Hacker News Reader

Comment by mlindner | Hacker News Reader

Warrants that mandate a monitor of a specific email address are not "mass surveillance".

Warrants that are granted by no grand jury, nor a judge? are these even valid warrants at this point?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_subpoena

I'm not defending SBF. The man needs to be charged and be put behind bars for the crimes committed. I'm just stating that this article was eye opening to me.

> granted by no grand jury, nor a judge?

Pen register orders require court approval [1].

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3123

An administrative subpoena under U.S. law is a subpoena issued by a federal agency without prior judicial oversight.

I didn't say a court wasn't needed; I implied that this is a Kangaroo Court

Sorry, I’m not seeing the part of the law that allows an ALJ to permit this (which makes perfect sense - title 18 is the criminal code and crimes can not be prosecuted in administrative proceedings generally). The statute seems to contemplate only district courts and state courts, neither of which are “administrative.” Where are you seeing a reference to an ALJ being able to issue one of these, particularly in a criminal case?

[1] Federal Trade Commission (FTC) - FTC v. Innovative Marketing, Inc., the court allowed the FTC to use administrative subpoenas in a criminal case involving fraudulent business practices. The court found that the information requested by the FTC was relevant to the criminal case and that the use of administrative subpoenas was an appropriate means of obtaining that information.

[2] Department of Justice (DOJ) - In United States v. Parris, the court allowed the DOJ to use an administrative subpoena to obtain information from a bank in connection with a criminal investigation. The court found that the DOJ had the authority to issue administrative subpoenas under the Bank Secrecy Act, and that the information requested was relevant to the criminal case.

[3] Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) - In the case of SEC v. Jerry T. O'Brien, the court upheld the SEC's authority to issue administrative subpoenas in connection with a criminal investigation. The court ruled that the SEC could use administrative subpoenas to obtain information that was relevant to the criminal case.

[1] https://casetext.com/case/federal-trade-commission-v-innovat...

[2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/...

[3] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/467/735.html

These cases do not say what you think they say. Please cite to the actual parts of the decision that discuss the legality of administrative subpoenas issuing for a criminal case rather than the admissibility of information provided in response to a civil subpoena to a third party or a first party in a civil case. Recall that we are talking specifically about the use of a pen register in a criminal case brought by the DOJ, not random regulatory compliance required in highly regulated industries.

The FTC case is a civil case. The DOJ case does not even mention the word subpoena as far as I can see. The SEC case is a civil case.

He's been arrested and charged, and he had been specifically ordered to not use encrypted communications methods by the court as a matter of his bail.

It makes perfect sense that they'd be monitoring his communications to ensure he was in compliance with that order.

Mass surveillance is out of control as you say, and I am a strong proponent of reigning in warrantless wiretaps and governmental overreach. However, as many people have stated, a pen register (which requires a warrant) against a specific individual suspected of a crime where there is a MASSIVE amount of evidence suggesting that the suspect is guilty has nothing to do with mass surveillance. This is targeted, narrowly scoped surveillance of a specific suspect and is precisely what law enforcement should be doing.

EO12333 permits warrantless monitoring of people operating under a government background investigation for employment. 4 million+ people are subject to mass surveillance.

Of course, anyone can not apply to work for feds to avoid this.

And bail terms for SBF seem too lenient. Restriction on all computers and phones would seem appropriate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com