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.

7 of 91 comments (clear)

  1. Surprise! by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Surprise! by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thank goodness there's more than two evils!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Surprise! by EmeraldBot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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...

      Who would you have picked in Obama's place? Mitt Romney? Obama's hardly the best president we've ever had, but he's hardly the worst either. If you want to vote for Trump, then alright, but . Trump either has absolutely no idea what he's talking about (most likely), or he's seriously talking about shutting down Twitter and Facebook, which I highly doubt. Hillary Clinton will further push spy programs down our throat, but Donald Trump would undoubtly rubberstamp any bill on it because he can't oppose everything other people do. Hillary Clinton might at least backdown if the response is strong enough because her whole campaign for 12+ years has been changing direction as soon as any hint of controversy appears. What I'm trying to say is that she might realize that most people are strongly opposed to it and stop such a program because she fears for her already battered public perception, whereas Trump has no qualms about holding a stupid view.

      Quite honestly, no major candidate has a good policy towards internet privacy, there is no choice we can make this election cycle. Our best bet is to hope someone comes around in 2020 with a better view, and to continue to create a mess for the government until such a person arrives. If we're going to lose this fight, I'd at least want to win our other battles, and I think a president who has absolutely no clue how to do his job and thinks closing our borders and sticking our heads in the sand is how we improve our society is a fool.

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    3. Re:Surprise! by radarskiy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How do you distinguish between:

      a) a totally corrupt bench that will rubber-stamp any request put before the court,
      b) a clueless bench that doesn't know when it is being lied to,
      b) a good-faith effort by law-enforcement to err on the side of protecting civil rights by not presenting any requests that are even slightly questionable,
      c) risk-adverse law-enforcement that is motivated more by avoiding the hassle of any challenged request than by defending rights or investigating crimes, or
      d) over-worked law-enforcement that has more cases than they can investigate, so they triage based on ability to proceed?

  2. Keep in mind who approves the judges/lawyers by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  3. Re:Traitors! by Ixokai · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  4. We are becoming more and more like North Korea by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 !