Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   Obama: FISA courts are serious oversight and not just a rubber stamp. FISA Court: We've declined 0.03% of all government surveillance requests since 1979   (motherjones.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, FISA, Obama, FISA court, Mark Udall, Marc Rotenberg, intelligence assessment, Jeff Merkley, declassification  
•       •       •

811 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Jun 2013 at 6:32 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



175 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-06-11 01:05:37 AM  
Since 1979?  Wait, Obama didn't create FISA courts?  OMG! It's worse than I thought - Jimmy Carter was involved!
 
2013-06-11 01:21:31 AM  
I suppose it's actually possible that the government doesn't go to the effort of requesting surveillance warrants unless there's a really good reason. How likely that is, I really couldn't say.
 
2013-06-11 01:26:07 AM  

Boojum2k: I suppose it's actually possible that the government doesn't go to the effort of requesting surveillance warrants unless there's a really good reason. How likely that is, I really couldn't say.


The numbers don't help one way or another here either.  34,000 requests over 34 years, 11 total rejections.  1000 per year isn't exactly a huge number.  Hrmm...
 
2013-06-11 01:38:28 AM  

SJKebab: Boojum2k: I suppose it's actually possible that the government doesn't go to the effort of requesting surveillance warrants unless there's a really good reason. How likely that is, I really couldn't say.

The numbers don't help one way or another here either.  34,000 requests over 34 years, 11 total rejections.  1000 per year isn't exactly a huge number.  Hrmm...


Yeah, I really don't know if I should just shrug or be screaming in outrage. Unfortunately, the relevant data that would help me decide is classified.
Although, how many people's phone records were snooped by the NSA? A lot more than 34,000, so maybe they are giving out wiretapping warrants wholesale now. I do recall the provision in the PATRIOT act to speed up wiretapping set it so warrants were against a person, not a phone number, but that doesn't help the numbers much.
 
2013-06-11 03:54:22 AM  
11 out of 34,000 requests. I hope to live long enough to see those 11 at least partially declassified. Which eleven requests, out of 34,000, were so egregious that even FISA rejected them?
 
2013-06-11 04:08:15 AM  

Twilight Farkle: 11 out of 34,000 requests. I hope to live long enough to see those 11 at least partially declassified. Which eleven requests, out of 34,000, were so egregious that even FISA rejected them?


From what I understand that those 11 were actually withdrawn after being entered.
 
2013-06-11 04:08:57 AM  
From what I understand COMMA, THOSE
 
2013-06-11 06:36:37 AM  
It's okay. As long as the government is approving the actions itself, it's totally legal. And since it's legal, stop whining.
 
2013-06-11 06:42:34 AM  
1980 Single request for surveillance: "Can we see who they've been calling?"

2013 Single request for surveillance: "Can we see who they've been calling?  And e-mailing?  And Skyping?  And texting?  And chat-boarding?  And where they've been surfing?  And what on-line orders they've been placing?  And their on-line financial records?  And etc..
 
2013-06-11 06:43:08 AM  
And yet not a single politician in America has run on stopping the surveillance.
 
2013-06-11 06:44:40 AM  
So 99.97% of the requests passed muster? Impressive - proves what a good job the requestors are doing.

/you can prove anything with facts
 
2013-06-11 06:47:11 AM  
Notable that FISA review is a step up from what we had under the last administration.

/at least there are warrants, now
//progress, people
 
2013-06-11 06:47:51 AM  
99-1. Patriot Act approval. 99-1. It's going nowhere.

You pussies gleefully gave up your liberties, just like bin Laden planned.

And half you whiny bastards only care because the President is a Democrat.
 
2013-06-11 06:52:07 AM  

ghare: 99-1. Patriot Act approval. 99-1. It's going nowhere.

You pussies gleefully gave up your liberties, just like bin Laden planned.

And half you whiny bastards only care because the President is a Democrat.


First of all, relax. Take it easy.

Second, you'll note that FISA has been around for a very long time - the date in the headline should have been an indication. It was amended after 9/11 to cover terrorism but the principal mechanism had already been around from before.
 
2013-06-11 06:54:20 AM  

ib_thinkin: /at least there are warrants, now


well, except for the administrative subpoenas, of course. "we get warrants except for when we don't get warrants" doesn't have quite the same flavor, i'll grant you.

that isn't saying that FISA is sunshine and light, nor that FISA is evil incarnate - just that if you, me, or some other person on fark is giong to get their data stinkfingered, a FISA warrant that just sucks up every piece of data a telco has is one way....and the DEA, ICE, DOJ, or other alphabet soup designation deciding that knowing every person you've ever electronically contacted would be beneficial to an investigation is another. (no probable cause, no warrant)

across the board, we have some serious problems with that 'secure in our papers and effects' routine now that our papers are packets.
 
2013-06-11 06:54:57 AM  

ghare: And yet not a single politician in America has run on stopping the surveillance.


That's because people don't really want it to stop, they just don't want to have to admit they're okay with it happening - hence the feigned outrage when it is made unavoidably public.
 
2013-06-11 06:57:13 AM  
I give up, I'm only voting on local issues until one of our parties decides to give a half a shiat about our society and freedom. I was born in 89 so Dubya made me realize that the GOP was evil and Obama made me realize that the Democrats aren't willing to change the status quo. It really is crushing to my lefty civil libertarian ass, I thought Obama's election would actually mean we'd reverse Bush's attack on our rights but I was a naive and hopeful 19 year old.
 
2013-06-11 06:59:23 AM  

And I've just finished my milk: hence the feigned outrage when it is made unavoidably public.


the thing that gets me is the media/journalist umbrage on the topic. for chrissakes, to go rumsfeldian up in this biatch, this was a Known Known since 2006.

why the hell did it take 7 years and a guy committing societal seppuku for this to be a story? I realize investigating the NSA isn't exactly a light hobby to undertake, but nobody really even tried.
 
2013-06-11 07:01:50 AM  

TheJoe03: I give up, I'm only voting on local issues until one of our parties decides to give a half a shiat about our society and freedom. I was born in 89 so Dubya made me realize that the GOP was evil and Obama made me realize that the Democrats aren't willing to change the status quo. It really is crushing to my lefty civil libertarian ass, I thought Obama's election would actually mean we'd reverse Bush's attack on our rights but I was a naive and hopeful 19 year old.


It was still a better choice than Romney/Ryan or McCain/Palin.
 
2013-06-11 07:02:41 AM  

ib_thinkin: Notable that FISA review is a step up from what we had under the last administration.

/at least there are warrants, now
//progress, people


If I recall, back when W tried to do the whole warrantless wiretapping thing, one of the arguments used against that program was the fact that the FISA court rarely denied a warrant so not going through the motions was just them being lazy.
 
2013-06-11 07:03:08 AM  

ghare: 99-1. Patriot Act approval. 99-1. It's going nowhere.


Some provisions that were originally temporary were made permanent so you are probably right.  PATRIOT ACT will ultimately be over turned.  It will need to be fought the same way pot laws are fought.  There will be a nibbling at the edges as abuses are uncovered and parts are declared unconstitutional in specific cases.It won't happen in my life time (I'm 50) but the PATRIOT ACT will not be law forever.
 
2013-06-11 07:04:10 AM  

ghare: It was still a better choice than Romney/Ryan or McCain/Palin.


Which makes it so much more depressing, the two party system guarantees failure. What motivation do these people have? It's either one or the other, we know both parties will continue to be in power so they have no reason to do the right thing, they have no real competition. It's depressing that the Democrats are the only ones close to having my political views.
 
2013-06-11 07:05:31 AM  
I think we should just use secret courts for everything. If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about.
 
2013-06-11 07:12:19 AM  

ghare: You pussies gleefully gave up your liberties


THARE TAKIN' AWAY ARE LIBERTIES!

Can I politely point out that you're an idiot?
/They are ignoring some of our protections.
 
2013-06-11 07:13:54 AM  

ghare: TheJoe03: I give up, I'm only voting on local issues until one of our parties decides to give a half a shiat about our society and freedom. I was born in 89 so Dubya made me realize that the GOP was evil and Obama made me realize that the Democrats aren't willing to change the status quo. It really is crushing to my lefty civil libertarian ass, I thought Obama's election would actually mean we'd reverse Bush's attack on our rights but I was a naive and hopeful 19 year old.

It was still a better choice than Romney/Ryan or McCain/Palin.


And that's the ball game, folks. People are going to tolerate pretty much anything as long as they can be convinced the hypothetical alternative would be much worse.
 
2013-06-11 07:14:29 AM  
About 100 a year? Think of all of the lives unfairly destroyed!

What's that? Lives weren't destroyed? That doesn't sound right.
 
2013-06-11 07:16:02 AM  

The Numbers: People are going to tolerate pretty much anything as long as they can be convinced the hypothetical alternative would be much worse.


To be fair, there are a LOT of worse, even low-level hypotheticals than "MOOOOOOM He's looking at my stuff!"
 
2013-06-11 07:18:46 AM  

The Numbers: People are going to tolerate pretty much anything as long as they can be convinced the hypothetical alternative would be much worse.


it doesn't take much convincing, really - mccain, for examples sake was opposed to even getting warrants. his position was that on some topics, the executive should be above the law.

i know we're getting into shiat sammich and giant douche territory, but pretending that since one choice topically sucks, and the other choice topically sucks that there is an equanimity of suckage is just kinda silly.
 
2013-06-11 07:22:44 AM  

LeoffDaGrate: 1980 Single request for surveillance: "Can we see who they've been calling?"

2013 Single request for surveillance: "Can we see who they've been calling?  And e-mailing?  And Skyping?  And texting?  And chat-boarding?  And where they've been surfing?  And what on-line orders they've been placing?  And their on-line financial records?  And etc..


Excellent point.

Why weren't the feds requesting information on Skyping in 1980?  Just how incompetent were the spooks back then?
 
2013-06-11 07:27:33 AM  
From what I understand, what the government is doing with these warrants is collecting the information - not analyzing it. They just collect the information and warehouse it.

If at some point they DO want to analyze it, they have to get another warrant specific to the information and individual that they are interested in.

Now, maybe that second warrant is also a rubber stamp, but I honestly don't see why this is that big of a deal.
 
2013-06-11 07:29:38 AM  
Obama also claims that our calls aren't being recorded.  But that depends on what the definition of "recorded" is.
 
2013-06-11 07:30:25 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Obama also claims that our calls aren't being recorded.  But that depends on what the definition of "recorded" is.


Does it? Does it really?
 
2013-06-11 07:30:34 AM  
While I believe secret courts are bullshiat in design, since 9/11 about 70% of warrant requests were sent back to be modified because they believe they weren't constitutional.

Oh, and:

www.strangecosmos.com
 
2013-06-11 07:30:48 AM  

vernonFL: From what I understand, what the government is doing with these warrants is collecting the information - not analyzing it. They just collect the information and warehouse it.

If at some point they DO want to analyze it, they have to get another warrant specific to the information and individual that they are interested in.

Now, maybe that second warrant is also a rubber stamp, but I honestly don't see why this is that big of a deal.


That's right.  They're collecting all of our call information just to keep us safe, dammit.
 
2013-06-11 07:31:27 AM  

LasersHurt: Marcus Aurelius: Obama also claims that our calls aren't being recorded.  But that depends on what the definition of "recorded" is.

Does it? Does it really?


Doesn't it?
 
2013-06-11 07:31:42 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Obama also claims that our calls aren't being recorded.  But that depends on what the definition of "recorded" is.


It means they don't have access to wiretap information w/o a warrant.
 
2013-06-11 07:33:09 AM  

spcMike: ib_thinkin: Notable that FISA review is a step up from what we had under the last administration.

/at least there are warrants, now
//progress, people

If I recall, back when W tried to do the whole warrantless wiretapping thing, one of the arguments used against that program was the fact that the FISA court rarely denied a warrant so not going through the motions was just them being lazy.


Oh, you. You know we have the societal memory of a goldfish. Why you bringin' facts up in here?

The thing that makes this even better? From what I've read (albeit from China, in the midst of a 3 day holiday, so my GAF is running low), they didn't need a warrant. They didn't need to go through the FISA courts on this particular thing. But they did.
 
2013-06-11 07:33:54 AM  

Almost Everybody Poops: While I believe secret courts are bullshiat in design, since 9/11 about 70% of warrant requests were sent back to be modified because they believe they weren't constitutional.

Oh, and:

[www.strangecosmos.com image 450x385]


I'd like to believe that.  Source?
 
2013-06-11 07:34:37 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: LasersHurt: Marcus Aurelius: Obama also claims that our calls aren't being recorded.  But that depends on what the definition of "recorded" is.

Does it? Does it really?

Doesn't it?


There are basically two reasonable definitions that you could use here - recording the audio of calls, or making records of the whens and wheres. One has been denied and the other confirmed. I don't see how it "depends" - we know precisely what kind of "recording" they're doing. And since "recording" in terms of keeping a list is a bit outdated relative to recording audio, it's safe to assume that if someone asks if they're recording, no, no they're not.
 
2013-06-11 07:36:05 AM  

Almost Everybody Poops: Marcus Aurelius: Obama also claims that our calls aren't being recorded.  But that depends on what the definition of "recorded" is.

It means they don't have access to wiretap information w/o a warrant.


The one the FISA court rubber-stamps?
 
2013-06-11 07:36:08 AM  

ghare: And half you whiny bastards only care because the President is a Democrat.


if the Patriot act was re-voted on today, the only "No" votes against it would be libertarian-leaning republicans.  Sorry there arent enough of us protecting you from crap like this.
 
2013-06-11 07:36:22 AM  

ghare: And yet not a single politician in America has run on stopping the surveillance.


Yes. His name rimes with Shmarack Shmobama.
 
2013-06-11 07:36:35 AM  
Hey, by the way, anybody feel like discussing the reasonable expectation of privacy you don't have in the requested records?
 
2013-06-11 07:37:07 AM  

LasersHurt: Marcus Aurelius: LasersHurt: Marcus Aurelius: Obama also claims that our calls aren't being recorded.  But that depends on what the definition of "recorded" is.

Does it? Does it really?

Doesn't it?

There are basically two reasonable definitions that you could use here - recording the audio of calls, or making records of the whens and wheres. One has been denied and the other confirmed. I don't see how it "depends" - we know precisely what kind of "recording" they're doing. And since "recording" in terms of keeping a list is a bit outdated relative to recording audio, it's safe to assume that if someone asks if they're recording, no, no they're not.


We're just quibbling over details while the remains of the Fourth Amendment hides in a corner of the basement under a cardboard box.
 
2013-06-11 07:38:12 AM  

Flab: Shmarack Shmobama.


He sounds like a Jewish Leprechaun.
 
2013-06-11 07:38:52 AM  

Flab: ghare: And yet not a single politician in America has run on stopping the surveillance.

Yes. His name rimes with Shmarack Shmobama.


I'm curious: what exactly was the campaign promise on this one?
 
2013-06-11 07:38:55 AM  

o5iiawah: if the Patriot act was re-voted on today, the only "No" votes against it would be libertarian-leaning republicans.  Sorry there arent enough of us protecting you from crap like this.


There is a couple of real liberals around, maybe two or three in the Democratic party if we're lucky.
 
2013-06-11 07:39:39 AM  

LasersHurt: About 100 a year? Think of all of the lives unfairly destroyed!

What's that? Lives weren't destroyed? That doesn't sound right.


NSA please go away.
 
2013-06-11 07:40:03 AM  

LasersHurt: About 100 a year? Think of all of the lives unfairly destroyed!

What's that? Lives weren't destroyed? That doesn't sound right.


Vqb not with you today? The two of you have been been working so hard to downplay this, so I suppose the odd basic maths error is understandable.
 
2013-06-11 07:40:13 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: We're just quibbling over details while the remains of the Fourth Amendment hides in a corner of the basement under a cardboard box.


Yes, there is no greater violation of that particular amendment than... maybe quietly collecting data they never use. Unless with a warrant.
 
Displayed 50 of 175 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report