
US must tell defendants when spying is used to build case against them - bbrunner
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/us-must-tell-defendants-when-spying-is-used-to-build-case-against-them/
======
dmix
I'll keep repeating this on HN:

NSA is a symptom. Secret courts (and "state secret" legal defenses) are the
disease.

Limiting NSA through policy or defunding won't do anything. They'll circumvent
it and it will continue to happen in secrecy somewhere else.

The only solution to stopping mass surveillance is allowing the ability for
the state surveillance to be challenged in court. Secret panels of judges are
insufficient means to having judicial checks on state power. The only way this
can happen is if 'state secret' laws are revised and FISA courts stop issuing
warrants in secret.

~~~
dragontamer
Good job reading the article. </sarcasm>

~~~
dmix
I'm agreeing with the ACLU lawyer, this is a good first step, considering it's
never been disclosed in ~5 years:

> In the nearly five years since the FAA was enacted, the government has never
> once disclosed its reliance on material obtained through FAA surveillance to
> counsel’s knowledge.

~~~
dragontamer
I don't think you understand what is going on then.

The article is about the Justice Department (NSA is under the DoD). IE: This
is about the FBI, DEA, ATF, and Eric Holder. NSA is an entirely different
agency in a very different section of government.

~~~
dmix
FAA = "FISA Amendments Act". The FAA provides authority to the NSA for use of
PRISM and other surveillance.

How would this legal precedent not effect the NSA if they are operating under
the same policy as the other agencies you just listed? I don't see how being a
part of a different higher level agency would change that.

~~~
dragontamer
Because the NSA doesn't prosecute Americans. They don't have lawyers, they
don't bring forth evidence in front of a judge. They don't investigate
Americans either, so they cannot in fact be affected by this decision. Its
impossible to prove a negation btw, so if you wish to "disprove" my statement,
bring me a single court case where the NSA prosecuted someone during a public
trial.

It just doesn't happen.

DOJ on the other hand, controls the FBI, ATF, and other federal police forces.
It is the _job_ of a police force to bring you before a judge. This article
states that when this happens, the DoJ is now forced to tell the judge (and
the public, in the public trial) whether or not they used FISA powers.

NSA is different. Its a military agency run by a 4 star general of the army.
They are military, and as a military-run (civilian) organization, they are
subject to different rules and regulations that the DoJ follows. In
particular, they aren't supposed to be investigating Americans in the first
place.

And the people the NSA does investigate (ie: Bin Laden), they are allowed to
do in secret... by nature of being a branch of the military. Military targets
do not have rights, they don't receive warrants, they don't check with judges.
At best, they check with the FISA court to prove that their target is a legal
target of the NSA, but beyond that, they are free to do whatever they want.

Its the difference between a Police and the Military. The military cannot and
do not afford their targets any rights. (and as a result, in theory, military
run organizations are not allowed to control the US Homeland. Military powers
are supposed to be used strictly only on America's enemies).

For this particular story... what we have here is the Federal Police Force
(IE: Department of Justice) declaring that they'll follow a particular
regulation from now on. It says nothing about the NSA however.

To tie this story into the NSA indicates a misunderstanding on how the US
Federal Government works.

------
revelation
I don't understand, the first basic rule of intelligence services is you can't
use any of their information in court. It's the basic premise behind giving
them unlimited privileges.

~~~
bediger4000
Right, so the dragnet surveillance isn't good for regular, American-style,
jury of your peers type of trials.

Dragnet surveillance is only good for guilt-by-association, which really has
no place in US jurisprudence. That "voice of authority" type of guilt is un-
American, and non-rational, when we get down to it.

------
coldcode
You'd think they realized that at some point sanity and law would prevail and
secret trials and evidence had no place under the Constitution.

