6 ms·

are there laws preventing the FBI from using NSA tools which in my head seem more advanced and all compassing? why even rely on wiretaps at this point

by chefkd 2y ago

aerostable_slug 2y ago
They are in effect accomplishing the same goal with a billion dollar satellite that picks up cell phone calls in a denied country vs. a lawful intercept request from the phone company here in the U.S. The reason NSA has to get data from NRO satellites or its own clandestine taps (or Navy submarines, or what have you) is because North Korea's telco won't honor their intercept requests. Why spend the money when you can effectively just send an email to a friendly party? When we're talking the United States, FBI can exercise their legal privileges and avoid all that technical cost.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
tootie 2y ago
The FBI is domestic law enforcement. They need admissable evidence. FISA grants warrants. NSA is operating on a different level with different objectives.
- chefkd 2y ago
  But that's what's confusing to me I come from a country where a dictator might kill a few thousand just on a whim and shut off the internet so it's confusing why the NSA which in my head is still governed by democratic principles and is not at the whim of a single psychopath can collect data on everyone but it can't be used in court? Like hypothetically if they had social graphs and cell phone records showing a US citizen was kidnapped and murdered they can't act on it or pass it to the local police? Doesn't that seem illogical?
  - tootie 2y ago
    By statue, the NSA can't actually do that. The mass unwarranted surveillance of phone conversations was a short-term program that was ultimately shut down as soon it's existence became known outside the Oval Office. Even Bush's Attorney General said he couldn't do it. The bulk collection of telephone metadata lasted for maybe 15 years but was ultimately allowed to expire due to both ethical concerns and because it didn't yield a lot of value. The NSA is primarily tasked with overseas collection. IE tapping Osama bin Laden's satellite phone. And they report up the chain to the DoD. Meaning they aren't even looking for domestic criminals and may not notice if they surveilled one. If they're doing anything beyond their legal parameters or beyond their remit, they wouldn't broadcast it or expose themselves by using it to arrest someone. I like to point to the Gestapo as a counterexample. They are the archetype for police state surveillance. And they did it in a country where most people didn't have even a rotary phone let alone the internet. The distinction between a police state and a free society is entirely up to will and not technology.
    - chefkd 2y ago
      hmm idk a part of me doesn't believe the program went away just rebranded and renamed itself esp. with things like Executive Order 13587 & the recent NSS but that could be because I come from a place that has shown me the worst of humanity maybe with enough time in the free world I'll learn to be Mr. Optimist :) but the morality/legality of something like that is cool to think about as a thought exercise :- if they're doing anything beyond their legal parameters or beyond their remit, they wouldn't broadcast it or expose themselves by using it to arrest someone even in a hypothetical scenario where the data points to a person being kidnapped from an apartment, driven across state lines, and murdered which in my head seems worse than the collection but idk the laws feel not mallable enough for the age we live in
      - tootie 2y ago
        Sure, you can assume they're doing some things off the books, bending rules, abusing authority. Surely it happens everywhere. But they couldn't easily hide a massive program or fund it without a trace for very long. If you want to take heart about something, the worst mass surveillance program was uncovered by the NY Times. They published it and suffered no consequences. The same guy who exposed that program, exposed the US involvement in sabotaging the Iranian nuclear program. They dragged him to court a few times, but he walked away without any charge sticking. So, for one, it's really, really hard to keep something like secret for very long and our press is still free enough to do something about it. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/bush-lets-us-spy-on-callers-without-courts.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/bush-lets-us-spy...

are there laws preventing the FBI from using NSA tools which in my head seem more advanced and all compassing? why even rely on wiretaps at this point

by chefkd 2y ago

are there laws preventing the FBI from using NSA tools which in my head seem more advanced and all compassing? why even rely on wiretaps at this point

aerostable_slug 2y ago

They are in effect accomplishing the same goal with a billion dollar satellite that picks up cell phone calls in a denied country vs. a lawful intercept request from the phone company here in the U.S. The reason NSA has to get data from NRO satellites or its own clandestine taps (or Navy submarines, or what have you) is because North Korea's telco won't honor their intercept requests. Why spend the money when you can effectively just send an email to a friendly party? When we're talking the United States, FBI can exercise their legal privileges and avoid all that technical cost.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

tootie 2y ago

The FBI is domestic law enforcement. They need admissable evidence. FISA grants warrants. NSA is operating on a different level with different objectives.

chefkd 2y ago
But that's what's confusing to me I come from a country where a dictator might kill a few thousand just on a whim and shut off the internet so it's confusing why the NSA which in my head is still governed by democratic principles and is not at the whim of a single psychopath can collect data on everyone but it can't be used in court? Like hypothetically if they had social graphs and cell phone records showing a US citizen was kidnapped and murdered they can't act on it or pass it to the local police? Doesn't that seem illogical?
- tootie 2y ago
  By statue, the NSA can't actually do that. The mass unwarranted surveillance of phone conversations was a short-term program that was ultimately shut down as soon it's existence became known outside the Oval Office. Even Bush's Attorney General said he couldn't do it. The bulk collection of telephone metadata lasted for maybe 15 years but was ultimately allowed to expire due to both ethical concerns and because it didn't yield a lot of value. The NSA is primarily tasked with overseas collection. IE tapping Osama bin Laden's satellite phone. And they report up the chain to the DoD. Meaning they aren't even looking for domestic criminals and may not notice if they surveilled one. If they're doing anything beyond their legal parameters or beyond their remit, they wouldn't broadcast it or expose themselves by using it to arrest someone. I like to point to the Gestapo as a counterexample. They are the archetype for police state surveillance. And they did it in a country where most people didn't have even a rotary phone let alone the internet. The distinction between a police state and a free society is entirely up to will and not technology.
  - chefkd 2y ago
    hmm idk a part of me doesn't believe the program went away just rebranded and renamed itself esp. with things like Executive Order 13587 & the recent NSS but that could be because I come from a place that has shown me the worst of humanity maybe with enough time in the free world I'll learn to be Mr. Optimist :) but the morality/legality of something like that is cool to think about as a thought exercise :- if they're doing anything beyond their legal parameters or beyond their remit, they wouldn't broadcast it or expose themselves by using it to arrest someone even in a hypothetical scenario where the data points to a person being kidnapped from an apartment, driven across state lines, and murdered which in my head seems worse than the collection but idk the laws feel not mallable enough for the age we live in
    - tootie 2y ago
      Sure, you can assume they're doing some things off the books, bending rules, abusing authority. Surely it happens everywhere. But they couldn't easily hide a massive program or fund it without a trace for very long. If you want to take heart about something, the worst mass surveillance program was uncovered by the NY Times. They published it and suffered no consequences. The same guy who exposed that program, exposed the US involvement in sabotaging the Iranian nuclear program. They dragged him to court a few times, but he walked away without any charge sticking. So, for one, it's really, really hard to keep something like secret for very long and our press is still free enough to do something about it. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/bush-lets-us-spy-on-callers-without-courts.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/bush-lets-us-spy...