Hacker News Reader

Comment by kitotik | Hacker News Reader

As it is right now, it would allow access to the internet search and browser history of anyone in the world, without probable cause or a warrant.

But to be clear, this is just a reduction in friction of the previous process which was to just call a judge of a secret FISA court which no one is really allowed to know the details of.

So this is likely just a move to reduce some red tape, and increase data ingress.

View on HN

The secret court has reviewed your criticisms, in secret, and finds them to be completely unwarranted.

Would have been more accurate to say:

The secret court has reviewed your criticisms, in secret, and finds them to be [redacted]. Govern yourself accordingly.

Slightly more accurate:

The secret court has [redacted].

More realistically:

This week on Fox News, [...].

> the previous process which was to just call a judge of a secret FISA court which no one is really allowed to know the details of.

This is simplifying the process to imply it’s nothing more than just a phone call away. I do not think any court works like that. They still have to argue their case before a judge of the court which also allows third parties to submit material in the case.

Simply saying “no one” is suppose to know about these courts is portraying this process as something unconstitutional and nothing more than a secret society of government friends. If by no one you actually mean the public, then you have a point. There’s national security concerns around these type of things that you’re ignorantly ignoring.

You act as if this court has no existed for over 40 years and under multiple administrations from both side of the aisles.

I think it’s fairly well understood that it’s more or less a rubber stamp process[0]

I’d wager a phone call or email is likely all that was needed in many cases.

By “no one” I mean some sort of counter-balancing entity.

I’m not sure why you think I’m acting like this didn’t exist under multiple administrations. I’m aware of that, and not OK with any of it.

I was not OK with original passing of the patriot act, or the continued renewal by both parties.

Look elsewhere for partisanship, I’m an equal opportunity dissenter.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig...

Third parties being able to submit amicus curiaes seem like a counter-balancing entity—dependent on which way they argue.

The Lee-Leahy amendment passed the Senate. Not sure how someone can say there is no counter-balancing entity with regard to FISA courts.

From Senator Mike Lee's webpage[0]:

The Lee-Leahy amendment will strengthen third-party oversight of the FISA process. Specifically, it requires FISA court judges to appoint an amicus curae (a neutral third-party observer) in any case involving a “sensitive investigative matter” so long as the FISA court does not determine it to be inappropriate.

The amendment will also empower the amicus to raise any issue with the court at any time and give both the amicus and the FISA court access to all documents and information related to the surveillance application.

0: https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/5/senate-pa...

It is just a phone call away. Sometimes not even a phone call. In some cases the AG can authorize surveillance and merely notify a judge and file the warrant application later (within 10 days IIRC).

Even calling it a rubber stamp is an exceedingly generous definition of probable cause.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com