| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another Scandal? Report Claims State Dept. Top Management May Have Covered-Up Staffers’ Prostitution, Drug ActivityHookers and blow!
This reminds me. I need to write HD!
Ditto. I miss that guy!
Health Canada blocks dying patients from access to drug
Specialist 'appalled and angry' with federal agency
FISA Court Surveillance Rejections Extremely Rare
But the FISC has declined just 11 of the more than 33,900 surveillance requests made by the government in 33 years, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday. That's a rate of .03 percent, which raises questions about just how much judicial oversight is actually being provided.
FISA Court Surveillance Rejections Extremely Rare
But the FISC has declined just 11 of the more than 33,900 surveillance requests made by the government in 33 years, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday. That's a rate of .03 percent, which raises questions about just how much judicial oversight is actually being provided.
I've heard this before and I remain Nonplussed (hope I'm using that word right). How many should they have refused?
You know, I always thought "nonplussed" meant you felt "meh," but I guess it means to be in "a state of bafflement or perplexity."
Quick Google search reveals: Nothing.
I've heard this before and I remain Nonplussed (hope I'm using that word right). How many should they have refused?FISA Court Surveillance Rejections Extremely Rare
But the FISC has declined just 11 of the more than 33,900 surveillance requests made by the government in 33 years, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday. That's a rate of .03 percent, which raises questions about just how much judicial oversight is actually being provided.
It's hard to say. In theory, it could be that the mere existence of FISC restrains the requests made. To some extent, it probably does. Just having to fill out a form and explain your justification probably stops some.
OTOH, it's also possible that it's a mere rubber stamp court and almost everything is approved with no real consideration. Which given the rejection rate seems pretty likely?
What's the rejection rate for regular criminal search warrants?
I haven't found the data you're looking for, and I'm curious myself, but it seems that even the .03 of one percent may have been issued after being modified.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that at least one whole percent of warrants are rejected, or maybe the bar is even lower than my cynical old ass thought.
If it is indeed worse than I think, are you willing to entertain the idea that the government might be doing something wrong? ;)
I've heard this before and I remain Nonplussed (hope I'm using that word right). How many should they have refused?FISA Court Surveillance Rejections Extremely Rare
But the FISC has declined just 11 of the more than 33,900 surveillance requests made by the government in 33 years, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday. That's a rate of .03 percent, which raises questions about just how much judicial oversight is actually being provided.
It's hard to say. In theory, it could be that the mere existence of FISC restrains the requests made. To some extent, it probably does. Just having to fill out a form and explain your justification probably stops some.
OTOH, it's also possible that it's a mere rubber stamp court and almost everything is approved with no real consideration. Which given the rejection rate seems pretty likely?
What's the rejection rate for regular criminal search warrants?I haven't found the data you're looking for, and I'm curious myself, but it seems that even the .03 of one percent may have been issued after being modified.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that at least one whole percent of warrants are rejected, or maybe the bar is even lower than my cynical old ass thought.
If it is indeed worse than I think, are you willing to entertain the idea that the government might be doing something wrong? ;)
there is a case to be made here for cynical thought.
To be fair, I get the impression that Comrade Jeff has entertained many thoughts that the government is doing something wrong.
I've heard this before and I remain Nonplussed (hope I'm using that word right). How many should they have refused?FISA Court Surveillance Rejections Extremely Rare
But the FISC has declined just 11 of the more than 33,900 surveillance requests made by the government in 33 years, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday. That's a rate of .03 percent, which raises questions about just how much judicial oversight is actually being provided.
It's hard to say. In theory, it could be that the mere existence of FISC restrains the requests made. To some extent, it probably does. Just having to fill out a form and explain your justification probably stops some.
OTOH, it's also possible that it's a mere rubber stamp court and almost everything is approved with no real consideration. Which given the rejection rate seems pretty likely?
What's the rejection rate for regular criminal search warrants?I haven't found the data you're looking for, and I'm curious myself, but it seems that even the .03 of one percent may have been issued after being modified.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that at least one whole percent of warrants are rejected, or maybe the bar is even lower than my cynical old ass thought.
If it is indeed worse than I think, are you willing to entertain the idea that the government might be doing something wrong? ;)
An NPR story this morning said that while almost all FISA warrant requests are granted, the vast majority are modified before that happens. That would make it less of a rubber-stamp than it first appears. The court isn't rejecting the government's requests, but it is limiting them.
Of course, since it's all being done secretly, it's impossible to know whether the limitations are significant or not. Or whether the requests are at all justified.
I don't think that is the case. I believe the number of rejected and modified warrants was obtained through a FOIA request, but I've got no source right now.
To be fair, I get the impression that Comrade Jeff has entertained many thoughts that the government is doing something wrong.
Maybe I missed that.
I think I read it in the WSJ, but I can't get around their "subscribe here" wall.
(My Dad gets the dead tree version daily.)
EPIC: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
I'm not finding the specific numbers, but there seems to be very little push back.
They scolded the Bush administration once.
Domestic Surveillance Court Approved All 1,506 Warrant Applications in 2010
"“The FISC did not deny any applications in whole, or in part,” according to the April 19 report to Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada)." (2010)
I know I saw this these numbers somewhere.
Domestic Surveillance Court Approved All 1,506 Warrant Applications in 2010
"“The FISC did not deny any applications in whole, or in part,” according to the April 19 report to Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada)." (2010)
I know I saw this these numbers somewhere.
I think there's a distinction between "denied in part" and "modified", probably a procedural one.
From a story about the increased use of Section 215
I'm not sure if the 1,506 applications in the story you link include those under this section or are in addition. Or if they're all handled by the court the same way.In 2010, the number of requests jumped to 205 (all again granted, with 176 modified.) In the latest report filed on April 30, the department reported there had been 212 such requests in 2012 - all approved by the court, but 200 of them modified.
(The reports do not explain how or why the orders were modified.)
also (again) how many of these are they supposed to deny?
Domestic Surveillance Court Approved All 1,506 Warrant Applications in 2010
"“The FISC did not deny any applications in whole, or in part,” according to the April 19 report to Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada)." (2010)
I know I saw this these numbers somewhere.
I think there's a distinction between "denied in part" and "modified", probably a procedural one.
From a story about the increased use of Section 215
I'm not sure if the 1,506 applications in the story you link include those under this section or are in addition. Or if they're all handled by the court the same way.In 2010, the number of requests jumped to 205 (all again granted, with 176 modified.) In the latest report filed on April 30, the department reported there had been 212 such requests in 2012 - all approved by the court, but 200 of them modified.
(The reports do not explain how or why the orders were modified.)
I don't believe national security letters have any judicial review, so that is in addition to the warrants IIRC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
also (again) how many of these are they supposed to deny?Domestic Surveillance Court Approved All 1,506 Warrant Applications in 2010
"“The FISC did not deny any applications in whole, or in part,” according to the April 19 report to Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada)." (2010)
I know I saw this these numbers somewhere.
I think there's a distinction between "denied in part" and "modified", probably a procedural one.
From a story about the increased use of Section 215
I'm not sure if the 1,506 applications in the story you link include those under this section or are in addition. Or if they're all handled by the court the same way.In 2010, the number of requests jumped to 205 (all again granted, with 176 modified.) In the latest report filed on April 30, the department reported there had been 212 such requests in 2012 - all approved by the court, but 200 of them modified.
(The reports do not explain how or why the orders were modified.)
I'm not saying that there is a magic number. I would suggest that a %99.97 approval rate for the few things that actually require judicial review sounds like a rubber stamp to me.
I don't think a rubber stamp is much protection against abuse. I also think that virtually no oversight from congress, rubber stamp judicial review, and almost total secrecy from the press and public is a recipe for abuse.
OK. Nice. Thanks for that.
So for 2012:
for authority to conduct electronic surveillance and/or physical searches:
1856 applications, 1789 for electronic surveillance, 1 withdrawn, 40 modifiedfor access to certain business records (including the production of tangible things):
212 applications, 200 modified.National Security Letter requests
15,229 on 6,223 different people. No information on denials or modifications.Near as I can tell, the Verizon and other phone records requests falls under Section 215, the "access to certain business records" portion of the law. I'm not as clear on the PRISM part, but I think it does as well.
That was the section where requests were most heavily modified, essentially in negotiation with the court.
I don't believe FISC review is required for PRISM activities until it involves US citizens oversea or activity in the the US. I believe the billions of electronic records are collected under 215 without judicial review in a separate program.
One of the ways the Bush justice dept abused these powers was to use the expanded intel powers against regular criminals. IIRC this was the only time the FISA appeal court was used.
EDIT: I also believe PRISM data mining references the data obtained from the 215 side of the operation, but I'm not sure that was explicitly leaked.
also (again) how many of these are they supposed to deny?Domestic Surveillance Court Approved All 1,506 Warrant Applications in 2010
"“The FISC did not deny any applications in whole, or in part,” according to the April 19 report to Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada)." (2010)
I know I saw this these numbers somewhere.
I think there's a distinction between "denied in part" and "modified", probably a procedural one.
From a story about the increased use of Section 215
I'm not sure if the 1,506 applications in the story you link include those under this section or are in addition. Or if they're all handled by the court the same way.In 2010, the number of requests jumped to 205 (all again granted, with 176 modified.) In the latest report filed on April 30, the department reported there had been 212 such requests in 2012 - all approved by the court, but 200 of them modified.
(The reports do not explain how or why the orders were modified.)I'm not saying that there is a magic number. I would suggest that a %99.97 approval rate for the few things that actually require judicial review sounds like a rubber stamp to me.
I don't think a rubber stamp is much protection against abuse. I also think that virtually no oversight from congress, rubber stamp judicial review, and almost total secrecy from the press and public is a recipe for abuse.
a fair criticism, but I viewed this through the lens of an individual needing a warrant to do their job-provided the paperwork is completed appropriately, there are few means to refuse them. I allow that I may be viewing this through the wrong lens, however.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This reminds me. I need to write HD!
Ditto. I miss that guy!
Ditto ditto.
I've been re-reading the Edward Snowden and Benghazi threads, and there are so many rude things that I can't bring myself to say (I know, I know, hard to believe) that I'm sure he wouldn't blink an eye at.
I'd be favoriting up a storm.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also reminds me that I haven't seen Comrade Knife since Citizen Betts chased him off.
I miss him, too.
that's just Damn ugly. I truly hope the city has deep pockets for the lawsuit that should be heading its way.That is what we said, but the budget is a train wreck this year, and I'm certain part of the cuts are intended to punish El Paso county. We have these fights with Denver constantly, and it gets much worse when our party is completely out of power.any reason why it was cut? The fires were bad last year, no reason to think they would not be back this year.I'm glad you're home, but I'm not glad CS is dealing with wildfires.I'll get back to catching up on the post backlog in a moment, but in the meantime I'm back home safely after my 900 mile drive today, but the Colorado Springs area is on fire again!
After the $100,000,000 plus in damage last year can we please get some f@#@ing rain!? Please before more folks are killed.
Grrrr.........
Thanks.
To make matters worse Denver cut our forestry and fire fighting budget this year. Denver also had to work some $67 million into the budget this year IIRC to pay the victims of the fire they started last year near Denver.
My state is run by ass clowns.
This has been Colorado politics for decades. If we controlled the courts, the bureaucracy, both state houses, and the governor's mansion I expect we would find ways to hurt them right back. Much of Colorado, like much of the nation, is no longer one group of citizens with different policy ideas and beliefs. Instead we are truly dividing into camps that hate, distrust, and wish real malice on the other side. It very much reminds me of watching a divorce turn ugly, and I think it's going to get much worse. It's a pity that Denver can't just go its way, and maybe take Pueblo, and let the rest of the state live in peace, but that's not how it works.
I moved this reply to government folly to avoid politics in FAWTL.
Also reminds me that I haven't seen Comrade Knife since Citizen Betts chased him off.
I miss him, too.
+1
a kind and patient soul.
that's just Damn ugly. I truly hope the city has deep pockets for the lawsuit that should be heading its way.That is what we said, but the budget is a train wreck this year, and I'm certain part of the cuts are intended to punish El Paso county. We have these fights with Denver constantly, and it gets much worse when our party is completely out of power.any reason why it was cut? The fires were bad last year, no reason to think they would not be back this year.I'm glad you're home, but I'm not glad CS is dealing with wildfires.I'll get back to catching up on the post backlog in a moment, but in the meantime I'm back home safely after my 900 mile drive today, but the Colorado Springs area is on fire again!
After the $100,000,000 plus in damage last year can we please get some f@#@ing rain!? Please before more folks are killed.
Grrrr.........
Thanks.
To make matters worse Denver cut our forestry and fire fighting budget this year. Denver also had to work some $67 million into the budget this year IIRC to pay the victims of the fire they started last year near Denver.
My state is run by ass clowns.
This has been Colorado politics for decades. If we controlled the courts, the bureaucracy, both state houses, and the governor's mansion I expect we would find ways to hurt them right back. Much of Colorado, like much of the nation, is no longer one group of citizens with different policy ideas and beliefs. Instead we are truly dividing into camps that hate, distrust, and wish real malice on the other side. It very much reminds me of watching a divorce turn ugly, and I think it's going to get much worse. It's a pity that Denver can't just go its way, and maybe take Pueblo, and let the rest of the state live in peace, but that's not how it works.
I moved this reply to government folly to avoid politics in FAWTL.
secession has been tried before and it did not work for the reasons one might expect. I would imagine exile would do the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Typical and predictable.
Thanks TC.
the comments below the article point out an interesting hole in the story. A link to a better article might be warrented.
the comments below the article point out an interesting hole in the story. A link to a better article might be warrented.Typical and predictable.
Thanks TC.
What hole? Are referring to the comment about "no evidence about Rosen being involved in a bombing"?
If it is, this is exactly the point of the article. In order to seal the warrant someone copy/pasted some excuse about bombings which have absolutely no relation to the actual case! And the judges go with it. In other words, it appears that the government might be sealing warrants in reflex, as opposed to actual need AND is doing it in this clumsy fashion because mostly no one gets to look at it anyway.
Typical and predictable.
Thanks TC.
np! =)
School iris-scanned students without telling parents
A Florida school admits that it made several mistakes when it allowed a security company to install iris scanners without telling parents -- and without even having a contract with the company.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
English politician claims he fathered child with alien
Labour politician Simon Parkes: "Regular sex with an alien is causing problems in my marriage."This isn't like the onion is it?
Having lived in TX for so long, my first thought on reading the headline was, "So he likes Latinas, so what?" Then I headdesked when I read the article and saw that he meant a space alien, not an illegal alien.
D'oh!