Between 2001 and 2012, the FISA judges approved 20,909 surveillance and property search warrants - an average of 33 a week. During that 12-year period, the judges denied just 10 applications. Prosecutors withdrew another 26 applications.
From 2007 to 2012, FISA judges also approved 532 "business record" warrant applications, the category used in the order that directed Verizon to release metadata on all phone calls inside the United States. No business record warrants were rejected.
The records also show that FISA judges ordered "substantial modifications" to 497 surveillance and property warrants and 428 of the business record warrants.
The statistics are especially intriguing for business record warrants for 2011 and 2012. Of 417 warrants authorized, the court "substantially modified" 376.
The act of 1978 also established a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, presided over by three district or appeals court judges designated by the Chief Justice, to review, at the government’s request, the decisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
The FISA court has two courts over it, just like pretty much any other Federal court. The NSA has its chain of command, the DNI, the rest of the executive branch, including the President, to contend with, as well as Congress.
The FISA court can always say "no" to a warrant request, or modify the request - which it regularly does. But still, the point remains, warrants before other Federal courts are generally not adversarial processes either. The FISA court isn't really any different in that regard.
You are misinformed since the FISA court does have oversight in the same way that any other Federal court does. There is an appeals court over the FISA court, and the Supreme Court is over the appeals court.
A police state isn't made by border guards, which is what those police were, but by how the state deals with its citizens on a day to day basis. The US isn't a police state any more than European countries, or the rest of the Anglosphere.
I complement you on pointing to an article from Reason. Normally I am quite open to the arguments there. Unfortunately the author in this case gets it wrong. Issuing warrants is typically a one sided matter in courts, not an adversarial process. An actual trial needs to be adversarial, but the FISA court doesn't try suspects. It only issues warrants, rules on questions of law before it, and performs oversight. It also regularly modifies warrant requests rather than issuing them as requested. So, while I respect the author, he's wrong in this matter.
There are proposals to add a sort of general "civil rights and privacy advocate" to the FISA court, and there is some merit to that I think. But as it stands, the court is constitutional even if the process could be improved.
If and when you need a 300-kilogram metal box with a 200-kilogram concrete slab under it for setting up a WiFi hotspot, you're a pretty lousy engineer.
Are you suggesting that good engineers wouldn't make use of existing weather protected, mapped, and maintained infrastructure if it suits the purpose?
As a world traveler who is actively seeing many places, cultures and things let me tell you about my perspective... Nah, I better keep my mouth shut.
Why?
Also who trusts FISA again??? The secret court that declares itself legal... I think I did that in the garage when I was 5.
The FISA court was established in the exact same way that every other court in the US besides the Supreme Court was established: by an act of Congress. It is legal and exists because Congress made it so. I doubt you did that when you were 5.
Given that their behaviour is grossly inconsistent with their other political views, one is forced to the conclusion that the NSA has got some means of coercion to get them to propose this.
There is another possibility you are overlooking. That is that their views may be informed by facts of various sorts, and they aren't totally forgetful.
So in short, the bill passed with the support of the vast majority of Democrats in addition to Republican votes. The Democrats then allowed it to continue when they had control of both houses of Congress, and the presidency. Got it.
Not only that but all that cold war stuff was a complete waste of time - we are the Soviet Union.
If the US really is the USSR, then that is very unfortunate for you, comrade. Under the terms of Article 58-12 of the Soviet penal code I now have no choice but to denounce you, comrade, for violations of Article 58-10, and possibly Article 58-4 of the Soviet penal code by engaging in libelous propaganda against the glorious achievements of the American revolution by comparing it to what is now a failed state. The normal punishment would be deprivation of liberty for not less than 6 months, but since the United States is currently engaged in combat against the Taliban and al Qaida, it is possible you may be subject to punishment under Article 58-2 for which the punishment is:
the supreme measure of social defense-- shooting, or proclamation as an enemy of the workers, with confiscation or property and with deprivation of citizenship of the union republic, and likewise of citizenship of the Soviet Union and perpetual expulsion beyond the borders of the USSR, with the allowance under extenuating circumstances of reduction to deprivation of liberty for a term of no less than three years, with confiscation of all or part of one's property [6 Jun 1927 (SU No 49, art 330)].
It's to protect the children and stop terrorism, citizen.
Various governments can already figure out who is writing and doing what without accounts linked to real names. More likely companies are interested in it to combat fraud, defamation, and computer crime of various sorts. Various government also want to know who is saying what for many purposes, including repression.
There are societal trade-offs to support anonymity on the internet, but I think having it is a good think overall even if there are some problematic aspects of it.
If you think I advocate "cowering for decades" then you really don't understand, and probably do need help from someone. Denial isn't a river in Egypt, but it does seem to be a barrier for you.
If people acted more rationally they wouldn't deny that terrorism is a problem. And no, we don't live in the most fearful society in history. A fundamental error you are making is not being able to discern the difference between willful human action and random accidents.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, there are some things you apparently aren't acquainted with.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court: A Look At The Judges Who Preside Over America's Secret Court
Between 2001 and 2012, the FISA judges approved 20,909 surveillance and property search warrants - an average of 33 a week. During that 12-year period, the judges denied just 10 applications. Prosecutors withdrew another 26 applications.
From 2007 to 2012, FISA judges also approved 532 "business record" warrant applications, the category used in the order that directed Verizon to release metadata on all phone calls inside the United States. No business record warrants were rejected.
The records also show that FISA judges ordered "substantial modifications" to 497 surveillance and property warrants and 428 of the business record warrants.
The statistics are especially intriguing for business record warrants for 2011 and 2012. Of 417 warrants authorized, the court "substantially modified" 376.
Clear thinking and well reasoned arguments impress me. You, not so much.
Your error is relying on Wikipedia as an authoritative source.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
The act of 1978 also established a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, presided over by three district or appeals court judges designated by the Chief Justice, to review, at the government’s request, the decisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
You are misinformed.
The FISA court has two courts over it, just like pretty much any other Federal court. The NSA has its chain of command, the DNI, the rest of the executive branch, including the President, to contend with, as well as Congress.
The FISA court can always say "no" to a warrant request, or modify the request - which it regularly does. But still, the point remains, warrants before other Federal courts are generally not adversarial processes either. The FISA court isn't really any different in that regard.
You are misinformed since the FISA court does have oversight in the same way that any other Federal court does. There is an appeals court over the FISA court, and the Supreme Court is over the appeals court.
The FISA court is constitutional.
Your post is based on bile and ignorance. Why don't you read a few of my posts in this Slashdot story?
IRS Admits Targeting Conservative Groups During 2012 Election
And you might find some of the later ones in this informative as well.
Medical Firm Sues IRS For 4th Amendment Violation In Records Seizure
You may need to be able to hold more than one idea in your mind at the same time. Can you do that?
I'll say. And you know who's to blame, right? When will they learn? Appeasement is the path to peace, right?
Besides, the very idea of third world peoples having their own goals is absurd.
A police state isn't made by border guards, which is what those police were, but by how the state deals with its citizens on a day to day basis. The US isn't a police state any more than European countries, or the rest of the Anglosphere.
Once again, fabulous moderation from someone that had a mod point but no argument.
I complement you on pointing to an article from Reason. Normally I am quite open to the arguments there. Unfortunately the author in this case gets it wrong. Issuing warrants is typically a one sided matter in courts, not an adversarial process. An actual trial needs to be adversarial, but the FISA court doesn't try suspects. It only issues warrants, rules on questions of law before it, and performs oversight. It also regularly modifies warrant requests rather than issuing them as requested. So, while I respect the author, he's wrong in this matter.
There are proposals to add a sort of general "civil rights and privacy advocate" to the FISA court, and there is some merit to that I think. But as it stands, the court is constitutional even if the process could be improved.
If and when you need a 300-kilogram metal box with a 200-kilogram concrete slab under it for setting up a WiFi hotspot, you're a pretty lousy engineer.
Are you suggesting that good engineers wouldn't make use of existing weather protected, mapped, and maintained infrastructure if it suits the purpose?
As a world traveler who is actively seeing many places, cultures and things let me tell you about my perspective... Nah, I better keep my mouth shut.
Why?
Also who trusts FISA again??? The secret court that declares itself legal... I think I did that in the garage when I was 5.
The FISA court was established in the exact same way that every other court in the US besides the Supreme Court was established: by an act of Congress. It is legal and exists because Congress made it so. I doubt you did that when you were 5.
Given that their behaviour is grossly inconsistent with their other political views, one is forced to the conclusion that the NSA has got some means of coercion to get them to propose this.
There is another possibility you are overlooking. That is that their views may be informed by facts of various sorts, and they aren't totally forgetful.
You've never been through a European airport where the police were armed with automatic weapons then? Maybe you need to travel more.
Foreign visitors to U.S. hit record in 2011
So in short, the bill passed with the support of the vast majority of Democrats in addition to Republican votes. The Democrats then allowed it to continue when they had control of both houses of Congress, and the presidency. Got it.
I'm not surprised that not all of them supported it since many Democrats thought they already knew who was involved in the 9-11 attacks.
The shiny side should face what you're trying to protect.
If you don't want them reading your brain waves, the shiny side goes on the inside to prevent the brain waves from leaking out.
If you don't want them using mind control beams on you, the shiny side goes on the outside to keep the mind control beams out.
If you're worried about both, then you need to go double layer with a shiny side facing both in and out.
If you think the molemen might be involved, then you should put a layer in the bottoms of your shoes, and maybe in your underwear.
Not only that but all that cold war stuff was a complete waste of time - we are the Soviet Union.
If the US really is the USSR, then that is very unfortunate for you, comrade. Under the terms of Article 58-12 of the Soviet penal code I now have no choice but to denounce you, comrade, for violations of Article 58-10, and possibly Article 58-4 of the Soviet penal code by engaging in libelous propaganda against the glorious achievements of the American revolution by comparing it to what is now a failed state. The normal punishment would be deprivation of liberty for not less than 6 months, but since the United States is currently engaged in combat against the Taliban and al Qaida, it is possible you may be subject to punishment under Article 58-2 for which the punishment is:
the supreme measure of social defense-- shooting, or proclamation as an enemy of the workers, with confiscation or property and with deprivation of citizenship of the union republic, and likewise of citizenship of the Soviet Union and perpetual expulsion beyond the borders of the USSR, with the allowance under extenuating circumstances of reduction to deprivation of liberty for a term of no less than three years, with confiscation of all or part of one's property [6 Jun 1927 (SU No 49, art 330)].
.
Ching
Ba dum bum!
It's to protect the children and stop terrorism, citizen.
Various governments can already figure out who is writing and doing what without accounts linked to real names. More likely companies are interested in it to combat fraud, defamation, and computer crime of various sorts. Various government also want to know who is saying what for many purposes, including repression.
There are societal trade-offs to support anonymity on the internet, but I think having it is a good think overall even if there are some problematic aspects of it.
Quite so.
If you think I advocate "cowering for decades" then you really don't understand, and probably do need help from someone. Denial isn't a river in Egypt, but it does seem to be a barrier for you.
If people acted more rationally they wouldn't deny that terrorism is a problem. And no, we don't live in the most fearful society in history. A fundamental error you are making is not being able to discern the difference between willful human action and random accidents.
That is more questions. Do you have an answer? What would you like to see happen?
What is your answer?