To Participate on Thurstonblog

email yyyyyyyyyy58@gmail.com, provide profile information and we'll email your electronic membership


Sunday, May 1, 2016

"That every single request is essentially approved, however, seems at least curious if not a bit off."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  Of course it could be that the FBI and NSA really did their homework before making the requests... could be.. The Court had no reason to deny the requests because they were in every way, legal. Could be, but I do doubt it, as in my experience, no Government Agency is perfect.
*  Why are the judges on the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court not being named in this article? If they are engaged in constitutionally authorized actions, they should be very proud of the patriotic acts they are performing and need to step up and take credit for being America's true defenders.
*  This isn't a court, it's an accomplice. Most of the requests by the NSA are unconstitutional and the secret court hides the illegality. This needs to be brought out into the open and stopped. We are losing our freedoms in America very fast.
*  Of those 1,457 requests for surveillance warrants, how many resulted in arrests or convictions? Zero! How many resulted in foiled terrorist plots? Zero! It's as if the ghost of J. Edgar Hoover is running the FBI again.
*  What condones "secret court"? Ive seen some odd behavior in even my local traffic court where cameras and recording devices are not allowed. I think all courts should be filmed and recorded to protect the public.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Can you say ‘rubber stamp?’ FBI and NSA requests never denied by secret court
By Bruce Brown, April 30, 2016

You likely don’t know much about the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Though it keeps a low profile, this is the court the Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Security Agency go to when they want permission to put someone under surveillance. And they don’t get turned down, according to Reuters, citing a Justice Department memo. In 2015 the court received and approved 1,457 requests from the FBI and NSA. There were a bit fewer requests in 2014, but all of those were approved as well.

The surveillance requests are for email or telephone intercepts. If granted, which is apparently always, they generally are carried out with the assistance of Internet telecommunications service providers.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was founded in 1978 to hear requests by law enforcement and intelligence agencies to conduct surveillance on foreign suspects present in the U.S. It stands to reason that if you’re spying on spies, it’s better not to ask for permission in open court and leave a public paper trail.

The secretive court was set up to scrutinize the requests in secret, in order to ensure compliance with applicable civil rights requirements. That all makes sense. That every single request is essentially approved, however, seems at least curious if not a bit off. The government response about its perfect record of approvals is that the FBI and NSA are very careful when applying for surveillance and that the court at times modifies the requests. In 2014, 19 requests were modified, in 2015, 80 were altered.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court hears more than surveillance requests. The FBI can also file National Security Letters (NSLs), asking Internet and telecommunications providers for customer information on foreign residents and U.S. citizens. Some NSLs ask for subscriber names, addresses, and billing information only, while others also request browsing history. The majority of information requests also come with a gag order, prohibiting the companies from informing customers of the requests. No information was provided showing the number of NSLs that were approved or denied.
...................................................................................................................................................................

No comments: