Slashdot Mirror


When FISA Court Rejects a Surveillance Request, the FBI Issues a NSL Instead

An anonymous reader writes We've talked quite a bit about National Security Letters (NSLs) and how the FBI/DOJ regularly abused them to get just about any information the government wanted with no oversight. As a form of an administrative subpoena -- with a built in gag-order -- NSLs are a great tool for the government to abuse the 4th Amendment. Recipients can't talk about them, and no court has to review/approve them. Yet they certainly look scary to most recipients who don't dare fight an NSL. That's part of the reason why at least one court found them unconstitutional. At the same time, we've also been talking plenty about Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which allows the DOJ/FBI (often working for the NSA) to go to the FISA Court and get rubberstamped court orders demanding certain 'business records.' As Ed Snowden revealed, these records requests can be as broad as basically 'all details on all calls.' But, since the FISA Court reviewed it, people insist it's legal. And, of course, the FISA Court has the reputation as a rubberstamp for a reason — it almost never turns down a request. However, in the rare instances where it does, apparently, the DOJ doesn't really care, knowing that it can just issue an NSL instead and get the same information. At least that appears to be what the DOJ quietly admitted to doing in a now declassified Inspector General's report from 2008."

119 comments

  1. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's good we elected Obama who has made sure to bring us "Hope and Change". It's good to know we elected someone who has limited and stopped all the abuses from the Bush era. Just imagine if he had just lied to us and instead simple extended and expanded these abuses of his predecessors. Hopefully we will get a constitutional amendment passed so we can vote our Glorious Leader in for a third term.

    1. Re:LOL by fnj · · Score: 2

      It's good we elected Obama who has made sure to bring us "Hope and Change". It's good to know we elected someone who has limited and stopped all the abuses from the Bush era. Just imagine if he had just lied to us and instead simple extended and expanded these abuses of his predecessors. Hopefully we will get a constitutional amendment passed so we can vote our Glorious Leader in for a third term.

      Yes, and before that, good thing we had GW Bush, true to his "conservative principles" - NOT. And before that, Clinton, And GHW Bush. And Reagan. And Carter. And Ford (he doesn't count so much, because he was never elected). And Nixon. And Johnson. And Kennedy. And Eisenhower. And Truman. And FDR. And ... ad nauseum. The tearing up of the Constitution actually got well and truly under way by the tyrant Lincoln (look up the suspension of the write of habeas corpus -and other abuses - some time).

    2. Re:LOL by Todd+Palin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      FYI: Senator Obama voted for the FISA act before he became president. So, really, he was on record opposing citizens rights to due process way early on. It should not be a surprise to anyone that his administration has continued to work to bypass the constitution wherever it seemed necessary (to them, for whatever reasons).

    3. Re:LOL by meerling · · Score: 1

      So did most of the other politicians, or did people forget that it was passed.

    4. Re:LOL by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And Carter. And Ford

      Probably the only two since Kennedy who were NOT sociopaths. Whatever you think of their politics, they seem to have been decent human beings. You can't say that about anyone who came after.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:LOL by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The tearing up of the Constitution actually got well and truly under way by the tyrant Lincoln

      You could go back to John J Marshall.

      In fact, if you really want to look at the history, you could say the Constitution was "torn up" before it was even ratified. It was never anything but a counter-revolutionary document intended to create rule by the elite.

      You read the ratification debates, you'll see what I mean. It's ugly the way the impulse for liberty and democracy was thwarted by a bunch of wine snobs who didn't want to pay their taxes or give up their slaves.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:LOL by ATMAvatar · · Score: 1

      And his opponent, John McCain, failed to vote either way. It's worth noting that not a single Republican senator voted against the act, so we can guess what McCain would have voted.

      To re-iterate a sentiment uttered elsewhere in the comments: no matter whether you vote D or R, you are voting against your own interests. We need new parties to replace the current ones.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    7. Re:LOL by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Carter actually was quite good about the Constitution, especially compared to his colleagues of the later 20th century.

    8. Re:LOL by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Two wrongs don't make a right. The goal is not to argue that Democrat is worse than Republican (or vise versa). If you're still arguing who is the lesser of two evils you have fallen for the ruse. Be smarter than that. Both parties are bad, neither party will help / improve things / save us. The only options are 3rd party or, more likely over time, some flavor of revolution. Citizens United all but guaranteed that simple voting won't be the answer.

    9. Re:LOL by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      FYI: Senator Obama voted for the FISA act before he became president. So, really, he was on record opposing citizens rights to due process way early on. It should not be a surprise to anyone that his administration has continued to work to bypass the constitution wherever it seemed necessary (to them, for whatever reasons).

      Could you expand upon that nonsense? Obtaining surveillance warrants isn't generally an adversarial process. How does FISA harm due process rights?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    10. Re:LOL by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The parties hold each other together. If a new liberal-leaning party did emerge it would steal votes from the democrats, handing the country on a plate to the republicans. If a new conservative-leaning party emerged the same would happen, with roles reversed. Both sides know this, and voters are smart enough to realise it is better to vote for the party you disagree with least than to let the real enemy take power. It's a very stable political system, allowing the balence of power to shift around a little but preventing any real reform from taking hold.

    11. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's nothing to do with who sits in the big chair, not what party they belong to, seeing as Dem is further right than all but the extreme right-wing EU parties. The powers are those that pull the strings, and always have done. Presidents, senators et al, do what they're told to do unless it's a trivial thing no one cares about.

    12. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In fact, if you really want to look at the history, you could say the Constitution was "torn up" before it was even ratified. It was never anything but a counter-revolutionary document intended to create rule by the elite.

      Incorrect. There were plenty of US Founding Fathers that opposed slavery. Even a number of those who grew up with it (Jefferson, Madison, Washington) eventually were convinced that slavery was wrong and actively opposed it's continuance. At one point, Jefferson tried to free all his slaves, but the lawyers wouldn't let him (he was in debt, and they asserted he couldn't give away his "property"). Ben Franklin was the president of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery League, and at one point argued the Revolution was justified because England would never end slavery (ironic, as it turns out). Gouverneur Morris of NY spoke strong words against slavery at the Constitutional Convention - go look them up. However, many of the lawyers present at the Convention were in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to supporting slave ownership, since most of their future commissions could be expected to come from the wealthy, and in the South the wealthy were mostly slave owners. This kind of conflict of interest is common in law: getting legal professionals to act appropriately in situations involving ethical conflict of interest has always been difficult.

      The Constitution, like most things in politics, ended up being a compromise between the people who were ethical and principled, and the remainder of the group. As a result, it has good points and bad points. The Bill of Rights substantially improved things, but to a large extent was and continues to be ignored (largely due to conflicts of interest).

      These kinds of compromises are found throughout human political history. Human nature has not changed substantially over the past couple thousand years, we simply exercise that nature with cooler toys.

    13. Re:LOL by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      There were plenty of US Founding Fathers that opposed slavery.

      You wanna look closer at the historical record. Yes, there were several founding fathers who decried slavery as a "monstrous institution". One who called it that was also the largest slaveowner in Virginia. During the ratification debates, they talked about how awful slavery was and then said, "But we can't make slaves free because it might cost us money". Even Sam Adams talked about how certainly slavery would end within 20 years of the ratification, but somehow, they just never got around to it.

      The Constitution, like most things in politics, ended up being a compromise between the people who were ethical and principled

      I dispute the "ethical and principled" part. Most of them were just looking out for their own asses and more importantly, their own assets. They turned the Articles of Confederation (ultimately a more revolutionary document than the Constitution, though deeply flawed) into a guarantee that the well-off and well-connected would be the ones to govern the United States.

      I'm serious: just go read the ratification debates. It'll curl your hair to see just how venal and perfidious our founding fathers really were. Despite the flowery rhetoric, they really weren't all that magical, despite what we're supposed to believe.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. Obama is not the only rogue guy in the government by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Obama alone can't turn the entire government of the United States of America rogue

    He has a lot of help from the inside --- people whose sole aim is to turn America into a police state

    The bad news is, the government of the United States of America is out of control

    The worse news is, we have NO ONE to reign in the government of the United States of America

    And that is not enough, the ABSOLUTELY WORST NEWS is, too many of the American citizens have turned into sheeples, and never care how their government functions nor how bad it has turned into

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  3. The FISA court turned down a request? by Todd+Palin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can't believe any FISA request was ever turned down. Basically, I thought the purpose of the FISA act was to suspend the constitution. What went wrong?

    1. Re:The FISA court turned down a request? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can't believe any FISA request was ever turned down. Basically, I thought the purpose of the FISA act was to suspend the constitution. What went wrong?

      We did. We voted for politicians - R and D alike - who promised to keep us safe, rather than those who would keep us free. Everyone who ever said "if it saves one child..." or "but what about the terrorists trying to kill us..." gave the politicians the power to restructure the laws, and gave the bureaucracy the excuse it was looking for to institutionalize the process.

      Happy New Year, America. You voted for this. You re-elected the people who brought you this. Every year for fourteen years after 9/11 scared you into cowardice. And you'll keep on re-electing them, because from this point forward, a generation has come of age that thinks of pre-9/11 America as ancient history.

    2. Re:The FISA court turned down a request? by sconeu · · Score: 1

      You missed the non-existent /sarcasm tag. OP was asking "What went wrong that a FISA request was turned down?"

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    3. Re:The FISA court turned down a request? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do understand that there is no other choice, right? You can only choose R or D. There's no other party that has a chance to win a Presidential election. Anything else is throwing away your vote. The majority of people who voted Democrat simply voted for the lesser of two evils. Very correctly. These situations will not improve under Republicans, we know that, they tell us they will not and they will get worse. Just because you're backed into a corner doesn't mean you should jump down the snake's throat. Kind of stupid, to be honest. I'm kind of disappointed in the tech community, tbh. I understand being anti government, but to be stupid enough to believe that the Libertarian party is anything rational that could actually win is hopelessly naive. Not to mention, if they win, they are bought and paid for by the Koch's. They would never be anything different from the Republican party. These laws that are annoying us now, they only get worse when they get in power. In fact, they get worse as public opinion changes as well, and this change in public opinion over to the right really ties the hands of the guys who really are fighting for our freedoms. So, now, you guys are going to repeat Bush, because you're either too young to remember what he actually did, or you're a sociopath and believe that it will somehow land a few dollars in your pocket you won't have to pay back later. Stupid is as stupid does...

    4. Re:The FISA court turned down a request? by Free+Censorship · · Score: 1

      You do understand that there is no other choice, right?

      No. And then you go on to use the unprincipled "You're throwing away your vote!" argument. A vote for evil is the *only* wasted vote. Voting on principle is a thousand times better. But that's not to say that it's pointless, as sufficient votes for a third party can potentially scare The One Party into adopting some of their policies, and not voting for them because they have a small chance of actually winning is just a self-fulfilling prophecy. So good work, drone; you and your unthinking ilk are the fucking problem.

    5. Re:The FISA court turned down a request? by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I can't believe any FISA request was ever turned down. Basically, I thought the purpose of the FISA act was to suspend the constitution. What went wrong?

      What went wrong? Apart from the too obvious naure of your karma whoring? (I guess I'll take that over lying.)

      Secret court says it is no rubber stamp; led to changes in U.S. spying requests

      The chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Reggie Walton, told members of Congress in a letter that the court’s internal records show that more than 24 percent of government requests for recent warrants had “substantive” modifications in the wake of court review.

      The FISA Court Is Tougher Than the Media Says - October 18, 2013

      You’ve probably read 20 or more times that the FISA Court approves more than 99 percent of the government’s applications for foreign surveillance orders. What few media have mentioned—and none has emphasized—is that the court often bounces applications and demands modifications before approval. It does so precisely because the application process is not adversarial and secret. As Judge Walton noted, the 99 percent figure does “not reflect the fact that many applications are altered prior to final submission or even withheld from final submission entirely, often after an indication that a judge would not approve them.” Those of us with inside knowledge have long known, and publicly said, that the FISA court scrutinizes the government’s applications with special care, but the data to prove it have been missing. Now we have them.

      But the media have not reported an obvious comparison. How many federal and state applications for search-and-seizure warrants are modified before being granted? How many are denied? Knowing that would tell us a lot about how tough the FISA court is on the government.

      In fact, the FISA Court looks tough when compared to the way federal district courts handle wiretap applications under Title III, as the federal law is known. Even if you stick with the misleading 99 percent figure, the approval rate for Title III wiretaps is higher. From 2008 to 2012, courts refused to grant only five wiretap applications among 13,593 applied for. That’s an approval rate of 99.96 percent. You can find that comparison in Judge Walton’s letter—it’s in footnote 6—and the information has always been available through the Administrative Office of the United States Courts for any journalist who isn’t afraid of numbers. But you won’t find it in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, or any other news outlet. Bashing the FISA court is too much fun to let numbers get in the way.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    6. Re:The FISA court turned down a request? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The good news is people globally can avoid all that by just not using standard US communications networks anymore.
      With the new VPN news more people are starting to understand that their telco, VPN, provider is not really secure.
      "NSA has VPNs in Vulcan death grip—no, really, that’s what they call it" (Dec 31 2014)
      http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
      The world is now more aware of the internal working of networks after the news about BLEAKINQUIRY, TOYGRIPPE and XKEYSCORE.
      What is a telco or provider now reduced to trying to distance its reputation from?
      They are not a front company set up by the US security services?
      Staff who work with the security services do not have total control over internal networks?
      The network is under some secret court oder and has to provide all data over years but the legal team is now more responsive?
      Staff are just lazy and let the security services of a few nations into their internal networks over decades?
      Secret courts, other methods to get around the lack of legal paperwork, parallel construction is now in the media :)
      The rest of the world can just route around junk network encryption and tame legal protections.
      The fun part is the UK and US are now left with a huge military industrial complex budget to keep on tracking the worlds communications networks.
      The rest of the world can just opt to use other older, more secure methods of communications or keep junk networks open for long term disinformation.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re:The FISA court turned down a request? by laird · · Score: 1

      Nope. If you want to actually affect the outcome of the election, the optimal strategy is to vote for the candidate that you like the most out of the two viable candidates. If you vote for anyone else, that's a wasted vote. Worse, because you didn't vote for your preferred viable candidate, your throwing away your vote cost the one you prefer a vote, effectively giving a vote to whoever you dislike the most.

      If you really don't care which candidate wins, then you're not paying attention. Sure, neither candidate is perfect, particularly the ones that can make it through the process, but do you _really_ think that Gore would have done exactly the same thing that Bush Jr did? Idiots voting for a third party candidate threw that election, and the result was horrible. Please don't encourage that behavior in the future.

    8. Re:The FISA court turned down a request? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, people like you are the reason why we are fucked. You are given a choice of two corrupted parties and you've gone along with it.

    9. Re:The FISA court turned down a request? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The blame (or glory, if you like) for electing Bush Jr lies on the millions of people who voted for him. Not on a minority who dared to try to get some real changes happen.

    10. Re:The FISA court turned down a request? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always vote third party. It's my vote, and I'll do what I want with it, so fuck off.

    11. Re:The FISA court turned down a request? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, if Hitler and Stalin were the top two candidates, you'd vote for one of them? The "don't throw away your vote" argument is a coward's way of rationalizing their cowardice.

    12. Re:The FISA court turned down a request? by Free+Censorship · · Score: 1

      Nope. If you want to actually affect the outcome of the election, the optimal strategy is to vote for the candidate that you like the most out of the two viable candidates.

      Once again, no. Then you end up directly supporting some hardcore authoritarians who supports nonsense like the NSA's mass surveillance. And, again, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and voting for a third party can sway The One Party.

      If you really don't care which candidate wins, then you're not paying attention. Sure, neither candidate is perfect, particularly the ones that can make it through the process, but do you _really_ think that Gore would have done exactly the same thing that Bush Jr did?

      I think that Gore was a worthless authoritarian piece of garbage just like Bush, with minimal differences. He wasn't worthy of my vote.

      I'll continue voting third party while you vote for evil scumbags. Change has to start somewhere, and it sure as hell isn't with someone as shortsighted as you.

    13. Re:The FISA court turned down a request? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In all, over the entire 33-year period, the FISA court has granted 33,942 warrants, with only 11 denials â" a rejection rate of 0.03 percent of the total requests http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

    14. Re:The FISA court turned down a request? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should try reading the entire post. Your figure is essentially meaningless.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  4. Is this any surprise? by mendax · · Score: 1

    I am not surprised in the least. The National Security Letters are really nothing more than an end-run around the courts. I'm actually surprised that the FBI even bothers with the FISA court to obtain warrants to go on its fishing expeditions.

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    1. Re:Is this any surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I received one of these letters. I burned it in the mail mans face and told the men in black to go fuck themselves. Now I am living as a homeless, surfing the internet on the library's computers.

    2. Re:Is this any surprise? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I'm actually surprised that the FBI even bothers with the FISA court to obtain warrants to go on its fishing expeditions.

      Maybe for about 5 or 10 percent of them, for public relation purposes, to justify their bloated budget

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Is this any surprise? by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

      If you flash mob Washington D.C. tomorrow, and bring the right intent,
      you can have all this nonsense nixed withing a month.

    4. Re:Is this any surprise? by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      Mike, is that you?

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
  5. Glad you admit you are Serfs by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Citizens would never let an NSL stand in their way of their Constitutional Rights.

    Not privileges, Rights.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Glad you admit you are Serfs by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Citizens would never let an NSL stand in their way of their Constitutional Rights.

      Instead, citizens would ________________.

      Please elaborate and stuff.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    2. Re:Glad you admit you are Serfs by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Please elaborate and stuff.

      Serf says what?

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    3. Re:Glad you admit you are Serfs by fnj · · Score: 2

      They sure as HELL would never vote for the vermin selected by the elite and presented to them as approved puppet candidates in the primaries and general elections. They would make GODDAM sure that none of the states tried to deny them their right to write in their choice on the ballot, and then they would BLOODY WELL USE that right.

      As it is, the voters - as a body, not as individuals - get the regime they so richly deserve. Time after time.

    4. Re:Glad you admit you are Serfs by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Big words to write from an Internet Tough guy who hasn't received an NSL.

    5. Re:Glad you admit you are Serfs by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Sure bro. Keep telling us how tough you are behind your keyboard.

    6. Re:Glad you admit you are Serfs by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Big words to write from an Internet Tough guy who hasn't received an NSL.

      If he had, how would you know? Can't tell anybody you got one.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    7. Re:Glad you admit you are Serfs by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      So your understanding is that an NSL is a voter-mandated process?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    8. Re:Glad you admit you are Serfs by fnj · · Score: 1

      Jesus captain, elections have consequences. The NSL process was only created in 1978 by an act of Congress. I.e., this kind of shit is promulgated by the scum bastards that "we" elect.

    9. Re:Glad you admit you are Serfs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, mom! I'm out of sandwiches! And remember to cut them longways, not diagonally this time!!!!

    10. Re:Glad you admit you are Serfs by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Most of them would do nothing. People care about their rights, but few care enough to go to jail for them. There are a lot of blowhards who talk big about standing up to the government, but for most that's as far as it goes.

      Every now and then though, you do get a Manning or a Snowden who is willing to sacrifice themselves and risk spending the rest of their life in jail in order to take a stand and expose the abuses. It's very rare, which it why it's such news when that does happen.

    11. Re:Glad you admit you are Serfs by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      I agree with you and, following that thought to its logical conclusion, I offer this: The people will rise up in packet protest.

      I had the TRS-80 computer from Radio Shack back in 1978. Nerds like me were extremely rare and hardly anyone understood anything I had to say relating to the hobby.

      In 1982, I got my first professional gig and my technical advantage over the general population was enormous.

      That lead started eroding in the 1990s when people embraced home computers to the point where they had to learn some stuff just to keep their computers out of the ditches.

      The ability for IT to bullshit management and users diminished greatly by the 2000s as more and more people embraced the concepts. Kids grew fearless and experimented with the knobs and soon some of them were teaching me things I didn't know.

      Look at the big stories today ... you mentioned two of them whereby people close to the clandestine operations are ratting the government out.

      Other stories demonstrate the narrowing digital divide between government experts and the pool of hackers available among the unwashed.

      An obvious indicator that this is a problem is the military's willingness to waive combat training to tap into the civilian hacker pool.

      The takeaway is that We The People are becoming just as savvy as the government and elections be damned ... packet protest is the way to go.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  6. Is it a Denial of Service or an exploit !? by burni2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Basically, Law and a Programming Language should basically be the same, from the basic definition they are, but sometimes law is interpreted (this is good and bad both at the same time)

    a.) in human interaction law specifies rules & processes for man
    b.) in machine operation a programming language specifies rules & processes for machines

    And in both domains people try to (ab)use the specified rules to behave in a way, which was not forseen/intended by the rule maker.

    I judge this as an exploit of type priviledge escalation.

    But we should start hacking law, FBI has a head start!

    1. Re:Is it a Denial of Service or an exploit !? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Law is pretty clear on what, however, it is is not quite clear on what it applies to under what circumstances. Basically, the part sanitizing the inputs is missing.

    2. Re:Is it a Denial of Service or an exploit !? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      If you become a telco expect to have to set up a Room 641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Expect to have different NSL to cover all users or entire sections of hardware and software to track one user for many years.
      Think of it as a Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... that covers every aspect of internal networking and all emerging systems :)
      In the past people liked to think collection was only in place after been activated when needed with court supervision.
      Now people understand court supervision is the tricky public part to try and hide the decades of a collect it all policy.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Is it a Denial of Service or an exploit !? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Is it a Denial of Service or an exploit !?

      Bug closed: Works as intended.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Is it a Denial of Service or an exploit !? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The strict interpretation approach has the same problem as programming language: Exploitable bugs. It becomes very easy for someone to subvert the intent of the law by finding some little technicality that the writers didn't think of.

    5. Re:Is it a Denial of Service or an exploit !? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations on understanding philosophy of law 101. Next step is philosophy of law 102 about why it is impossible to treat law like a programming language.

    6. Re:Is it a Denial of Service or an exploit !? by burni2 · · Score: 1

      It would be easier and more in depth if you would lay out your arguments or thoughts why one should not be able to treat law as a kind of programming lanuage (ok, it might fail the turing test).

  7. Not that I have anything to worry about but by hEpen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If I received a NSL and I were in the mind to ignore it to whom should that hypothetical me send that NSL to in order to get maximum press coverage before being shuffled off to prison?

    Would a NBC or a CNN publish it?

    1. Re:Not that I have anything to worry about but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...] before being shuffled off to prison?

      This part sounds strange. Can it happen without trial and sentence? If not, how is the proceeding for that?

    2. Re:Not that I have anything to worry about but by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If I received a NSL and I were in the mind to ignore it to whom should that hypothetical me send that NSL to in order to get maximum press coverage before being shuffled off to prison?

      Would a NBC or a CNN publish it?

      Apathy is really just conceding the other side has already won.

      Courts have ruled against them, admittedly in smallish numbers, but it has happened. In 2004, the US District Court for Southern NY ruled the Patriot Act's requirement that a respondent file a secret lawsuit in 10 days was ruled unconstitutional. This required Congress to redo the Act to allow 10 days response time to appeal by fax.

      In 2008, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in NY ruled that a provision absolving the FBI from having to justify a gag order in court was also, you guessed it, unconstitutional. Google has many more examples, if you're of a mind.

      An NSL comes with all the implied intimidation and dread of a certified letter from the IRS. Follow either blindly at your own behest, or fight if you want to... it's not merely rumor that you still have options.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re:Not that I have anything to worry about but by fnj · · Score: 1

      No, not the lame stream media. Use your bean. Distribute it to the embassies of every country on earth, and every server in the world that you can find. Find out where Snowden sent his leaks. And just do a google search for "leak" - it reveals some "interesting" sites.

    4. Re:Not that I have anything to worry about but by RyoShin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Would a NBC or a CNN publish it?

      Pffft, hahahaha. You're better off with The Enquirer than those two. They're more likely to report you to the FBI than report on the NSL.

      If you actually want to get coverage, try the likes of The Guardian. I recommend a massive shotgun approach instead if you want more protection; scan the letter, send a copy to as many "news" organizations as possible, and post it everywhere you can on the internet. WikiLeaks, 4chan, reddit, Fark, FurAffinity, Youtube, Redtube, Daily Kos, HuffPo, make your own website, create an entry on Wikipedia, put a torrent/magnet on as many of those sites as possible, etc. Make it so easy to get that no amount of takedown orders can scrub it from the internet. Put copies in every mailbox in the neighborhood, collect those return envelopes from credit card offers and send them copies, leave copies on the seats of buses, movie theaters, libraries, hand copies to the FBI agents/police who show up to arrest you. Encourage others on the internet to do the same. Attach as much information about yourself and the event surrounding the NSL as possible. If the NSL doesn't include your physical address, put that up there as well; the FBI will be more hesitant to act if they think a bunch of local dissatisfied citizens might be hanging around your place with cell cams.

      Before you pull the trigger give the original NSL to someone you trust and have them keep it somewhere safe, to be offered up if any of those news places actually want to verify it.

      This won't keep you from getting arrested, but it will make a lot of people inquire as to your well-being and where you are in the justice system; depending on the reasons for the NSL, various groups might take up the cause to get you your freedom.

    5. Re:Not that I have anything to worry about but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      [...] before being shuffled off to prison?

      This part sounds strange. Can it happen without trial and sentence? If not, how is the proceeding for that?

      Apparently you missed Obama signing the NDAA a few years ago, quietly, on New Years Eve as a matter of fact.
      They can take you off to 'prison' without charge or trial, without access to a lawyer, and hold you 'indefinitely'.
      The 'proceeding' for that is simply an 'executive decision'.

    6. Re:Not that I have anything to worry about but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if you can't just ignore it. You are going to need a good lawyer, but wouldn't whoever brings a lawsuit to you technically be breaching the NSL?

    7. Re:Not that I have anything to worry about but by jaa101 · · Score: 1

      Isn't this what Wikileaks is for? Send it there first and then tip off media outlets. Of course the anonymity feature of Wikileaks is not so important in this case since they can probably guess who leaked it but it's still going to be hard to take down.

    8. Re:Not that I have anything to worry about but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can ask Kevin Mitnick, he got that long before Gitmo was used.

    9. Re:Not that I have anything to worry about but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wouldn't whoever brings a lawsuit to you technically be breaching the NSL?

      No, the secrecy is one sided. The government can do whatever it wants.

    10. Re:Not that I have anything to worry about but by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      An NSL comes with all the implied intimidation and dread of a certified letter from the IRS. Follow either blindly at your own behest, or fight if you want to...

      Why do either?

      It is a letter, on paper, written by some flunky at some three letter agency.

      People make the mistake of thinking they need to take action, sometimes doing nothing at all is the most powerful response.

      Simply don't respond and behave as if it didn't exist. If they want information, they can file a lawsuit in a court of law.

    11. Re:Not that I have anything to worry about but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If the NSL doesn't include your physical address, ..."

      Given what you're talking about doing, I'd say having your address out there along with the rest of the information about the situation is not exactly going to create a problem for you, since men with guns and a man or woman with a robe will make it cease to be your address quite shortly thereafter. However, there was a reason that bin Laden was given an... "unmarked burial at sea" as they called tossing his corpse into the Indian Ocean: Having a physical place of significance attached to a cause gives people something to rally about.

      This of course assumes you don't have wife/kids/family at your address, which of course complicates matters. If you have a wife and kids, avoid farking around with things that attract the attention the government's men-with-guns types for this reason.

    12. Re:Not that I have anything to worry about but by yarbo · · Score: 1

      Send it to many outlets like others have mentioned. Make sure to send it to Cryptome in addition to others mentioned.

  8. Re:Obama is not the only rogue guy in the governme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Put it to you this way; if a thousand teenagers can rush and overwhelm a mall, then the NSA isn't all powerful. They didn't know what was going on beforehand. They are incompetent and cannot handle a real escalation, despite handing police departments military equipment, if a few thousand people decide they want a war, the government isn't going to do anything about it.

    Just about everyone knows the government is corrupt and illegitimate; it's very apparent the current government is designed to target any opposing leadership financially and through the law, however, we are still in a democracy, and the moment we stop being in a democracy is when the government becomes illegitimate and the public takes action to throw them out. The Democrat and Republicans are part of the Scam Party, and that's the only party anyone votes for. Things will worsen, and as they do, real leaders will step up. This is part of the growing pains of the country, it'll survive it, given the Russian mob doesn't do something stupid and start WWIII.

  9. All of them by rickb928 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We have to throw all of them out. All of them. And repeat until they do what they should.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:All of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck doing that. You're talking about The United Snakes of America.

    2. Re:All of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of people in government are not elected. The bureaucracy is self-maintaining.

    3. Re:All of them by Holistic+Missile · · Score: 1

      My thought, exactly. However, it will be difficult to do when we have a voter turnout of 36.3%.

      When the polling places are empty, and the line is several blocks long at the 'Pawn Stars' store, we are seriously fucked. This picture was taken on election day, 2012, a presidential election. It was posted by Ross Miller, the Nevada candidate for attorney general.

      --
      When you're dead, you don't know you're dead. It only affects the people around you. Same thing when you're stupid.
    4. Re:All of them by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      This might be the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest that no lines at a government facility are a bad thing.

    5. Re:All of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See this is where you have it wrong.

      Local elections are for local people, i.e. the poorer people.
      State elections are for the wealthy
      Federal elections are for corporations and the 1%

      Those people had voted in the only election where their vote had any meaning.... deciding who was going to be the dog control officer etc. They correctly understood that wealthier people had bought and paid for the other elections and their vote would NOT change that outcome, the rich people were owed by those in higher office.

      American "democracy" is a system where by the illusion of democracy is there but the reality of how little is real is careful hidden from the people.

    6. Re:All of them by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Actually, shouldn't that make it easier? if 100% of people were already active voters, you not onyl would have a much much smaller pool to draw fresh votes form, but you would be up against a bigger opponent.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    7. Re:All of them by component · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't "them." The problem is the powers associated with the positions that you want to throw them out of.

      If society decides that whoever is wearing a pointy hat gets to lock people in cages without trial, then there will always be bad people eager to put on a pointy hat. If the current wearers of the pointy hats are separated from their hats,someone else will pop up to don those hats. Furtunately, most Americans do not believe pointy hats should come with the authority to lock people in cages without trial. Nor do most Americans believe that pointy hat wearers are essential to keeping us safe from terrorists.

      I wish I knew how to make people think about government positions with the same clarity that they think about pointy hats

    8. Re:All of them by caseih · · Score: 1

      It's not just the elected politicians, though. There's an entire bureaucratic machine that is completely unelected and barely accountable that also is contributing to this mess. Heads of departments can influence the direction a department takes but often departments pull the newly appointed head in certain directions, often backed up with top-secret evidence to sway them. With no outside checks and balances, things get out of order very quickly. Also there also are attitudes in the civil service that must change. Many of the individuals that work for bureaucracy, and also many Americans in general (or citizens of whatever country you are in) have a skewed idea of what patriotism means that blinds them to the consequences of their actions.

    9. Re: All of them by rickb928 · · Score: 2

      Until we change the Legislative branch, nothing else Will change.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    10. Re:All of them by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      We have to throw all of them out. All of them. And repeat until they do what they should.

      Too many people in the population agree with surveillance for that to work. That's the problem with democracy: you have to live with other people, and a lot of them don't agree with you.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:All of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... if 100% of people were already active voters...

      Every vote you gain, is a vote the opposition loses, creating a difference of two votes. So a swing of 2%, which can win an election, means 1% of the entire population changed their mind.

      A better advantage to 100% turn-out is that abortion and gay marriage remain edge issues since most voters will choose education, job creation and welfare. (In many countries, health is a part of welfare.)

    12. Re:All of them by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      If you look at elected positions and toss all of them out you will not begin to cure the problem. Salaried civil service types of positions hold far too much power and their actions can be covert and undetected by the elected folks. For example a US senator may vote and act according to reports from workers downstream of his position. The report that the senator works from can be controlled by lower level employees who slant or even invent out of whole cloth the entire report. Organized crime has always found ways to invade and corrupt state and national functions and I seriously wonder how much of this is accomodated by non elected bureaucrats.

    13. Re:All of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I knew how to make people think about government positions with the same clarity that they think about pointy hats

      Create a flash-animation / youtube-video / ... that explains this graphically, and maybe in simple English (like http://simple.wikipedia.org)?

    14. Re:All of them by strikethree · · Score: 1

      We have to throw all of them out. All of them. And repeat until they do what they should.

      And what good will that do when it is the non-elected bureaucracy that has their hands directly on the levers?

      Sure, you can elect a brand new group of senators, representatives, governors, etc. There is even a slight chance that could all be lily-white innocent. Let's hope for the best and assume they are.

      Then what?

      The non-elected bureaucrats already have all of the data they need to put pressure on all of these purely innocent brand new elected officials. What do you think is going to happen now?

      The politicians absolutely DO need to be cleaned out, but that is not sufficient. The system is already rigged.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  10. Executive doctrine: not rubber-stamping is illegit by raymorris · · Score: 1, Informative

    >. What went wrong

    When the judicial branch ruled it unconstitutional, the executive branch ignored the Constitution and do it anyway.

    When the Congress choose not to change the law and make illegal immigrants legal, the executive branch chose to ignore the Constitution and write their own law.

    The head of the executive, President Obama, has clearly announced that he considers "the failure of Congress" to do exactly what he wants somehow authorizes him to override Congress. In other words, according to his announcement, he actually believes the only legitimate role of Congress is to rubber-stamp whatever the executive wants - choosing not to implement his policy is a "failure" of Congress , and as such is illegitimate and requires him to override their decision. Never mind his oath to "faithfully execute the law".

  11. Re:Obama is not the only rogue guy in the governme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    too many of the American citizens have turned into sheeples, and never care how their government functions nor how bad it has turned into

    Part of the problem is that we are overwhelmed with opinion. Between "news" entities that spew opinion clothed as fact, and every clown on the internet stringing together or parroting simple-minded rhetoric, rational argument gets lost in the sea. It simply can't be heard over the noise. And so people become numb to it all and feel helpless.

  12. fewer than 1/2 of THOSE knew the incumbent VP by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Perhaps even worse than only 36% voting, the majority of voters couldn't name the incumbent VP. This indicates that they are not nearly informed enough to cast an informed, meaningful vote. They vote based on physical appearance, headlines, and Comedy Central.

    1. Re:fewer than 1/2 of THOSE knew the incumbent VP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they do. "Does that candidate LOOK presidential" is all they care about. You could put up a chihuahua , and so long as it was the "Most presidential looking" it would probably win. And in reality, it is the corporates and 1% who actually govern, the elected people are simply there to take the blame when the 1% get it wrong.

  13. Re:Obama is not the only rogue guy in the governme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Hate Obama: Check
    Hate Government: Check
    Police State Reference: Check
    Use of the word "sheeples": Check

    Another Slashdot Hipster Libertarian, totally fed up with America, but the solution is not voting because that is rigged and they are gonna police state us anD THE SKY IS FALLING!!1!!!11!

    I wish you would all crawl back into your bunker full of hot-pockets and stop poluting the air with your rancid breath. Are you wearing your The Blaze shirt today?

  14. Re:Obama is not the only rogue guy in the governme by wxxy___ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think that the problem is far worse then people not knowing or caring. It seems like the overwhelming majority are strict authoritarians who almost demand that the government is involved in everyone else's life every waking second.

    The 'I have nothing to hide' crowd are the most unamerican, morally bankrupt, cowardly scumbags on earth, and they vastly outnumber the rest.

  15. Re:Obama is not the only rogue guy in the governme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Put it to you this way; if a thousand teenagers can rush and overwhelm a mall, then the NSA isn't all powerful.

    Did you seriously just try to use the existence of flash mobs as an argument that the NSA surveillance state is inept?

    I don't even...

  16. Re:Obama is not the only rogue guy in the governme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think that the problem is far worse then people not knowing or caring. It seems like the overwhelming majority are strict authoritarians who almost demand that the government is involved in everyone else's life every waking second.

    The 'I have nothing to hide' crowd are the most unamerican, morally bankrupt, cowardly scumbags on earth, and they vastly outnumber the rest.

    You have a most keen observation, Sir!

    However, there are a lot of questions remain to be answered, particularly, what has gone wrong with America

    America, by definition, supposed to be the LAND OF THE FREE, HOME OF THE BRAVES but the real world truth is that the American society has brought up so many of those, as you put it, un-American cowardly scumbags

    How can a society believes in FREEDOM and LIBERTY produces such, for the lack of a suitable word, 'defects'?

  17. So it really is exactly a rubberstamp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the existence of the FISA court is completely pointless, because if they refuse to "approve" of whatever the TLAs want, it'll be done exactly the same through different means without out even the tiniest fig leaf of due process. It must suck to be a judge in that "court."

    You know, it used to be that countries where the Schutzstaffel, erm I mean the People's Commission for the Interior (NKVD), erm I mean Gestapo... Damn. If you can't come up with any historical references for the behavior of your country's security appratus that don't Godwin the discussion, that's a pretty bad sign. Anyway, it used to be that places with completely out-of-control "security" services that did whatever the hell they wanted and don't you dare question it or you disappear too were run by the Bad Guys, and in America, the government needs a warrant.

  18. Re:Obama is not the only rogue guy in the governme by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Obama alone can't turn the entire government of the United States of America rogue

    Maybe he can't, but we'll never know, because surveillance is one thing he's supported since before he was elected. He is on the side of the NSA, and has been, publicly, for a long time.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  19. They could already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... get just about any information the government wanted ...

    So the only purpose of Section 215 of the Patriot act was polishing the shit coming out of the arse-holes working in the US DOJ.

  20. Re:Obama is not the only rogue guy in the governme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > I wish you would all crawl back into your bunker full of hot-pockets and stop poluting the air with your rancid breath.
    Well, see here, that's not how democracy works. You don't get to suppress someone else's view simply because it is not in accord with your own.

    So go fuck yourself.

  21. try BBC or foreign outfits by aepervius · · Score: 1

    NBC and CNN are far more likely to cave, foreign outfit much less. Now the problem would be for you to interrest them into your story. An alternatrive would be to publish it on ACLU or EFF forums or similars.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  22. Re:Obama is not the only rogue guy in the governme by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 2

    They have found a way to game the system, and then found others who will finance and follow their criminal model. Eventually with time and money the foam rises to the top of the septic tank...

    --
    -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
  23. Fascists' view of 'Democracy' by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Informative

    I wish you would all crawl back into your bunker full of hot-pockets and stop poluting the air with your rancid breath

    Well, see here, that's not how democracy works. You don't get to suppress someone else's view simply because it is not in accord with your own.

    So go fuck yourself

    You seriously think fascist cares about democracy?

    To the fascists 'democracy' is, borrowing a term coined by a very well known fascist from Turkey, a 'bus'

    According to Recep Tayyip Erdogan, democracy works like a 'bus'. He hops on that bus, use the bus to get him to his destination, and then, he gets off

    Fascists are all alike, no matter if they are Islamists from Turkey or Obama-cronies from the United States of America. To them, democracy is but a tool for them to attain what they want, and once they got what they want, democracy can go to hell

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  24. Re:Executive doctrine: not rubber-stamping is ille by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

    It happens all the time, at all levels. Another common example is carefully crafting laws to work around judicial decisions.

    Say, the supreme court rules that women have a right to first-trimester abortion as an extension of the right to privacy in medical and personal matters. There's not enough political agreement throughout the country to get a constitutional amendment passed changing this, which would be the appropriate solution for those who disagree with the ruling. So what's the solution? Keep abortion legal. But mandate background checks on all women, require clinics be subject to ridiculous health regulations just to dispense a pill, require they all have a doctor granted admitting privlidge at a local hospital while knowing full well that many hospitals will refuse to grant it to anyone who performs elective abortion, require a two-day waiting period, and require women be informed against all medical knowledge that the procedure will increase their risk of cancer. The supreme court is thus subverted: Abortion is legal, but effectively unavailable to many.

    There's a similar approach with the Mount Soledad Cross - every time a court rules it illegal, the government quickly shifts ownership to another jurisdiction and thus takes it out of the authority of that court, or renders the decision inapplicable. Nearly thirty years that legal battle has been going on now, and late last year (2014) congress snuck a clause in an appropriations bill authorising the sale to a private party in order to pull the same trick again.

    Or the issue with sex offender exclusions. Courts have ruled that cities cannot pass laws prohibiting released sex offenders from residency, because that would be effectively an extra punishment on top of that which the court has authorised as a proper part of the justice system, plus it's legally prohibited to retroactively increase the severity of a sentence. So instead they pass exclusion zones, saying that sex offenders may not live within so many yards of any school. Or shopping mall. Or daycare center. Or school bus stop. Or ice rink. Or cinema. Or playground Anywhere children might be encountered. With enough exclusions, entire cities are rendered off-limits. Or they can impose reporting requirements that are intentionally impossible to comply with, like requiring the offender to go around to every neighbour within a certain radius and announce their address and sex offender status - thus ensuring they are subject to vigilantee attacks and destruction of property, with the ultimate intention of making life so unbearable they are forced to leave the city. Once again the court is subverte by achieving indirectly what cannot be done openly.

  25. Re:Obama is not the only rogue guy in the governme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In fact US government is very hard to change with anything else than a gun.
    OH... THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!
    and everyone in US is ready to do any totally braindead move just because it will cost them votes in next election.

  26. DoJ is a lawyer-backed mafia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone I've ever met that has worked for the DoJ has said they are a mafia. Corruption, waste, and straight-up stealing. No one dares mess with the DoJ!

  27. getting around yes, declaring illegitimate is Obam by raymorris · · Score: 1

    You mention some reasonably good examples, though clearly from a very one-sided viewpoint.

    Obama has chosen not to "work around" decisions of the courts and the Congress, but rather to simply declare new law. He then declared that he MUST write new law because the Congress "failed to" (chose not to) pass the law he wanted. I think that might be a completely new precedent, for a president to say "Congress decided not to approve my proposal to chanhe the law, so I must therefore proceed as if they did" (rather than faithfully executing the law). The implication is that it's illegitimate for Congress to do anything but rubber-stamp the president's proposals. That may be new in American history.

    Examples include Congress (at his urging) passed a health insurance law with certain dates and deadlines in it. Obama then unilaterally changed the deadlines, and also unilaterally changed the qualifications for eligibility that Congress wrote into the law. More concerning, probably, are his statements about illegal immigrants. Congress voted down his proposal - so he implemented it anyway, claiming that it's the job of Congress to approve whatever he wants to do. That's new, isn't it, or do you know of any earlier examples of that doctrine?

  28. hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was no amend to the 4th amendment so whatever the nsa or fbi are doing is pretty much illegal. Patriot act and 3 branches of government cannot override or suspend the constitution whenever they feel like it even with an executive order unless congress actually amends the laws in the constitution the legal way. If the constitution is just a peace of paper then every law that is written down so far is meaningless.

    Governments don't and will never work because people are people, retarded fucking monkey animals. Just look at USA history and the hypocrisy's. Words and ideologies are nothing more than wolf in sheep's clothing. It does not matter what your ideology(laws, religion) is you are still a fucking animal and as an animal you can't rid of or control your animal instincts.

    Those in power will always look after #1(self preservation) and not after your ass. Just like the police, they don't give a shit about you only what law is broken or if you try to hurt their ego's, so you are the only first line of defense when it comes to protecting yourself and your family. Every time a cop shoots a suspect or innocent without hesitation is pretty much breaking the primary laws of the land which is the constitution, in this case 4th and 5th amendment. Cops hit you and you can't do anything about it but if you hit a cop you get a bullet in you. There is no more accountability, cops pretty much get a slap on the wrist and others in power. Bush and Obama have both done worse things than Nixon and yet no impeachments or arrests.

  29. Laws can be abused by techdolphin · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, any law can be abused. Just look at the drug laws. Even though minorities use illegal drugs less, they make up a majority of the arrests. I agree there are serious problems with these laws and they need to be modified or eliminated. However, we also have laws that allow confiscation of property if there is suspicion of that the property was or will be used to commit a crime. Even if no charges are filed, people are forced to sue to get their property back. Enforcement of laws can be and often is subjective. We need good laws and good people to insure that the laws are enforced fairly. Ensuring both is not an easy task.

  30. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My experience has been substantially different. Lots of lawyers to be sure. Lots of officious prigs. Lots of Not Invented Here, So It Must Be Poor.

    But not corrupt
    no theft.
    No worse inefficiencies (not really waste) than any other large bureaucratic organization subject to all sorts of conflicting requirements from outside.

    Perhaps *you* are meeting with an unusual subset of DoJ employees?

  31. Re:Obama is not the only rogue guy in the governme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, Are you wearing your The Blaze shirt today? Ohh BTW. Grats on picking out an opinionated "wish" from my post and ignoring how every other part of it describes you both perfectly. Im SO sorry I didn't hold an election to decide how I would like you to STHU.

    See more sky-falling below. Courtesy of Taco Cowboy.
    VVVV

  32. Re: Nutjobs' view of "Reality" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read your post as: "Everyone who is not in total agreement with me is a fascist." Congratulations, you have a mental disorder.

    Sorry I don't have anymore time to waste diging up a pointless quote to stroke my ego.

    Nutjobs are all alike, regardless of political affiliation. To them, reality is a mean existence devoid of trust and full of fear.

    So If I'm a fascist, you are a delusional schizophrenic.

  33. Joe Biden for 2016 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Joe Biden is a square shooter. Joe Biden for 2016!

  34. Re:Obama is not the only rogue guy in the governme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ^^^^Slashdot's Libertarian Reach-Around Circle, HARD at work here! ^^^^

  35. denial in absentia by epine · · Score: 1

    Once a year—like today perhaps—everyone and their dogs needs to Tweet out "As of $PRESENT_YEAR I have never received an NSL letter".

    Unless, of course, a year comes and goes and one suddenly and forever forgets to participate in this strange custom.

  36. Re:Obama is not the only rogue guy in the governme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, they clearly aren't as powerful as the STASI. Flash mobs can assemble because people know they aren't going to arrest 5000 people and imprison them all for many years - or even gun them down.

  37. Re:Obama is not the only rogue guy in the governme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Again, you presume the NSA gives a shit about people flash mobbing a mall, especially enough to tip their hand about their surveillance capabilities. Hell, you haven't even conclusively proven your point about the Stasi... who says they would give a shit either?

  38. Re:Obama is not the only rogue guy in the governme by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    And that is not enough, the ABSOLUTELY WORST NEWS is, too many of the American citizens have turned into sheeples, and never care how their government functions nor how bad it has turned into

    The absolutely worst news is that many of the American citizens not just don't care, but enthusiastically support the abuses of the government. Just look at the public opinion polls regarding the CIA torture report.

  39. Re:Executive doctrine: not rubber-stamping is ille by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    You do understand that Obama did not make illegal immigrants legal, right? He does not have the power to do so. What power he has - the power that executive branch has always had, since the founding of the republic - is to only partially enforce some law. That is itself a check on the power of the legislature, and why legislative and executive are two separate and distinct branches. Legislature, in turn, has a check on that power of the executive - they can impeach the president.

  40. Sounds Like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The FISA warrant is for when the Three Letter Agency wants to be "respectable", within their own standards of respectability. The NSL is for the really dirty stuff, stuff that even they think might come back to haunt them.

  41. federal court says no. Discretion for specific cas by raymorris · · Score: 1

    The federal court has already ruled against that argument. The executive, sworn to faithfully execute the law, properly has the power to implement the legislative intent, "the spirit of the law", to a PARTICULAR case, a specific individual. One example would be that I have about dozen permits from the ATF to possess professional fireworks. The reason there are a dozen of them is that the company I work with operates in several states and therefore has a subsidiary incorporated in each state, modeled on that state's law. If ATF showed up and I had my stack of permits, but the specific permit for that subsidiary was left at home, the prosecutor could decide not to charge me with illegal possession of explosives because the intent of that legislature is that operators be trained and have permits - not to throw people in prison for misplacing paperwork.

    What Obama has tried to do is change the rules, not apply the rules. Congress said "people may not remain in the country unless they received a permit prior to entry, if they entered illegally". Obama has said "yes people can stay. Once you cross the river you're allowed to be here". That's changing the law, not applying to a particular case. That's the ruling of the federal court, and supported by petitions filed by 24 state's attorney general.

  42. Re:getting around yes, declaring illegitimate is O by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    rather than faithfully executing the law

    That's the issue here with immigrants. Obama didn't "make a new law" all he did was stop enforcing the one he wanted repealed. I'm reminded of the MCA and Bush's "I'm the goddamn commander in chief, you can't tell me how to run the army" rant (protip: they totally can, regulation of the military is a Legislative prerogative). There is plenty of precedent for this across all levels of the government, so I'm going to let you off with a warning this time, but I'm keeping my eye on you.

    Compare that to revising the Obamacare deadlines and requirements, this is actually a case where Obama has made up new rules as opposed to simply choosing not to enforce them. This may be new in American history except for all the other times Presidents have gone to war on their own.

  43. How long will it take? by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    How long will it take until Congress fixes this? This search and seizure without any publicly elected court weighing in needs to stop. Is there really nobody in the House or Senate who thinks this is wrong? Apparently not and with the right-wingers running the country now I expect no change, more likely that bills will be passed that require the three letter agencies to not even send a letter. They can just barge in and take your stuff. Shame on everyone who still calls this a democracy and freedom!

  44. Re:Obama is not the only rogue guy in the governme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There ought to be a law against people who say "There ought to be a law..." 8-P