back to article US court rubber-stamps dragnet metadata surveillance (again)

A US federal court has rubber stamped approval for the NSA to carry on with its controversial dragnet collection of Americans' phone records. The decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to green-light the NSA's mass surveillance of US phone call metadata until 1 June comes a year after President Barack Obama …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    The FISA court is worthless...

    If I remember correctly, they refused one authorization request in the nearly 40 years they have been in business.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: The FISA court is worthless...

      Remarkably effective for a government service.

      1. Mark 85

        Re: The FISA court is worthless...

        Pity we don't have an cynicism icon... at least, I hope you weren't being serious.... Then again, what you said is very true.

        1. joed
          Unhappy

          Re: The FISA court is worthless...

          40 years in business. Looks like they've improved on all aspects of Soviet justice system and our Congress is fully complacent in helping them implement uncle Joseph's ideas. At this point the farce of American democracy is truly pathetic. Members of all branches of our great government keep bickering about trivial stuff while this gets voted in by a landslide (and how else when NSA has them all in check, I would not be surprised if a blackmail folder was ready for everyone).

          I'm not sure who to call terrorists but seems like they have won.

      2. dan1980

        Re: The FISA court is worthless...

        "Remarkably effective for a government service."

        Most government services and departments are effective. They only seem otherwise to us because we have somewhat naive notions about their purposes and functions.

        The purpose of the FISC, for example, is to provide a veneer of legitimacy on which can by hung technically accurate statements, while acting as a nearly-automatic rubber stamp and at the same time obscuring as much as possible from any level of real oversight.

        Most would argue they have been rather successful at this. Not hard when you have the protection of secrecy and of the office of the President* who will rush it to scream "National Security!!!" any time anyone want to have a look at what's happening.

        * - Despite this one promising not to be so quick to use "National Security" as an excuse to hide details, he does it just as much - if not more - than Bush did.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: The FISA court is worthless...

          But even then you would expect it to reject 20% for being on the wrong form, send back 30% for queries, lose 40% in the system and then launch an internal inquiry into what happened to the other 10%.

          Remember it's only DMV grade incompetence that protects us from government

    2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Marketing Slack Re: The FISA court is worthless...

      "If I remember correctly, they refused one authorization request in the nearly 40 years they have been in business." Trust Marketing to get the numbers wrong as usual. Even far-left rags like Mother Jones grudgingly admit at least eleven requests were outright denied (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/fisa-court-nsa-spying-opinion-reject-request). And the reason they did not reject more is because the requests came with good legal qualification that met the warrant requirements. You seem to have glossed over the bit about the FISC being made up of qualified judges and using laws, not whimsy.

      1. Bernard M. Orwell

        Re: Marketing Slack The FISA court is worthless...

        MB is quite right, they did indeed refuse a massive 11 cases....out of tens of thousands. Trust him to obscure the numbers in favour of his BS argument. Here's some facts:

        "It is also rare for FISA warrant requests to be turned down by the court. During the 25 years from 1979 to 2004, 18,742 warrants were granted, while just four were rejected. Fewer than 200 requests had to be modified before being accepted, almost all of them in 2003 and 2004. The four rejected requests were all from 2003, and all four were partially granted after being submitted for reconsideration by the government. Of the requests that had to be modified, few if any were before the year 2000. During the next eight years, from 2004 to 2012, there were over 15,100 additional warrants granted, with an additional seven being rejected. In all, over the entire 33-year period, the FISA court has granted 33,942 warrants, with only 11 denials – a rejection rate of 0.03 percent of the total requests" ~ (Wikipedia, FISC)

        A rejection rate of a HUGE 0.03%. Woiw. That's clearly functional then.

        Furthermore, whilst the FISC/FISA is indeed made up from qualified judges, the membership of FISC is at the very least questionable:

        "In a July 2013 interview, Senator and privacy advocate Ron Wyden described the FISC warrant process as "the most one-sided legal process in the United States". "I don't know of any other legal system or court that really doesn't highlight anything except one point of view", he said. Later in the interview he said Congress should seek to "diversify some of the thinking on the court".[25]

        Elizabeth Gotein, a co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, has criticized the court as being too compromised to be an impartial tribunal that oversees the work of the NSA and other U.S. intelligence activities. Since the court meets in secret, hears only the arguments of the government prior to deciding a case, and its rulings cannot be appealed or even reviewed by the public, she has argued that: "Like any other group that meets in secret behind closed doors with only one constituency appearing before them, they're subject to capture and bias."[26]

        A related bias of the court results from what critics such as Julian Sanchez, a scholar at the Cato Institute, have described as the near certainty of the polarization or group think of the judges of the court. Since all of the judges are appointed by the same person (the Chief Justice of the United States), nearly all currently serving judges are of the same political party (the Republican Party), hear no opposing testimony and feel no pressure from colleagues or the public to moderate their rulings, group polarization is almost a certainty. "There's the real possibility that these judges become more extreme over time, even when they had only a mild bias to begin with", Sanchez said.[26]"

        Yeah, ol' MB left out some inconvienient facts. As per usual.

        1. Bernard M. Orwell

          Re: Marketing Slack The FISA court is worthless...

          One more thing about FISA/FISC before we get carried away: Over the course of its life, FISC has presided over only around 34,000 cases (over around 30 years - thats not many per year). *If* all surveillance requests are passed through FISC, regardless of their authority and form, we can hardly call that blanket surveillance of the entire population, can we?

          Are all instances of surveillance considered and approved by FISC?

      2. Looper
        FAIL

        Re: Marketing Slack The FISA court is worthless...

        @Made Biased: "You seem to have glossed over the bit about the FISC being made up of qualified judges and using laws, not whimsy."

        Are you seriously putting that forward as an argument for the "legitimacy" of this kangaroo court?

  2. NoneSuch Silver badge
    Holmes

    Quel suprise.

    If you expected any differently, then you are a glass if half-full person.

    1. Oninoshiko

      Re: Quel suprise.

      You, my good sir, have a perchance for understatement.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "I'm gonna stop Guantanamo, I'm gonna stop spying, I'm gonna stop.." yeah, yeah Obama, zip it up you gobshite. Worse government for whistleblowers, privacy or security than all the rest put together...

    1. Graham Marsden
      Facepalm

      Y'know, I could have sworn that I've heard Merkins objecting to the Executive Branch trying to meddle in the affairs of the Judiciary, yet now you seem to be saying that you *want* them to do that...

      1. Eddy Ito

        Who are we kidding, FDR put the Judiciary squarely in his back pocket in 1937 and even though his legislative attempt at court packing failed he was still able to pack the court through his extended tenure as CIC. Nothing of substance has changed since then.

        1. Keven E.

          Nothing?

          "Nothing of substance has changed since then."

          Yeahbut... back then Democrats were considered conservatives and Republicans were liberals.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    'We'll definitely stop soon,'

    Just enough room for a wafer-thin mint, perhaps?

    1. earl grey
      Thumb Up

      Re: 'We'll definitely stop soon,'

      Don't you do it, Porgy. Then she'll want to see yours!

  5. Tom 35

    "given the importance of maintaining the capabilities of the telephony metadata programme"

    So we will stop as soon as we come up with another way to getting the same data?

  6. elDog

    They (the secretive agencies whose names we are not allowed to whisper) are already several miles ahead in the race to circumvent the so-called FISA court (which was always nothing more than a PR stunt in the first place.)

    I don't care what is revealed officially or through our wonderful whistle-blowers (KUDOs to you all!!!), the mammoth industry and its tentacles into governments will not go away. Maybe armeggedon (sp), maybe the 14th coming of X. No, lust for power and influence and money and black limousines is baked into their soles.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      "lust for power and influence and money and black limousines is baked into their soles."

      Yeah, you better watch your step!!

      1. Swarthy

        "lust for power and influence and money and black limousines is baked into their soles."

        There's definitely something fishy going on...

  7. Mark 85

    I guess I'm just surprised, not by this action, but by the fact our government hasn't nationalized the telcos, the ISP's, and Google (maybe FB should be on the list) as they have everything our government needs to know to keep us safe...

    1. WonkoTheSane
      Big Brother

      What makes you think they haven't?

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    You best hope they don't really stop any time soon

    ...or many more people will die.

    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Re: You best hope they don't really stop any time soon

      Proof, ot GTFO, you fearmongering fuckpopsicle.

      1. Alister

        Re: You best hope they don't really stop any time soon

        Proof, or GTFO, you fearmongering fuckpopsicle.

        I always enjoy Trevor's posts, full of gentle understated humour and written in the most elegant and erudite language...

        In full agreement with you, btw. Just wanted to make a silly comment...

        Oh, and +1 for fuckpopsicle, definitely worthy of inclusion in my vocabulary

        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          Re: You best hope they don't really stop any time soon

          If the fellow in question honestly believes the tripe he's peddling, do you really think his vocabulary or vocal comprehension are in an upper percentile?

          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: Potty Re: You best hope they don't really stop any time soon

            "If the fellow in question honestly believes the tripe he's peddling, do you really think his vocabulary or vocal comprehension are in an upper percentile?" Seriously, Potty, you're starting to make the Canadian educational system look non-existant. First you and the rest of the ovine crowd insist the spooks are "watching ALL OF US", building some despicable database on "EVERYONE", then the next moment you're also insisting the same system is inefficient! Either it's "despicable" but also working or it's no threat at all and you and the rest of the paranoid delusional herd can just give it a rest and get over yourselves.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: You best hope they don't really stop any time soon

      Let's say that was true, and dropping this program means more people will die. So fucking what?!

      If you think minimizing the number of deaths is the goal of society, why don't we have a 10 mph speed limit on all roads? There's no way terrorists will kill multiple tens of thousands of people a year like car accidents do in the US alone so how can you with a straight face recommend letting the NSA spy on innocent people in the name of saving lives while allowing other needless deaths to continue?

      While you're at it, let's add some safety measures like mandating anti slip treatments in every bathtub, as well as ban dangerous activities like skydiving, skiing, boating, smoking and drinking alcohol. Women should probably also wear a lot more clothing, to prevent unnecessary deaths from skin cancer.

      With such a major change in American society we might want to change our flag to symbolize this milestone. I'm thinking something that's mostly black...

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like