6 ms·
The Door To The FISA Court Doesn't Even Have A Sign On It
- generj 13y agoI want to thank the author for the excellent sketches. If I was forbidden photography equipment, my sketches would be rectangles, which, if squinted at, might construe a door. Joking aside, it is obviously very concerning that FISA is completely unaccountable to the public. The lack of a sign is just another symptom of the abuse of secrecy.
- konklone 13y agoYou're welcome! Though Lindsay Young did the actual sketching.
- speeder 13y agoKinda off-topic: Why cameras are banned on courtrooms? I remember the last US trial news all of them had sketches like this instead of photos and videos... EDIT about the argument below about google: I always search Google first, but I found lots of random answers, and I don't have enough domain knowledge to know what one (or ones) are correct or resemble how things really are, asking here usually spark people to post very interesting information, that sometimes are obscure even, and hard to find on Google. Instead of telling people to use Google, why not wonder: If the person CAN have that information, and is asking anyway, what the person wants to know, that is not easy to find on Google?
- jemka 13y agohttp://bit.ly/14DVOEC http://bit.ly/14DVOEC EDIT: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Why+cameras+are+banned+on+courtrooms%3F&l=1 http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Why+cameras+are+banned+on+courtrooms%3F...
- sp332 13y agoA "let me Google that for you" response is rude, and using a link shortener to hide a URL is poor form. For the curious it goes to http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Why+cameras+are+banned+on+courtrooms%3F&l=1 http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Why+cameras+are+banned+on+courtrooms%3F...
- vehementi 13y agoRude... what's the word for asking basic easily googlable questions? Is it annoying? Is it spammy? Is it presumptuous (that we should spend our time answering googlable questions)?
- sp332 13y agoIf you don't want to answer it, don't answer it. Leave it to motivated people. The question wasn't just a request for raw data. It was also an expression of frustration and an invitation to debate.
- jemka 13y agoOP asked "why". OP didn't ask, "Here are the facts I've researched and understand, do you agree/disagree?" The former is lazy and relatively useless, the latter is an opportunity for enticing discussion.
- sp332 13y agoLet's say it was useless. Responding with a content-free and condescending comment did nothing to further the conversation. You're using more space on the page to say nothing and dragging down the tone of the conversation.
- jemka 13y agoIt provides OP, and others, with information as to why it was useless to help prevent future useless comments, improving the overall comment quality of Hacker News. Albeit, my method was crass.
- konklone 13y agoIt's up to the court (and maybe to the judge?). There's a pilot program that the District Court for Massachusetts is doing to allow them: http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/general/Cameras.html http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/general/Cameras.html
- stonemetal 13y agoThe standard reason given is privacy for the victim and jury, less jury poisoning if there needs to be a retrial, people can be a little more or at ease, etc. It definitely depends on the court, OJ's trial was on TV.
- 3825 13y agoI cannot imagine FISA Courts having victims or jury. I thought it was all decided by the judges. Is it not so?
- mindrag 13y agoThat's true, but all FISA proceedings are classified, so there's no way they would allow cameras.
- dragonwriter 13y agoWell, they might allow cameras -- "classified" does not mean "no records" -- but any photos or video would also be classified. They certainly wouldn't allow the media (or the public) in the courtroom, with or without cameras, or allow the media/public access to anything any cameras they did allow in captured.
- stonemetal 13y agoYes, but the rule is a part of general federal court procedure rules. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_53 http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_53
- Zikes 13y agoI would have loved to have a device to record the pre-trial banter in a state court prior to a recent case involving a family member. The prosecutor was going on at length about a recent event where they had driven to Florida for a vacation and got pulled over for speeding, but was soon let go after they told them who they were and who they worked for. I wanted very much to stand and ask what other laws did not apply to them, if they were free to ignore those pertaining to automobiles, or even if they felt they should be held responsible if they were to break the same law they were charging my family member for.
- DannyBee 13y ago"Why cameras are banned on courtrooms? I remember the last US trial news all of them had sketches like this instead of photos and videos... " In general, because the judiciary has watched what the "news media" has done to every other aspect of life, and doesn't want trials and judging to become a popularity contest. They try to strike a balance by doing things like having most court of appeals release live or near-live audio versions of arguments, allowing tweeting from court rooms, whatever. Just not the "let's put up the satellites and get nancy grace on live"
- duaneb 13y ago> Why cameras are banned on courtrooms? Privacy for the people being tried, and in many legitimate cases to protect identities. I suspect they just vetoed them rather than having to decide. Besides, the vast majority of interesting content is captured by audio recording equipment.
- ferdo 13y agoNo sign on the door indicates that they know they should be ashamed even though shame doesn't appear to be one of their guiding lights. edit: great little piece, btw. I'll pass it around.
- philwelch 13y agoBy law it's a secret court to begin with. Whether or not there's a sign on the door, it's still a secret court. Would a secret court that advertised its location be more palatable to you somehow? Because a sign on the door adds zero significance to the substance of the FISA court's existence or powers. And, given that it is a secret court, well it wouldn't be very secret if everyone knew where the courtroom was, would it?
- ferdo 13y agoSecret courts, secret trials, secret prisons, secret wars...maybe I need to learn why my ancestors left Germany.
- wwweston 13y ago> Would a secret court that advertised its location be more palatable to you somehow? For me, yes, what is secret about a secret court matters. Classified proceedings? I think there could be room for that, within reason and with some kind of oversight. A court that makes a secret of its existence? No way. That makes oversight more difficult -- one of the few who oversees it can't make a democratic issue of how it operates. A court that makes its rules and workings secret? Nope. A court that makes its location secret? Not sure if that's particularly bad if everything else is on the level, but I also don't know if it's necessary, and keeping the location secret seems like a step towards forgetting it's there and what it's doing. So I'm less comfortable with that.
- gcb0 13y agohttp://myweb.wvnet.edu/~jelkins/lawyerslit/exercises/kafka.htm http://myweb.wvnet.edu/~jelkins/lawyerslit/exercises/kafka.h...
- jasonkolb 13y agoWhen I was doing real estate investing I ran into a kangaroo "court" that the local corrupt city set up to handle property code violations. They would have a cop set up at the front and an appointed "judge" (they had some other name for him to not offend the law too mightily) who wore robes and asked everyone to stand up and sit down. The person in the robes would arbitrarily make up fines for the offenses according to their whims and moods. I know because there was a $4500 "judgement" on one of the houses I bought for having a driveway that needed to be repaired. Anyway, it turns out that this "court" is a complete fabrication that the city put up as a way to put up the appearance of being fair. But cities are corporations, they aren't allowed to establish courts like this, and it was a complete sham. That's why you have to have a real judge hear traffic cases. This is a sham traffic court too. This is not part of the judicial branch of government any more than the "property code violations court" presided over by a clown in black robes. There's a reason we have a separation of powers. A paid employee wielding a rubber stamp is not justice.
- jwoah12 13y agoI agree with your sentiment, but the Constitution gives congress the power to establish inferior courts.
- jasonkolb 13y agoThanks... I actually hadn't thought about that aspect of it (that real estate court was still not established by Congress ;) I've been reading up on that a bit since your comment, it's a pretty interesting topic because it touches on one branch's ability to influence another. It's a little troubling that a supreme court justice (Roberts, in this case) has the ability to fill this oversight court with whoever he wants. It seems that needs to be fixed.
- maxerickson 13y agoHe has to fill the court with federal judges that have been appointed by a President and approved by the Senate. That's a somewhat higher standard than whoever.
- dlinder 13y agoIs anyone collecting a list of the surreal, absurd, or kafkaesque events surrounding post-9/11 national security? This episode reminds me of the red warning light from ksm's gitmo trial that would sometimes light up and cut the gallery feeds on its own: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/01/secrecy-around-ksm-guantanamo-hearings.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/01/secrec...
- detcader 13y agoGlenn Greenwald's commentary/journalism since a few years after 9/11 is basically such a list
- tbrownaw 13y agoThe lack of a sign is not the problem. Given that hand scanner by the door, having a sign would be a bit silly -- anyone who would actually need the sign can't get in regardless. Given that (almost?) everything they do apparently involves classified information, the hand scanner makes sense. What is a problem, is not having anyone to answer the phones and not having the building receptionist know what to tell people.
- semiprivate 13y agoAnd if they put a hand scanner on 1 other door then what? Having a sign that indicates where a court is, is not silly.
- stephengillie 13y agoI wonder how hackable that hand scanner is. Is it any more secure than the hotel rooms that were cracked a year or 2 back?
- jerf 13y agoYes, there are ways of making more secure hand scanners. The article links to the exact model, if you're interested. No, it probably isn't perfect. But it's part of a larger security system; remember, whatever you're bringing to "hack" this door, you must have also slipped past a physical inspection. I don't necessarily expect total brilliance from the security guards, but I suspect they would know enough to ask you some very pointed questions if you tried to sneak in a to-scale replica of somebody's hand.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- fleitz 13y agoThe only person to be tried at this court was Citizen K.
- aspensmonster 13y ago>...the employees in the first floor District Clerk's office (gently) laughed at my attempts to find anything about the Court. They referred to it as the "Room of Requirement", and said they had no idea what floor it was even on. In a maelstrom of political chaos, it's nice to see at least a bit of humor every now and then. It seems Life Imitates Art. This pleases the Potter fan in me.
- DannyBee 13y agoNot to ruin the central point of this article, but i'd say 50% of the courts i've been in don't have obvious signs on the doors. They just tell you you are in room 302 for this or that, or whatever (this is true even in appeals courts where they aren't really shifting around courtrooms all the time. The main courtroom will just be some numbered nameless room). The only usually obvious signs are the names on judges chambers, and in a lot of cases, they aren't even in the same building!