8 ms·

Section 215, known as the "business records" portion of The PATRIOT Act allows "FBI agents to obtain any "tangible thing," including "books, records, papers, do

Section 215, known as the "business records" portion of The PATRIOT Act allows "FBI agents to obtain any "tangible thing," including "books, records, papers, documents, and other items," a broad term that includes dumps from private-sector computer databases, with limited judicial oversight."[1] That Section 215 exits is public record. However, the government has a "secret interpretation" of the law that allows itself many more powers than what is written in the publicly accessible version. Only congressmen on the Senate Intelligence committee were briefed on the secret interpretation. With the exceptions of Mark Udall and Ron Wyden, who tried warn the American public without revealing anything classified (in 2011), the rest of the congressmen on the committee did not have a problem with what the NSA was doing. Many of the congressmen on the SIC are ex-military or receive large campaign contributions from defense contractors and/or the intelligence community. [1]: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20067005-281.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20067005-281.html

brown9-2 13y ago
It would appear that the FISA court agrees with that interpretation as well, correct?
- LowKarmaAccount 13y ago
  The court's opinion is classified. The DOJ is trying to block a FOIA suit filed by the EFF to release the opinion. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says-secret-court-opinion-law-underlying-prism-program-needs-stay https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says-secret...
  - weland 13y ago
    Court opinions can be classified? What in the actual fuck?
    - maratd 13y ago
      https://supporters.eff.org/donate https://supporters.eff.org/donate Just donated.
    - JanezStupar 13y ago
      In ex Yugoslavia we had secret laws, published by secret official journal and enforced by secret courts. So you could easily get persecuted for breaking the law that you were prohibited to know it even existed. The same was going on in east Germany and other socialist countries. I warmly recommend watching The Lives of Others (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405094/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405094/) to those who haven't seen it yet.
      - weland 13y ago
        My surprise was directed at the fact that people have this in a system advertised as democratic. I am quite well-acquainted with cases like those you quote.
        dllthomas 13y ago
        "Advertised as democratic" won't get you very far in predicting how democratic a country is.
        bbotond 13y ago
        The Soviet Union was advertised as democratic. Nazi Germany was advertised as democratic. Communist China was/is advertised as democratic.
        discodave 13y ago
        My old debating coaches saying was that any country with 'democratic' or 'peoples' in it's name was most certainly not either of those things.
        weland 13y ago
        Aye, but no Chinese without political involvement and no mental problems would freely claim (and believe!) he's a free man living under a democratic regime.
      - flyinRyan 13y ago
        Amusing that the US claimed victory in the cold war and then ends up adopting all their "enemies'" worst stuff.
  - mtgx 13y ago
    "In its response filed with the FISC today, the government offers a circular argument, asserting that only the Executive Branch can de-classify the opinion, but that it is somehow prohibited by the FISC rules from doing so." It seems to me the FISA Court still has the power the make the ruling public, even if the government classified it. It wouldn't be the first time a judge overrules classified information, right? It seems to me the judges are accomplices to the government (why would they still grant the warrants, if they already found it unconstitutional?), and even if there was some kind of conflict in the law, I assume they would know this could go to the Supreme Court and it would be solved there.
    - rtkwe 13y ago
      IIRC only the Supreme Court can really decide on constitutionality other judges are just supposed to follow the laws laid out by Congress.
  - shawn-butler 13y ago
    To be honest I don't really understand the EFF's position. The FOIA explicitly applies only to executive branch government agencies. The FISA court is fully under the control of the SCOTUS. "...agency" as defined in section 551(1) of this title includes any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency..."[0]. I suppose it might be possible to go after the briefs and evidence presented by the DoJ to the FISA court with FOIA requests but anything you would get would be redacted to nothing. [0] [pdf]: http://www.justice.gov/oip/amended-foia-redlined-2010.pdf http://www.justice.gov/oip/amended-foia-redlined-2010.pdf
  - brown9-2 13y ago
    Then why did the court re-authorize the Verizon order in April 2013?

brown9-2 13y ago

It would appear that the FISA court agrees with that interpretation as well, correct?

LowKarmaAccount 13y ago
The court's opinion is classified. The DOJ is trying to block a FOIA suit filed by the EFF to release the opinion. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says-secret-court-opinion-law-underlying-prism-program-needs-stay https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says-secret...
- weland 13y ago
  Court opinions can be classified? What in the actual fuck?
  - maratd 13y ago
    https://supporters.eff.org/donate https://supporters.eff.org/donate Just donated.
  - JanezStupar 13y ago
    In ex Yugoslavia we had secret laws, published by secret official journal and enforced by secret courts. So you could easily get persecuted for breaking the law that you were prohibited to know it even existed. The same was going on in east Germany and other socialist countries. I warmly recommend watching The Lives of Others (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405094/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405094/) to those who haven't seen it yet.
    - weland 13y ago
      My surprise was directed at the fact that people have this in a system advertised as democratic. I am quite well-acquainted with cases like those you quote.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        "Advertised as democratic" won't get you very far in predicting how democratic a country is.
      - bbotond 13y ago
        The Soviet Union was advertised as democratic. Nazi Germany was advertised as democratic. Communist China was/is advertised as democratic.
        discodave 13y ago
        My old debating coaches saying was that any country with 'democratic' or 'peoples' in it's name was most certainly not either of those things.
        weland 13y ago
        Aye, but no Chinese without political involvement and no mental problems would freely claim (and believe!) he's a free man living under a democratic regime.
    - flyinRyan 13y ago
      Amusing that the US claimed victory in the cold war and then ends up adopting all their "enemies'" worst stuff.
- mtgx 13y ago
  "In its response filed with the FISC today, the government offers a circular argument, asserting that only the Executive Branch can de-classify the opinion, but that it is somehow prohibited by the FISC rules from doing so." It seems to me the FISA Court still has the power the make the ruling public, even if the government classified it. It wouldn't be the first time a judge overrules classified information, right? It seems to me the judges are accomplices to the government (why would they still grant the warrants, if they already found it unconstitutional?), and even if there was some kind of conflict in the law, I assume they would know this could go to the Supreme Court and it would be solved there.
  - rtkwe 13y ago
    IIRC only the Supreme Court can really decide on constitutionality other judges are just supposed to follow the laws laid out by Congress.
- shawn-butler 13y ago
  To be honest I don't really understand the EFF's position. The FOIA explicitly applies only to executive branch government agencies. The FISA court is fully under the control of the SCOTUS. "...agency" as defined in section 551(1) of this title includes any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency..."[0]. I suppose it might be possible to go after the briefs and evidence presented by the DoJ to the FISA court with FOIA requests but anything you would get would be redacted to nothing. [0] [pdf]: http://www.justice.gov/oip/amended-foia-redlined-2010.pdf http://www.justice.gov/oip/amended-foia-redlined-2010.pdf
- brown9-2 13y ago
  Then why did the court re-authorize the Verizon order in April 2013?