
Re Accuracy Concerns Regarding FBI Matters Submitted to the FISC [pdf] - tomohawk
https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/MIsc%2019%2002%20191217.pdf
======
floatingatoll
One relevant paragraph from the middle of this court order directed at the
FBI:

> _The FBI 's handling of the Carter Page applications, as portrayed in the
> OIG report, was antithetical to the heightened duty of candor described
> above. The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned
> out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession,
> and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls
> into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is
> reliable. The FISC expects the government to provide complete and accurate
> information in every filing with the Court. Without it, the FISC cannot
> properly ensure that the government conducts electronic surveillance for
> foreign intelligence purposes only when there is a sufficient factual
> basis._

~~~
pkilgore
I only wish this is how we would treat every case for a warrant. But it is not
[1].

For us regular folk, this is _Franks v. Delaware_. To be “material,” a lie or
omission has to change the result. So, if the omitted information were added,
or the lie deleted, the remainder of the information has to be insufficient to
get the warrant. The problem is that the standard (usually probable cause) is
so easy to meet that it can be met even with the lie deleted, or omitted
information included. So it’s rare for even a blatant lie or deceitful
omission to be material, and thus overturn the warrant.

If, on the other hand, you lie to the government...

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks_v._Delaware](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks_v._Delaware)

------
creaghpatr
Besides this particular case, I wonder which other FISA applications were
manipulated with exaggerated or fabricated evidence? FISA court is known for
rubber-stamping applications, they approve at like a 90% rate thousands of
requests to spy on citizens.

Process changes are necessary but only criminal charges are gonna deter future
abuse. How is the court supposed to know an email or a 302 was doctored?
Process change can't fix that.

~~~
at-fates-hands
It's actually closer to 99%. I think I heard they only rejected one warrant in
the last calendar year.

Its surprising that it's taken something of this magnitude for people to
realize this the whole idea of the FISC is a very bad idea. I know the
original idea was to use against terrorist organizations and individuals who
they knew were terrorists, but the extensive use of warrantless searches
against US Citizens is a very, very dangerous thing.

~~~
vkou
> It's actually closer to 99%.

Folks often bring out this number, as if it is something to be outraged about.
What do you think is the rate at which non-secret courts approve warrants?

In Utah, the approval rate is 98%. [1]

Warrants have always been a rubber-stamp process - the main purpose of which
is to create a paper trail, and to prevent wide-reaching fishing expeditions.

[1] [https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/01/14/warrants-approved-
in-...](https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/01/14/warrants-approved-in-just-
minutes-are-utah-judges-really-reading-them-before-signing-off/)

~~~
jessaustin
A paper trail is less useful to the public when every document is classified.
There is little reason to suspect that the FISA court has prevented "wide-
reaching fishing expeditions".

~~~
vkou
All currently known evidence indicates that the FISA-stamped warrants that
were sent out to tech companies were targeted, in that they identified
_particular_ individuals that should be surveilled.

So, yes, FISA did seem to accomplish one of the two purposes of warrants. I
agree that a secret paper trail isn't particularly useful.

~~~
jessaustin
I consider an investigation to be "a fishing expedition" whenever there is no
good reason at the beginning of the investigation to suspect that the target
has committed a particular crime. Every time a FISA warrant has been
publicized, it has fit that criterion. Following Cardinal Richelieu, any
person subjected to enough surveillance may be convicted of _something_.

~~~
vkou
You may think that way, but judges don't.

If you are a gang leader, and you call someone twice a day, any judge will
absolutely sign a wiretap warrant targeted at the person you are calling.

------
hereme888
I hope someone goes to jail. How else will this deter future abuses? Americans
are tired of people in positions of real power receiving preferential
treatment.

------
newguy1234
As far as I am concerned the 4th amendment has been mostly stripped to a relic
of the past. If you want protection from search/seizure then you must educate
yourself on how to guarantee it absolutely as a matter of technology.

------
offmycloud
From the first page:

> A finding of probable cause to believe that a U.S. citizen (or other "United
> States person" as defined at Section 1803(i)) is an agent of a foreign power
> cannot be solely based on activities protected by the First Amendment.

------
pkilgore
There are very few things in life that will fuck up your day faster than lying
to a Federal Judge, example N.

[N-1]
[https://twitter.com/obarcala/status/1192193014350991360](https://twitter.com/obarcala/status/1192193014350991360)

[N-2] [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/prenda-
hammered-...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/prenda-hammered-
judge-sends-porn-trolling-lawyers-to-criminal-investigators/)

.....

~~~
rufus_3
It's different if you live in the Beltway, attend the same cocktail parties as
the federal judge you're lying to, and have children who attend the same
private schools.

~~~
pkilgore
I presume FISA courts are in D.C., so I suppose this could be true. But
judges, ADAs, Federal justice employees live in, and work closely together in,
hundreds of localities across the USA. No ADA/Agent in any of them ever have
stories that start with "A judge found out I (even sorta kinda) lied" that
ended well for everyone involved.

~~~
jessaustin
DoJ lies all the time. The judges know this. The system does not exist to
police _itself_.

~~~
pkilgore
Those are two different systems, so it's not clear what you are trying to say,
other than, like, burn it all down man.

~~~
jessaustin
In the public courts, DoJ lies with impunity. It's very difficult for
defendants to escape with their freedom; holding federal prosecutors
responsible for their misdeeds is the last thing on their minds.

In the FISA courts, DoJ lies with impunity. The judges occasionally throw a
warrant back and tell them to try harder, but mostly DGAF, because no
publicity. Now there is publicity, and suddenly a judge cares...

I am an anarchist, so I oppose all arbitrary authority. If burning will solve
these problems, then let's burn. If not, let's do something else.

------
jessaustin
I thought it was cool that this appeared on the front page for me even though
it was already [flagged]. I can actually see why it's flagged; of mostly
political import with very little technical detail.

~~~
AmericanChopper
It’s pretty obviously just flagged for violating the permitted narratives. If
this document is ‘of mostly political import’, then this[0] one most certainly
is.

Though I think it’s pretty funny how this scandal has mutated from a “far-
right conspiracy theory” to “FISA courts are obviously being political”.
Really this is just a CYA move to heap all the blame onto the FBI, but it’s
hard to try and claim this isn’t relevant when it’s sharing the front page
with threads like this[1], where the top comment thread is discussing FISA
courts as a solution to litigating against the government.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19762811](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19762811)

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21826567](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21826567)

~~~
jessaustin
I mostly agree, but assuming you're talking about this [0] I think that's an
uncharitable reading.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21829759](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21829759)

------
WrtCdEvrydy
I need to read this and find the context because I am unsure about how to feel
about this.

~~~
derision
An FBI lawyer changed an email that said Carter Page was a source to say Page
was "not a source"

~~~
TMWNN
More to the point, Page was a source to _the CIA_ , and had been for years, by
reporting on his meetings with Russians. The FBI knew this, but specifically
altered evidence to hide this from FISA when seeking a warrant to spy on him
(and, thus, the Trump campaign).

