country.

      --
      Ce n'est pas une signature automatique.
    7. Re:Hope and change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The situations generally determine the outcomes. I would say in Romania it was more a case of the water being too hot to toss in the frog. Germany pre-WW2 is a better example of a frog being tossed into cold water. Only the military and police forces had guns when they started to pillage other nations.

      It's not just the weapons though - another reason they want the government to grow and employ as many people as possible is that those who are employed by the government, and their friends and family, will be much less likely to try to hold the government accountable as well. "OH NOES THE GUVMINT SHUT DOWN" they cry! Well, if you're too afraid to shorten the leash on the government for a quick week or two, you certainly aren't ever going to hold any of the offices accountable for anything they do. There can only be compromise when there is a balance of powers, without that balance, one sides will see no need to compromise with the other.

    8. Re:Hope and change by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's there (let's say it remains there) to lure the populace into a false sense of security and enable tyranny. And, based on the current tyranny and lack of any real popular uprising, it is obviously serving it's purpose.

    9. Re:Hope and change by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      The army is likely to be happy enough to put down a rebellion if the rebels are shooting at them. Much harder to convince a military to gun down an unarmed populace.

    10. Re:Hope and change by ZenDragon · · Score: 1

      ...all governments ultimately depend on the consent of the people. When that consent is withdrawn, the government collapses.

      I've always believed that if something like this did happen, the majority of the folks in the armed forces would defect and join the people, because they would otherwise be fighting their family and friends. I am hoping we never have to find out. That said, when the armed forces is a fleet of drones only the consent of the few that control them is needed.

    11. Re:Hope and change by Agripa · · Score: 1

      That said, if it ever came down to it; a million citizens revolting against their government with hand guns and rifles isn't even going to make a dent in armor of a fleet of tanks, jets, drones, long range missiles, lasers, rail guns, and whatever else they have cooking up at DARPA.

      Then I guess it is a good thing that tanks, jets, drones, long range missiles, lasers, and rail guns cannot be elected to office.

  16. obligatory TSA regex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    echo "They will stick to whatever \"their legal opinions\" are, because the moment you stop all predecessors will be questioned." | sed 's/legal opinions/rules and procedures/'

  17. You Can't Vote Out the Gestapo. by Grog6 · · Score: 2

    As long as they can OK this for themselves, in Secret Courts, We, the People are Seriously Fucked.

    I saw a major article today about how all the successful Supreme Court Cases are handled by an inner circle of DC Lawyers, who are personal friends of some of the Justices.

    It's All Insiders at this point in the government in the parts that matter; the rest are Country Hicks that will do whatever the Fuck they're told. Yes, I mean Congress.

    We are headed down a dark road my friends.

    It's already Ugly, why do you think so much was left out of the CIA Torture Report, and they're Still Worried it will lead to uprisings?!
    Note: they haven't said where they expect those to occur... :)

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    1. Re:You Can't Vote Out the Gestapo. by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      The Executive and Legislative branches (D and/or R) long ago demonstrated that they don't give a shit about the People and the Constitution.

      However, many had the naïve belief that a neutral Judiciacy, in particular the SCOTUS, acted as a bulwark against the tyrannical tendencies on the hill and in the White House.

      Now the scales have fallen from our eyes, and it is blatantly clear that the judges have totally abdicated their responsibility to protect and keep the Republic. They are as rotten as the politicians and no longer deserve our respect. The ultimate consequences will take many years to play out, but they will and it will not be pretty.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    2. Re:You Can't Vote Out the Gestapo. by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      However, many had the naive belief that a neutral Judiciacy, in particular the SCOTUS, acted as a bulwark against the tyrannical tendencies on the hill and in the White House.

      To be fair, I don't think anyone ever believed that FISA was anything other than a kangaroo court with which the CIA and NSA could bureaucratically cover their asses. It's certainly disappointing that SCOTUS has so frequently declined even to hear PATRIOT-related cases: we deserve to have them make a final judgement whether bulk data collection/archiving constitutes search, or whether you really can bypass the 4th Amendment by claiming that it's only a search if a human looks at it.

  18. Section 215 red herrings by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

    Recipient and contents of application:

    (1) shall be made toâ"
      (A) a judge of the court established by section 1803 (a) of this title; or

      (B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and

      (2) shall includeâ"
      (A) a statement of facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation ...

    What "authorized investigation" can possibly necessitate COLLECTION of EVERYONES phone records?

    If you can't answer the question then don't spew bullshit about section 215 red herrings.

  19. Re:They can extend legislation without legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which means they can just go forever, without telling anybody. Of course, they could do that anyway, but this *admits* that they can do that anyway.

    No, not forever. Only for limited times. Like with copyright. So forever minus a day.

  20. Re:Clarification: expires June 2015, law says cour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know what... burn the whole fucking PATRIOT ACT. It never did any good and is nothing more than a power grab.
    Just BURN the bitch. Now that's PATRIOTIC.

  21. So says Republican Senator Rand Paul by raymorris · · Score: 1

    That's essentially the position of Republican Senator from Kentucky Rand Paul.

    I mostly agree, except I'd nitpick one bit of wording. "It never did any good". I'm sure it did some good, but no way it was worth it. The cost (in freedom) is too damn high.

    1. Re:So says Republican Senator Rand Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it "wasn't worth it no way", then its net is less than zero, unprofitable, useless to application, moot, stupid, pointless, wasteful, etc.
      So skip the gay ass disclaimers and caveats, make no apologies, and take no prisoners...
      Just burn the fucking thing.

    2. Re:So says Republican Senator Rand Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it never did any good at all.

      Not one iota of information was useful to stop a terrorist act, but it sure gave the alphabet soup agencies power over Congress and the Judicial branch.

  22. Re:Clarification: expires June 2015, law says cour by cdrudge · · Score: 1

    Of course it's worth keeping the program. It's much better to capture everything and later realize that you don't need any of it. Or better yet you don't need it for the reason that you thought you would but found another use that is equally beneficial to them. Can you imagine if the Government didn't have it AND they needed it? They might not get re-elected and they just can't have that.

  23. It's not a court. by jcr · · Score: 2

    In a court of law, decisions are handed down in issues that are contended by TWO SIDES. When fourth amendment violators ask the FISA shysters for a rubber stamp of impunity for their crimes, there's nobody to stand up and argue for the constitution.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:It's not a court. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it is a court of law. It's just like a tennis court, except that it's not tennis balls they are volleying into the ground. Here they serve the law.

    2. Re:It's not a court. by Endymion · · Score: 1

      That would be why the 4th amendment got writtent in the first place - this kind of "writ of assistance" is an affront to the very ideas of "justice" and "rule of law".

      --
      Ce n'est pas une signature automatique.
  24. Re:Clarification: expires June 2015, law says cour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and neither of them have any knowledge or clue as to what is actually happening and if it is actually worth keeping the program.

    Why should they care? We'll re-elect them - Ds and Rs alike - regardless of whether they rename-and-expand 215 under a different number or reauthorize-and-expand 215 under the same number.

  25. Re:Clarification: expires June 2015, law says cour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we'll wire you up first, with 24x7x365.25 sound, video and data feeds, that way we capture everything, you'll never have a private moment or thought again.

    That's what you just agreed to you fucking moron.

  26. the reason I mention that by raymorris · · Score: 1

    I mentioned that for one specific reason.

    We are frequently told that government program X helped half a million people. We see something like "this program provided Driver's Ed for half a million high school students. Rarely is that statement measure paired with the cost, say $4 billion, and it replaced history class at school. The cost is reported separately, if at all. Looking at the benefit and the cost together, we can say that $8000 per student is far too high (commercial providers charge $200 per student, and occur after school. )

    It's OBVIOUS that this NSA program isn't worth its cost. What's less obvious, perhaps, is that many other programs have a vastly negative net effect. In other words, just because NextNewIdea might do some good doesn't mean it's not a really, really bad idea.

    Program Y will get 10,000 more women hired in IT! Sounds great, right? Of course it's not creating new jobs - it's forcing companies to hire women INSTEAD OF hiring 10,000 men - and the $12 billion program cost represents another 2000 people not hired because the money went to this program rather than paying salaries for new positions. Such a program would do something good, and be a very bad idea.

  27. This definately helps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, without this surveillance metadata that raid to free hostages could have been successful. Instead we killed most of the good and bad guys which was great fun! Let's do some more killing.

  28. Re:Clarification: expires June 2015, law says cour by Endymion · · Score: 1

    "warrant"

    I believe you mean "writ of assistance".

    --
    Ce n'est pas une signature automatique.
  29. Re:Clarification: expires June 2015, law says cour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you're saying it is better to live under control and surveillance than freedom. How very American of you. I'm sure the forefathers would be proud.

  30. Re:Clarification: expires June 2015, law says cour by StevenMaurer · · Score: 1

    I believe this refers to "metadata", i.e. who is calling who, rather than the strawman you just constructed to knock down.

    There are plenty of reasonable arguments against this. But you should work harder at actually making them

  31. Not true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FISA courts do not really exist as they are unconstitutional. Nobody has any obligation to aid them in any way. The day I receive any "order" from them is the day I will publish such order without regard.

    Even if they existed, the separation of powers says the courts have the power to intrepret laws, not make them.