FISA Court Finds "Serious Fourth Amendment Issue"

[Hayabusa Rider]

Got a link for that??

Site sucks but the premise is correct. Parallel construction allows the use of information which is not legally permitted to be used in court. So instead of doing so the information is shared and a connect the dots trivial investigation ensues.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/12/former-top-nsa-official-now-police-state.html

Source you might like better.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rds-to-the-dea-and-the-dea-is-covering-it-up/

 

[Moonbeam]

This will not be covered, or will be covered very little, simply because it is an ongoing issue crossing party lines over the span of decades. Being silent can be the same as being complicit.

Governmental bureaucracies are defined and created to serve its citizens, but always end serving themselves in a hopeful un-ending perpetuity, dedicated to one thing and one thing only: Their survival.

It is simply the nature of the beast.

Good Grief! Where did you come from?

Personally I prefer an endless perpetuity over an un-ending one for those who have a problem visualizing what perpetuity means, but, that aside, this post and the previous one welcoming PC to the internet strike me, in the insight department, as uncommonly rare.

My personal reaction, as one who seems never to get with the program, is to chafe at the fact this the nature of the beast. I want to change that nature because I think it doesn't represent real morality but the influence of selfish ego. I see it as a fact of a particular aspect of nature, the nature of how people are rather than what they can become.

Would you say, then, that the very fact that you see what you see implies a certain emotional separation from what you describe, a more developed sense or awareness of the ills of the ego? I do.

 

[baydude]

MSM doesn't report this because it doesn't support their biased agenda.

 

[Bowfinger]

In Obama's "Widespread" Illegal Searches Of American Citizens

I wonder why this hasn't been reported in the main street media. ...

They did, though they focused on the effect of the ruling -- the NSA cutting back "upstream" collection -- and did not use such a misleading, trollish headline. The New York Times reported it at least twice, most recently two weeks ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/nsa-surveillance-trump.html

[ ... ]
For technical reasons, upstream collection is more likely to also capture some purely domestic emails than the program’s “downstream,” or “Prism,” system, which collects the contents of targeted foreigners’ accounts from providers like Gmail. As a result, the court had imposed a rule that analysts could not search for Americans’ information in the upstream repository.

But the study showed that when analysts searched for Americans’ information, they often failed to take steps to prevent the upstream repository from being queried, too — including 85 percent of a particular type of such searches. Judge Collyer called that “a very serious Fourth Amendment issue” and criticized the N.S.A. for institutional “lack of candor” because it had not disclosed the problem earlier. ...

The Washington Post also reported this story, though without Collyer's quote from the ruling. That's because when the Post wrote its story a month ago, this ruling had not yet been declassified: https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...3fc6ff7faee_story.html?utm_term=.e1db1e8d81b7

So far as I can find, the Post has not written a follow-up story with these additional details since the ruling was declassified.

 

[Bowfinger]

MSM doesn't report this because it doesn't support their biased agenda.

Yawn. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? See my post above.

 

[Thebobo]

Zerohedge is the Infowars version of a financial website, Zerocredibility.

 

[hal2kilo]

They don't make decisions randomly. The questions we don't have enough information to answer are 1) how much evidence was the government showing and 2) what was the quality of the evidence to justify probable cause for a warrant? Perhaps they really only did bring cases where they had solid evidence to avoid getting slapped down.

On a related note, anyone have statistics for the rate of rejection for warrants outside the FISA court?

That's way to much of a logical explanation, so no, it has Obama stains on it. Nuf said.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If I have time today, I'll look at the actual court report. Unfortunately, this thread is already tainted by the original words attempting to paint a specific narrative for political purposes. It's too bad that Americans care more about how the information they consume fits into their sense of self than the content of the information itself.

I need to do so as well although it may be a day or two. My opinion is that unintentional exposure of domestic communications is bound to happen but there are protocols that must be strictly followed. If they are insufficient then reform must be had. I do not like the principle of parallel construction because it defies our legitimate rights and the primary (supposed) intent on monitoring internal communications for purposes of legitimate national security such as terrorists. Another thing which concerns me is that much depends on those who operate the machinery. Will they follow their stated mandate or go just a little bit over today, then a little bit more tomorrow... Such actions define the slippery slope.

 

[werepossum]

Read through the findings of the court.

It doesn't matter about the article. That isn't the subject.

None of you are disturbed by the blatant 4th amendment violations by the NSA?

I'm disturbed, but except for targeting the Republican nominee's team I doubt this is any different from under any other President. I find the targeting of the Republican nominee's team highly disturbing, but I still find it difficult to accept that this came down from Obama. I just can't see why he would risk his legacy to politically move against Trump when (A) he's not particularly close to Hillary anyway and (B) absolutely nobody thought Trump had any real chance of winning.

 

[Grooveriding]

Does this article's author seriously call himself Tyler Durden with a picture of Brad Pitt to go along with it ?

 

[brycejones]

I'm disturbed, but except for targeting the Republican nominee's team I doubt this is any different from under any other President. I find the targeting of the Republican nominee's team highly disturbing, but I still find it difficult to accept that this came down from Obama. I just can't see why he would risk his legacy to politically move against Trump when (A) he's not particularly close to Hillary anyway and (B) absolutely nobody thought Trump had any real chance of winning.

You should have stopped after the first two words. The rest of your post makes you disturbed and delusional.

 

[FIVR]

the real elite retard has a good point, this is all just normal stuff! Why all the hysterics? You guys some kind of neurotic fem-bots or something, can't handle a little unrest in your government?

 

[dank69]

I'm disturbed, but except for targeting the Republican nominee's team I doubt this is any different from under any other President. I find the targeting of the Republican nominee's team highly disturbing, but I still find it difficult to accept that this came down from Obama. I just can't see why he would risk his legacy to politically move against Trump when (A) he's not particularly close to Hillary anyway and (B) absolutely nobody thought Trump had any real chance of winning.

Don't forget (C) explicitly prevented Comey from publicly announcing possible Trump-Russia ties because he didn't want to influence the election.

 

[nickqt]

In Obama's "Widespread" Illegal Searches Of American Citizens

I wonder why this hasn't been reported in the main street media. Must be fake news.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...endment-issue-obamas-widespread-illegal-searc

A newly released court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) found that the National Security Agency, under former President Obama, routinely violated American privacy protections while scouring through overseas intercepts and failed to disclose the extent of the problems until the final days before Donald Trump was elected president last fall. In describing the violations, the FISA court said the illegal searches conducted by the NSA under Obama were "widespread" and created a "very serious Fourth Amendment issue."

These new discoveries come from a recently unsealed FISA court document dated April 26, 2017 and center around a hearing dated October 26, 2017, just days before the 2016 election, in which the FISA court apparently learned for the first time of "widespread" and illegal spying on American citizens by the NSA under the Obama administration.

"The October 26, 2016 Notice disclosed that an NSA Inspector General (IG) review...indicated that, with greater frequency than previously disclosed to the Court, NSA analysts had used U.S.-person identifiers to query the result of Internet "upstream" collection, even though NSA's section 702 minimization procedures prohibited such queries...this disclosure gave the Court substantial concern."

The full FISA Court opinion can be read here:

https://www.scribd.com/document/349261099/2016-Cert-FISC-Memo-Opin-Order-Apr-2017-4#from_embed

Rabble rabble rabble B̶u̶s̶h̶ ̶i̶s̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶P̶r̶e̶s̶i̶d̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ Obama isn't President anymore rabble rabble rabble.

 

[hal2kilo]

Using my best Chris Farley imitation:

"Remember when Republicans could care less about the Fourth Amendment and hated Russia.

 

[zinfamous]

I'm actually curious if there is something real here, but there is a zerohedge link the OP, so I feel that this is all fake.

 

[zinfamous]

Does this article's author seriously call himself Tyler Durden with a picture of Brad Pitt to go along with it ?

He's anonymous. You know--for when anonymous sources are totally acceptable.

 

[woolfe9998]

They don't make decisions randomly. The questions we don't have enough information to answer are 1) how much evidence was the government showing and 2) what was the quality of the evidence to justify probable cause for a warrant? Perhaps they really only did bring cases where they had solid evidence to avoid getting slapped down.

On a related note, anyone have statistics for the rate of rejection for warrants outside the FISA court?

You're asking the right questions. Warrants in general are rarely denied because the authorities know what is required to get them, and if they do not have what they know they need, they don't file the application. It's the same reason the prosecution wins most of their cases at trial, because they only try cases they think they will win.

Anyway, this .03 statistic is extremely misleading.

https://newrepublic.com/article/115257/fisa-warrants-court-tougher-media-says

The truth is that about 30% of the time, the FISA court bounces the warrant, forcing the submitting authority to modify it, typically be narrowing its scope, then re-submit it. Even if the FISA court bounces it 5 times before finally approving it after heavy modification, it still counts as approved for purposes of the .03%.

The notion that the FISA court is a rubber stamp is completely false.

 

[cytg111]

In Obama's "Widespread" Illegal Searches Of American Citizens

I wonder why this hasn't been reported in the main street media. Must be fake news.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...endment-issue-obamas-widespread-illegal-searc

A newly released court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) found that the National Security Agency, under former President Obama, routinely violated American privacy protections while scouring through overseas intercepts and failed to disclose the extent of the problems until the final days before Donald Trump was elected president last fall. In describing the violations, the FISA court said the illegal searches conducted by the NSA under Obama were "widespread" and created a "very serious Fourth Amendment issue."

These new discoveries come from a recently unsealed FISA court document dated April 26, 2017 and center around a hearing dated October 26, 2017, just days before the 2016 election, in which the FISA court apparently learned for the first time of "widespread" and illegal spying on American citizens by the NSA under the Obama administration.

"The October 26, 2016 Notice disclosed that an NSA Inspector General (IG) review...indicated that, with greater frequency than previously disclosed to the Court, NSA analysts had used U.S.-person identifiers to query the result of Internet "upstream" collection, even though NSA's section 702 minimization procedures prohibited such queries...this disclosure gave the Court substantial concern."

The full FISA Court opinion can be read here:

https://www.scribd.com/document/349261099/2016-Cert-FISC-Memo-Opin-Order-Apr-2017-4#from_embed

I am conflicted on the subject of this kind of surveillance, on one hand I want my privacy(I really do), on the other I understand that technology and communication methods evolve. Wonder how many attacks that have been prevented with the use of this technology? Is it worth it? Is it OK for my government to have my data and insist that google/apple/facebook do not? Its not black'n white this issue. What if intelligence logged all my communication but a real person never dug through it, only an AI .. would that be acceptable? I love tech but I hate where it is taking us in terms of privacy.

 

[soundforbjt]

Fox is running with this bigly...

 

[werepossum]

Fox is running with this bigly...

Wait - I need a moment to compose my shocked face.

 

[pcgeek11]

So beta

I was tired of having conversations with biased retards.

 

[pcgeek11]

In case PCgeek or anyone else out there doesn't realize the FISA court operates independently from the White House. The President doesn't dictate to the court.

White 4A violations are a concern blaming Obama is disingenuous at best. Are you that desperate to deflect from your Orange God?? As for the media believe me if there was a direct link to Obama Fox News would have been all over it.

It was his administration.

 

[ivwshane]

I was tired of having conversations with biased retards.

So stop talking to yourself.

 

[Roflmouth]

In Obama's "Widespread" Illegal Searches Of American Citizens

I wonder why this hasn't been reported in the main street media. Must be fake news.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...endment-issue-obamas-widespread-illegal-searc

A newly released court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) found that the National Security Agency, under former President Obama, routinely violated American privacy protections while scouring through overseas intercepts and failed to disclose the extent of the problems until the final days before Donald Trump was elected president last fall. In describing the violations, the FISA court said the illegal searches conducted by the NSA under Obama were "widespread" and created a "very serious Fourth Amendment issue."

These new discoveries come from a recently unsealed FISA court document dated April 26, 2017 and center around a hearing dated October 26, 2017, just days before the 2016 election, in which the FISA court apparently learned for the first time of "widespread" and illegal spying on American citizens by the NSA under the Obama administration.

"The October 26, 2016 Notice disclosed that an NSA Inspector General (IG) review...indicated that, with greater frequency than previously disclosed to the Court, NSA analysts had used U.S.-person identifiers to query the result of Internet "upstream" collection, even though NSA's section 702 minimization procedures prohibited such queries...this disclosure gave the Court substantial concern."

The full FISA Court opinion can be read here:

https://www.scribd.com/document/349261099/2016-Cert-FISC-Memo-Opin-Order-Apr-2017-4#from_embed

You'll have to wait for Trump to do this exact same thing before the posters here realize they hate it 🙂