Slashdot Mirror
US Spy Court Didn't Reject a Single Government Surveillance Request In 2015 (zdnet.com)
schwit1 shares news from ZDNet's security blog: In more than three decades years, the FISA Court has only rejected 12 requests. A secret court that oversees the US government's surveillance requests accepted every warrant that was submitted last year, according to new figures.The Washington DC.-based Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court received 1,457 requests from the National Security Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to intercept phone calls and emails. In long-standing fashion, the court did not reject a single warrant, entirely or in part.
The FBI also issued 48,642 national security letters, a subpoena-like power that compels a company to turn over data on national security grounds without informing the subject of the letter. The memo said the majority of these demands sought data on foreigners, but almost one-in-five were requests for data on Americans.
It'll be interesting to see if the numbers go down any in 2016, since in November the court appointed five new lawyers to push back against government requests. Meanwhile, a new report shows an increase in the number of government requests to Facebook about their users, more than half of which contained a non-disclosure order prohibiting Facebook from notifying those users.
The FBI also issued 48,642 national security letters, a subpoena-like power that compels a company to turn over data on national security grounds without informing the subject of the letter. The memo said the majority of these demands sought data on foreigners, but almost one-in-five were requests for data on Americans.
It'll be interesting to see if the numbers go down any in 2016, since in November the court appointed five new lawyers to push back against government requests. Meanwhile, a new report shows an increase in the number of government requests to Facebook about their users, more than half of which contained a non-disclosure order prohibiting Facebook from notifying those users.
US Spy Court Didn't Reject a Single Government Surveillance Request In 2015
Of course they didn't, why would they? This "court" is well known to be a Kangaroo Court with a specific purpose of rubber-stamping all that is put before it. This, and the continued existence of the so-called "Patriot Act" are why I, a life-long liberal who made the mistake of voting for Mr. Obama twice, will not be voting for his almost certain successor, the slimy Hilary Clinton. What a corrupt political landscape where a man like Donald Trump is truly the lessor of two evils...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
"In more than three decades years"
Not even trying
You think they'd submit some totally bogus/badly written requests just for the court to reject to make the optics on the numbers look better. It's not like the actual details get released on any of this. This is how little the gov't gives a shit (and how little the people give a shit either, since this is barely 'news' outside Techdirt and the like).... they can't even be bothered to do the small amount of work to FAKE oversight...
If I'm not back again this time tomorrow...
Every judge and lawyer is run through a gauntlet of security background checks. Does anyone honestly think that a former ALCU lawyer or human rights advocate is going to past muster? They are only going to approve the most authority respecting hanging judges they can find.
Even for those defendants who want to hire a lawyer has to get that lawyer and their firm approved. Again an actual lawyer who believes in things such as the constitution or knows who side they are on are going to survive the testing. If your lawyer is rejected from the process you can still have them but they don't get to see your case.
Also a critical factor in winning cases that are already stacked against you is to hire a lawyer who then puts 10 interns onto the case along with a handful of investigators, none of whom are either going to be allowed to see anything or do an investigation. Thus these are nearly unwinnable cases.
Then the entire US justice system is adversarial. So any group of prosecutors and judges who don't have an opposing side are going to easily run circles around defendants who don't even know they are on trial (being investigated).
The key to all this is that there are already plenty of laws that deal with nearly every form of crime that a terrorist might do or plan. If you plan on murdering people then oddly enough that is a crime and can be investigated including wire taps. Murdering people is probably against the law. Hiring murders is, funding criminals is, hiding criminals, all existing crimes. There are all kinds of interesting things such as probable cause, RICO, etc that give police everything they need. Not everything they want, just everything they need.
The crazy thing is that this continues at pretty much full speed. It is almost like the constitution is some kind of measuring stick where they get to measure the size of their dicks by how many part of the constitution are ignored or suspended on their behalf. Like the stupid war on drugs, their efforts are going to only have overall negative returns. Maybe once in a blue moon they catch an actual bad guy as opposed to a straw bad guy they pretty much had to build from scratch. But for every bad guy they catch they will spread untold misery, economic problems, and potentially an increased death toll by slightly increasing the overall stress and unhappiness of the entire population. I will be discussing this sort of thing over the phone and sometimes the other person will say that they aren't comfortable talking about this on a phone. Crazy.
I would say that the only way that this madness ends is if crystal clear laws are put into place that wholesale ban this sort of behaviour. Potentially all the way to a constitutional amendment. Otherwise it will simply be a ratchet type approach. Every time there is a scare they will get a few more regulations or laws that favour the ending of this right or that privacy. These laws are typically one way. Very rarely are they repealed. Also there don't seem to be any willing investigators actively prosecuting those who have already violated existing laws.
I wonder what any of the space of likely presidential winners will do? Will they curtail these abuses and the entire abusive direction. Or will they realize that it just makes them more powerful?
2. If someone didn't agree with the government every time, how fast would they lose their job?
This trick here is that you simply review a few hundred potential judges before selecting 'the right one'. Consider that for lawsuits 'judge shopping' is already a thing. It's not hard to pick a judge with a well known history of rubber-stamping such requests.
I don't read AC A human right
The FISA Court judges are Federal District judges and make the same salary as any district judge, they serve on the FISA Court in addition their normal duties. Every few months some of the 11 judges go to Washington to serve FISA, on what I believe is a semi-informal rotating basis.
They serve seven year terms, and are appointed (without review) by the Chief Justice -- which means for as long as there's been a FISA Court, its been conservative Chief Justices appointing its membership.
Its notable they've picked one and only one Democrat in the entire history of the Court.
That said, they are appointed only for seven years and can't be appointed a second time. There is no mechanism for removal (short of impeaching their judgeship entirely), but there's really is no financial incentive to them support the government.
I agree that it's not a given, but at least with Trump there is a chance something is done to benefit the public.
There's a 100% chance that his actions would be primarily motivated by what most benefits Donald Trump. Any benefit to the public would be entirely incidental. Fortunately, I'm not the least concerned that he has a chance of becoming president.
She's a vindictive and spiteful old twat.
Hillary is not my first choice - I I'd like to see Bernie Sanders in the White House - but if it's a choice between her and any Republican, I'm going to vote for her. I really do feel badly for the people who harbor such vitriol for her as she's likely going to be our president for the next 8 years. Gives 'em something to complain about, though, so there's that.
As to the article, you know things are bad when even the checks and balances aren't checking nor balancing the persistently abusive and unconstitutional government surveillance of American citizens. This upcoming election is the first time since the Snowden revelations that the majority of the American people have the opportunity to voice opposition to these practices. I sincerely hope (though secretly doubt) they don't fuck it up.
US Spy Court Didn't Reject a Single Government Surveillance Request In 2015
Of course they didn't, why would they? This "court" is well known to be a Kangaroo Court with a specific purpose of rubber-stamping all that is put before it
In North Korea as well as in China their so-called 'parliament / congress' and their so-called 'court system' are nothing but made up of living rubber stamps
Anything and everything the Great Leader wants, no matter how ridiculous the goal is, no matter how heinous the motive, and no matter how nefarious the objectives are, get approved, without any objection
We are the United States of America, we are supposed to be different, but are we?
Our congress critters, no matter if they are Republicans or Democrats, are not doing their job
Our court systems too --- from the prosecutors to the judges, are basically singing the same tune as that from the White House
When 'Toeing The Line" becomes the norm, then we might as well stop fooling ourselves
Our nation is no longer the 'Land of the brave' nor the 'Home of the Free'
We are becoming a new member of the fascist group of nation. I am sure North Korea and China wouldn't mind having us as their 'junior member'
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Or about Clinton...
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -