Court Chides FBI, But Re-Approves Warrantless Surveillance Program (nytimes.com) 45
For a second year, the nation's surveillance court has pointed with concern to "widespread violations" by the F.B.I. of rules intended to protect Americans' privacy when analysts search emails gathered without a warrant -- but still signed off on another year of the program, a newly declassified ruling shows. From a report: In a 67-page ruling issued in November and made public on Monday, James E. Boasberg, the presiding judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, recounted several episodes uncovered by an F.B.I. audit where the bureau's analysts improperly searched for Americans' information in emails that the National Security Agency collected without warrants. Rather than a new problem, however, those instances appeared largely to be additional examples of an issue that was already brought to light in a December 2019 ruling by Judge Boasberg. The government made it public in September. The F.B.I. has already sought to address the problem by rolling out new system safeguards and additional training, although the coronavirus pandemic has hindered the bureau's ability to assess how well they are working. Still, Judge Boasberg said he was willing to issue a legally required certification for the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program to operate for another year.
So sorry... (Score:1)
Re: So sorry... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't it make you wonder what the NSA has on Judge Boasberg? Or maybe what they manufactured I suppose, although I don't think he would have that job on the FISA court if he weren't a scumbag to start with.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem I see is when a ruling goes a particular way based strictly on party lines. That usually means the court wasted everyone's time and money, just to speak the party line on a topic, vs actual justice or giving the case at hand actual thought.
Much of the court ruling that "expansion of government and a trampling of our rights against our agreed upon constitution and laws" when there is bipartisan voting for it (such as all states much accept homosexual marriages) are often based on expanding previo
Re: (Score:2)
The courts are by far the most failed branch of government. For decades they have leant to an expansion of government and a trampling of our rights against our agreed upon constitution and laws, and have done nothing to mitigate them. Failed big time.
This.
As much as we want to bitch about the actions of our intelligence agencies, they are doing what they're allowed to do which is granted by a completely corrupt court system.
Re: (Score:2)
As much as we want to bitch about the actions of our intelligence agencies, they are doing what they're allowed to do which is granted by a completely corrupt court system.
It would be nice if our intelligence agencies showed a modicum of competence every now and then...
Re: (Score:2)
You often wouldn't know it when they did.
Re: (Score:2)
That is worth considering.
Re: (Score:1)
It is human nature to seek to reduce the rights of others. Even in countries that have a freedom-celebrating culture, this happens all the time.
It isn't just the government eroding the rights of the citizens (though that is, obviously, part of it). But it is also citizens wanting to take freedom away from their neighbors. Noble attitudes like "I don't approve of what you are doing but will defend to the death your right to do it" are sometimes spoken, but not acted-upon. The actions people tend to take
Re: So sorry... (Score:1)
How is anybody "a specific race"?
a convenient scapegoat (Score:2)
Didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait'll you hear about what local police departments are doing.
Re:Didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean really, anyone who's paying attention has a pretty good idea that the FBI, CIA, NSA, et. al. are likely doing a lot of pretty shady things that probably aren't constitutional. Big Brother is indeed watching you, whether they have the right to or not.
Anyone who's been paying attention knows this bullshit excuse, grows old. You want to blatantly violate the US Constitution as a Federal agency? Fine. Then do it arrogantly and blatantly, and don't even bother with court audits. The FUCK is the point in wasting even more taxpayer dollars paying the "oversight" agency to NOT do their damn job.
I'd rather the violators stand out in the street under the spotlight for all to see than hide in the alleged shadows doing all the shit we know they're doing.
Re: (Score:2)
To clarify the certification (Score:5, Interesting)
Regarding the certification. The presiding FISA judge has to issue a certification regarding whether the policies the NSA has in place comport with the 4the amendment or not. In 2018 he ruled that their policies were not in keeping with the 4th amendment. So they had to make new policies, and conduct new training on the new policies and the 4th amendment.
Note he's not tasked with deciding whether the program as a whole is a good idea or a bad idea. That's up to Congress.
More recently, he certified that the written policies are now legal, but he's concerned about whether individual agents are actually following the policies, about how often someone violates the policy. He's awaiting more information about that. The information will probably go his successor, because his term is about over.
For those who passionately believe in the "Obama judges" thing, the successor was nominated as a judge by Obama, and chosen to head the FISA court by John Roberts. So get your head around that one. (Could be because the guy is a federal judge, not a politician).
There is no defense of the FBI at this point (Score:5, Insightful)
As far back as 1945, Truman was calling out the FBI saying that on so many fronts they better resembled the Gestapo than any ideals of American law enforcement. He specifically called out a culture of tolerance for blackmail, obsession with salacious details and things you would expect from a secret police, not from public law enforcement that supposedly epitomized the ideals of our country.
COINTELPRO, their attempts to have MLK kill himself, the coverup of TWA Flight 800, Ruby Ridge, Waco, covering for Jeff Epstein and other rich offenders and over 20 years of documented near total disregard for the law on the PATRIOT Act. Cherry on top of all of that: another IG report showing a culture of sexual predation by FBI senior leadership that is outright criminal ranging from groping, to borderline kidnapping apparently. Have there been arrests? Of course not, this is the same US DoJ that says that Hillary Clinton wasn't guilty of violating the Espionage Act for her deliberate and documented abuse of classified data, but holds junior enlisted to account for something as simple as a selfie on a sub (yes a violation, but let's try to have some Noblesse Oblige here).
The FBI is the Chicago PD, with national jurisdiction and suits instead of uniforms. They're brutally incompetent. They have the lowest conviction rate [time.com] in federal law enforcement. That's not a sign that they are diligent; those are the cases that the DoJ reviewed and tried to bring to court. That means the US Attorney loses 53% of the time on FBI-lead cases whereas they lose around 28% on cases from ICE, DEA, ATF, etc.
It's time to get rid of them. There is no fixing this agency. It's like trying to reform the Stasi. Enough is enough.
Re: (Score:2)
As far back as 1945, Truman was calling out the FBI saying that on so many fronts they better resembled the Gestapo than any ideals of American law enforcement.
What are American ideals of law enforcement?
Glad you asked (Score:4, Informative)
Peele's Principles [wikipedia.org] informed the creation of modern policing in the USA. It's only in recent times, as in around 1980 onward that we've deviated heavily from them.
The best summary of Peel's Principles can be summed up in one of them: the police exercise professionally and all times what is the ordinary duty of every citizen with regard to upholding the law.
In other words, cops aren't special troopers, they're just ordinary citizens paid full time to do professionally every thing the citizen used to be expected to do with regard to stopping criminals in their vicinity and aiding the sheriff.
Re: (Score:2)
they're just ordinary citizens paid full time to do professionally every thing the citizen used to be expected to do with regard to stopping criminals in their vicinity
That's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure I think citizens should be stopping criminals in their vicinity. I'm not sure what responsibilities you think ordinary citizens should have here.
It means exactly what it says (Score:3)
I was rather explicit in summarizing this principle:
To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which a
No defense of the most domestic surveillance (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in all honesty I think Mr. Johnson might have some dirty laundry he doesn't want exposed, and that would go for most of the other millionaires in Congress.
Re: (Score:1)
"Public law enforcement that supposedly lobotomized the ideals of our country."
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with you on most of your criticisms of the FBI.
But coverup of TWA 800? Please elaborate...
Re: (Score:1)
> Trump is really a Democrat, not a Republican or Conservative. The idea that Trump is some sort of right wing conservative Republican is quite laughable.
That's silly. Of course grab-em-by-the-pussy is a traditional family-values conservative. That's why he donated to the Clinton campaign, and she was in he front row at his wedding.
That's why he says "We're losing badly the war on drugs. You have to legalize drugs to win that war. You have to take the profit away from these drug czars." Because he's
Re: (Score:2)
Rump is an opportunist, he doesn't give a flying fuck for any political party or for that matter any group but Trump Inc.
If you want this to stop (Score:2)
And if instead you keep voting for those politicians for some reason or another, well, you didn't really want this to stop, did you?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Where did I say "black"? I said "PoC". And yes, all that does make PoC safer. Not all PoC are criminals who are stopped and frisked, even though you suburban white guys think they are. PoC are the ones hurt most by crime. But you are a white guy and would not understand. Stay in your suburban bubble and go protest on weekends for fun.
Until you actually accept the fact that PoC can be and are criminals too, your obvious bias will make you come across as a racist idiot, every fucking time.
Enough of trying to be a representative for the Perpetual Victims Alliance. You're too stupid to be one with that idiotic "black" comment anyway, trying to segregate them from other People of Color. The FUCK is wrong with you, racist?
Re: (Score:2)
So only criminals are stopped and frisked? It happens to a lot of people who've never even had a traffic ticket, just because they catch the cop's eye for some reason.
If the courts worked that way for everyone. (Score:2)
Rules and Regulations are for the peasants (Score:2)
... and then (Score:2)
Missing from TFS:
> ... and then the judge's children were released from the cage and returned to him.
Court to FBI: (Score:1)
Don't be too hard on them there, "judge". (Score:2)
The FBI *totally* pinkie swears they'll get better and won't do it again. At least until the next audit catches them.
Judge: "Good enough for me, the program is reauthorized."
Meanwhile no one that matters even stops to wonder why the NSA had all that American citizen data to begin with.
We're complaining about the kid that tried to reach for the firearm and ignoring the one who left it out and accessible to begin with.