
We Just Got a Rare Look at US National Security Surveillance - rahuldottech
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/us/politics/fisa-surveillance-fbi.html
======
busymom0
One important thing to note for people reading media sources on this topic -
"Consensually recorded" in IG-speak means the CHS (confidential human source)
agreed to wear a wire--not that the target agreed to be recorded. This is why
AG Barr call this spying. The same with sending FBI into "briefing" to collect
info on General Flynn.

Media is spinning this "consensually recorded" as if both parties agreed to be
recorded and therefore not spying but that's not true at all.

[https://oig.justice.gov/special/0509/chapter6.htm](https://oig.justice.gov/special/0509/chapter6.htm)

> Consensual monitoring is the interception by an electronic device of any
> wire, oral, or electronic communication where one of the parties to the
> communication has given prior consent to the monitoring or recording.

~~~
rapind
In a just alternate universe we spy on the government (oversight) and they
can't spy on us (people).

I'm utterly devoid of sympathy when the government spies on itself.

------
datashow
This is not the worst yet.

Durham's investigation may reveal something even worse.

[https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/statement-us-attorney-
joh...](https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/statement-us-attorney-john-h-
durham)

~~~
ailideex
How do you know?

------
mc32
If the FBI can’t follow protocol for actions at the highest levels and engage
in amateur tactics, just imagine how they conduct themselves with ordinary
citizens.

Now, I was under the impression FISA courts has an aversion to allowing spying
if there was a possibility of one of the targets being a US national.

Witness Martha Stewart. Now, she’s not your average citizen, but you can see
how they railroaded her. Yup, they didn’t get her on FTC violations, nope,
they got her for “lying”. If she’s not guilty of a crime how the hell do you
get people for “lying”.

~~~
snowwrestler
It is a crime to lie to federal agents in the course of a criminal
investigation. You can avoid committing that crime by not lying to agents.

Note that this is not the same as the "if you're honest, you have nothing to
hide anyway" argument in favor of mass surveillance. This is about answering a
specific set of questions from a member of law enforcement in the course of a
specific investigation. You always have the right to decline to answer
questions under the Fifth Amendment in that situation as well (another way to
avoid telling a lie). Obviously that's not true under a regime of mass
surveillance, which is one of the many reasons I think mass surveillance is a
bad idea and unconstitutional.

~~~
thanksgiving
> Witness Martha Stewart. Now, she’s not your average citizen, but you can see
> how they railroaded her. Yup, they didn’t get her on FTC violations, nope,
> they got her for “lying”. If she’s not guilty of a crime how the hell do you
> get people for “lying”.

The Martha Stewart case is a prime example of why you should never talk to
investigators. Never help any investigator. Ever. I'm pretty sure you can find
something to hang me by if you let me ramble for hours.

> You always have the right to decline to answer questions under the Fifth
> Amendment in that situation as well (another way to avoid telling a lie).

I've read criminal defense lawyers advise people that they first contact a
good lawyer before contacting the police (and have them present during any
communication) if their spouse is missing.

What we have to remember is it is just a job for law enforcement and
prosecutors. It is best to think of them as machines that act on some kind of
feedback loop (incentives). We cannot directly make improvements to the
machines. We have to try to change the incentive structure if we want any
change in how the machines work.

So the question is: what are the incentives and what needs changing?

~~~
mdorazio
>I've read criminal defense lawyers advise people that they first contact a
good lawyer before contacting the police (and have them present during any
communication) if their spouse is missing.

This is pretty poor advice. A prosecutor will absolutely subpoena your phone
records and use the fact that you called a lawyer first to convince a jury
you're guilty.

But you're right - in most cases, talk to investigators as little as possible.
The classic YoutTube video [1] on this topic is worth a watch if people
haven't seen it.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE)

~~~
hutzlibu
Does the video also bring examples, where it was bad to talk to the police,
when you were in fact innocent?

I only watched till the first example, where he brings the example of a stupid
lawer who talked to the police .. when his problem was lying to the police and
giving contradicting accounts of what happened. Yeah, this is stupid.

But I do really not like the idea of mandatory lawers as it cements the class
justice system, with good outcome for people who can afford good lawers and
people qho cannot.

When I have done nothing wrong I don't want to need a lawer by design. But it
makes sense, that lawers think different about that.

~~~
bsder
> Does the video also bring examples, where it was bad to talk to the police,
> when you were in fact innocent?

Yes. It's much closer to the end of his talk where there is an erroneous
contradicting witness and you can wind up convicted of lying to the police.

He also points to things like "Possession of a lobster can be a felony". You
simply _can 't_ know all the laws, so getting a lawyer forces the police to
narrow the scope immediately. At that point you can address the actual charges
rather than letting the police fish through hours of your babbling hunting for
something to hang you with.

> When I have done nothing wrong I don't want to need a lawer by design.

That's fine. But "Shut the hell up" remains good advice. The only benefit to
"cooperating" with the police is at _SENTENCING_. And, if I'm actually
innocent, that's a bit of a problem, no?

~~~
alasdair_
>That's fine. But "Shut the hell up" remains good advice. The only benefit to
"cooperating" with the police is at SENTENCING. And, if I'm actually innocent,
that's a bit of a problem, no?

I agree with the basic advice. That being said, if a cop knocks on my door and
says the neighbor's kid is missing, I'm still willing to take the minute
personal risk of being implicated in order to help the police in their search.

Yes, technically I could have been the last one to see the kid alive and this
could make me a suspect, but I also couldn't live with myself if I knew
something but withheld it and something bad happened.

~~~
hutzlibu
Yes, this is what I mean. Of course in that case I would speak as well. And
probably most would, without lawer as time matters.

One idea of the police was to be servants of the people and not a power tool
of the elite.

The "never speak to the police" paradigm would mean to me that police is all
evil intended. And that would be the case, I dont think the solution is just
more lawers.

------
pgo
I searched this article on reddit to see how the usual left leaning subreddits
are reacting to it and was surprised to see it is nowhere to be found. Truly
both sides are living in their own echo chambers

~~~
NopeNotToday
So far, the article was posted in 37 different subs. The highest upvotes:

/r/politics - 155 karma

/r/libertarian - 49 karma

/r/conservative - 34 karma

I'm not trying to make any case for any side here. Just providing some
numbers.

~~~
CompanionCuuube
So what are those results, normalized for active users?

~~~
coolspot
No, those are absolute numbers.

/r/politics is default sub-reddit, so every user is subscribed to it unless
manually opted out.

r/politics/ \- 5.6M members

r/conservative/ \- 275K members

r/libertarian/ \- 349K members

~~~
busymom0
Like I pointed out in another comment, these numbers are useless comparison if
it excludes T_D. T_D had multiple threads on this with 5-6k upvotes and
thousands of comments since Monday. They even had a stickied post for the
entire day on Monday as well as Wednesday when Horowitz testified. Their votes
and sub count are throttled so I would expect the real number to be much
higher.

~~~
NopeNotToday
Two different things here. The person I replied to said that every reddit was
ignoring this specific article "I searched this article on reddit". My point
was to show that that specific article was covered across 37 different
subreddits. My conclusion would be that this specific NYT article didn't get
much traction on any subreddit, due to the lack or relative upvotes.

That said, there are dozens of FISA posts on many of the political subreddits,
typically linking to others sites, not the NYT article. The T_D has been very
vocal about the FISA abuses, as they should be. Apparently T_D can't link to
this specific article due to subreddit specific rules. So I can't really
compare this specific NYT article. Plus comparing the # of upvotes across
subreddits has a lot of other issues.

IMO, this recent abuse is due to the lack of transparency in the entire FISA
process. There shouldn't be secret courts ordering secret wiretaps on
Americans with no oversight. The whole program should be scrapped. Tell your
reps to vote it down next time.

------
auiya
History has always proven in any system where there is a great
power/responsibility granted to a group, no matter how many levels of
oversight, there will always be some level of abuse at one or more of those
levels.

------
j_m_b
So secret courts free from alternative adversarial opinions are abused?
Shocking!

~~~
spaginal
Not only that, a secret court setup specifically for foreign surveillance was
used to spy domestically.

It’s why you don’t give governments secret toys and extra judicial powers, the
people that run it are worst than toddlers, and more abusive and dishonest.

~~~
noelsusman
The court was set up to spy on foreigners and Americans. To get a FISA warrant
on a US citizen you have to show probable cause that the person is an agent of
a foreign government engaging in intelligence activities.

~~~
marcusverus
In practice the bar is so incredibly low. Carter Page was wiretapped based on
nothing but the word of a foreign intelligence agent. Page had previously
aided the US government in an investigation of a Russian asset. There was no
other corroborating evidence. Suggesting that Page was committing or
contemplating the commission of a crime.

When hearsay from foreigners is sufficient 'probable cause' for a FISA
warrant, there is no barrier to obtaining one.

I read in a recent article that, out of more than a thousand FISA
applications, ONE was rejected.

FISA courts are a rubber stamp for wonton state surveillance.

~~~
spaginal
Love or hate Trump, doesn’t matter. Americans have been able to peek behind
the curtain if you will, and see how these secret courts are operating, and it
doesn’t inspire an incredible amount of confidence.

Seeing as they knew what buttons to push and strings to pull to obtain these
warrants, one has to wonder how many other times this script has been played.

------
smartbit
[http://archive.is/LiASs](http://archive.is/LiASs)

------
tomphoolery
would love to read this :P

------
doe88
And these kinds of behaviors are bipartisan, equally bad, on _both sides_.
That's just sad.

------
deogeo
Wouldn't it be more fair it the Times waited until after the election to
publish this piece? They used to know better:
[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/eff-nytimes-dont-
get-f...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/eff-nytimes-dont-get-fooled-
again-claims-nsa-spying-legality-0)

Edit: I was being _extremely_ sarcastic. I was hoping linking to the EFF would
be enough of a clue.

~~~
JPKab
Sorry, but abuse of power by a federal institution that once upon a time
harassed MLK isn't partisan, it's a problem.

The USA political system fosters a short term focus on who gets to be king of
the hill, at the expense of reforming this shit show.

We get it: orange man bad. But guess what? Orange man didn't create this
system. That was done over decades. Orange man didn't start a needless war
that cost trillions and the deaths of thousands of troops and hundreds of
thousands of Iraqi citizens. Obama, who I voted for twice, not counting my
primary votes for him, kept us in Afghanistan, and didn't pardon Snowden, but
did pardon Chelsea Manning.

I don't care if this helps orange man a little bit, because he will be gone in
a few years, worst case scenario, a few months best case. But the smooth
talking, non offensive marketing figurehead for the other party will hopefully
not have so much power to abuse when they take office.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Sorry, but abuse of power by a federal institution that once upon a time
> harassed MLK isn't partisan, it's a problem.

It's not as big of a problemas abuse of power by a federal institution that
directed genocide and, incidentally, which that other federal institution
answers to, which makes it strange that that's exactly what you are using it
to minimize.

> Orange man didn't create this system.

The manner in which Donald Trump has corrupted the administration of the
executive branch and for which is defenders—includig those who can't bring
themselves to a direct defense by only engage in the kind do distraction you
are engaging in now—are desperate to set the precedent of total absence of
accountability is one of greatest dangers to democratic-republican government
in the history of the nation. Certainly, it builds on a history tracing back
at least through the Nixon pardon, the relative lack of accountability in
Iran-Contra, the Republican Congress so burnt out from a failed attempt to
impeach Clinton for lying about sex that it couldn't muster up accountability
for a war waged not only without Congressional action, but against direct
Congressional _denial_ of authority, and scores of abuses, including bad faith
in making determinations Congress required in the Iraq AUMF, war crimes,
torture, etc., directed at the highest levels of the Bush Administration, etc.

But we're running out of opportunities to draw a line in executive abuses of
power before there is no more capacity to restrain.

> Obama [...] did pardon Chelsea Manning.

In fact, he did not. He commuted Manning's sentence, which is a very different
thing. Not that I see how the issue would be relevant to the rest of the
discussion either way.

~~~
adolph
Clinton was impeached by the house. He was not convicted and removed from
office by the senate. While "lying about sex" may have sounded innocuous at
the time, in a post #metoo and Epstein world the behavior has different
cultural meaning. In addition, Clinton's impeachable behavior went beyond
lying about his own behavior, but witness tampering. In of itself Clinton's
behavior might have been a personal matter or an HR issue, but the lies and
witness tampering were related to his defence against an previously filed
workplace sexual harassment lawsuit.

 _On December 19, 1998, Clinton became the second American president to be
impeached (the first being Andrew Johnson, who was impeached in 1868)[a] when
the House formally adopted articles of impeachment and forwarded them to the
United States Senate for adjudication. A trial in the Senate began in January
1999, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist presiding. On February 12, Clinton
was acquitted on both counts as neither received the necessary two-thirds
majority vote of the senators present for conviction and removal from office –
in this instance 67._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton)

