The FBI can search NSA intel without prior court warrant

[JDragon]

Secret Court Takes Another Bite Out of the Fourth Amendment

Defenders of the NSA's mass spying have lost an important talking point: that the erosion of our privacy and associational rights is justified given the focus of surveillance efforts on combating terrorism and protecting the national security. That argument has always been dubious for a number of reasons. But after a November 2015 ruling [.pdf] by the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) was unsealed this week, it's lost another chunk of its credibility. The ruling confirms that NSA's warrantless spying has been formally approved for use in general criminal investigations. The national security justification has been entirely blown.

[...]

once information is collected by the NSA for "foreign intelligence" purposes under section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, that information can be searched by the FBI for regular criminal investigations without any need for a warrant or prior court oversight.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/secret-court-takes-another-bite-out-fourth-amendment

 

[Greoric]

We need to be safe from ze terrorists. It's for our national security.... and shit.

 

[Awesomesauce]

This no doubt shocking to anyone who is a complete fucking retard.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Come guys, nobody thought it would slide down this kind of slippery slope (except everyone who fucking said it would)

 

[Thunderflash500]

This no doubt shocking to anyone who is a complete fucking retard.

But it is important to note.

We are now in a nazi like state. We are all spied on. You can lock anyone up indefinitely. You can kill American journalists without a trial. GG

But oh my god, WHERE THE FUCK WILL TRANNY'S PISS??

 

[Michaelangelo]

I bet so many dudes in the Feds creep on their exes

 

[Awesomesauce]

But it is important to note.

We are now in a nazi like state. We are all spied on. You can lock anyone up indefinitely. You can kill American journalists without a trial. GG

But oh my god, WHERE THE FUCK WILL TRANNY'S PISS??

Sadly we are FAR closer to this then the vast majority want to admit. I am good friends with a Polish guy who remembers the Iron curtain days, and he has told me for decades that he sees the same pattern here that he say there growing up.

I bet so many dudes in the Feds creep on their exes

They do, they actually call it "love int", not just for exes though, its for spouses or just people they are generally creeping on. Happens pretty much all the time, was one of the things that was released by Snowden years ago.

 

[sloppypie]

not to be "one of those guys" but is that source credible? i've never seen it before and it's from a non profit, and the way the article is written seems a little hyperbolic. i also can't seem to find it on any generic news stations.

b/c the part talking about FISC saying that evidence can be collected AND used against you violates the exclusionary rule in the 4th amendment. police collect evidence improperly all the time in violation of the 4th amendment, and the remedy is that it is excluded as evidence against a person in their trial. FISC can't "rule" that away in any circumstance. which is why bush and the obama administration try to hold that terrorists are "enemy combatants" even if citizens and don't get civilian trials and due process, they should get military tribunals.

so i have that discrepancy between how the system works and what i'm reading in that article. if anyone has other sources to read i'd like to read them, simply because this is a pretty important topic. or maybe i missed something in the article, i'm a little tired this afternoon, been a long day.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

We need to be safe from ze terrorists. It's for our national security.... and shit.

Shut down the NSA and allow easier access to firearms as per the 2nd Amendment. Two birds, one stone.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

If true I guess anyone crying CT and slippery slope when some of us complained will be around to admit they were wrong. <holds breath>

 

[Awesomesauce]

not to be "one of those guys" but is that source credible? i've never seen it before and it's from a non profit, and the way the article is written seems a little hyperbolic. i also can't seem to find it on any generic news stations.

b/c the part talking about FISC saying that evidence can be collected AND used against you violates the exclusionary rule in the 4th amendment. police collect evidence improperly all the time in violation of the 4th amendment, and the remedy is that it is excluded as evidence against a person in their trial. FISC can't "rule" that away in any circumstance. which is why bush and the obama administration try to hold that terrorists are "enemy combatants" even if citizens and don't get civilian trials and due process, they should get military tribunals.

so i have that discrepancy between how the system works and what i'm reading in that article. if anyone has other sources to read i'd like to read them, simply because this is a pretty important topic. or maybe i missed something in the article, i'm a little tired this afternoon, been a long day.

How do you know how the FISC court works? Its utterly secret. Isn't this judgement about the legality of information collected this way? Simply saying it violates the 4th amendment doesn't mean much when they do it constantly, and knowingly. Wouldn't just passing the knowingly illegally collected information be a violation of the 4th amendment in and of itself?

 

[Greoric]

But it is important to note.

We are now in a nazi like state. We are all spied on. You can lock anyone up indefinitely. You can kill American journalists without a trial. GG

But oh my god, WHERE THE FUCK WILL TRANNY'S PISS??

This. We have the definition of a turn-key tyranny. All that has to happen for the government to go from passive data collection to active oppression are two more buildings coming down... or less. In my opinion, if and when something like that happens our kids won't even know that a BoR ever even existed.

But then again, let's not pretend like we're all victims here. We brought this on ourselves for the most part by being complacent. Most all of the posters in some form or another are for growing the influence of the state.

 

[sloppypie]

How do you know how the FISC court works? Its utterly secret. Isn't this judgement about the legality of information collected this way? Simply saying it violates the 4th amendment doesn't mean much when they do it constantly, and knowingly. Wouldn't just passing the knowingly illegally collected information be a violation of the 4th amendment in and of itself?

yes, but this is where the law is kind of tricky. nothing actually stops police from improperly collecting evidence. the remedy in court isn't to stop police from doing it, it's to deny the use of the evidence in judicial proceedings and trials. so by that very consequence, police have the incentive to install proper procedures so that evidence isn't excluded - otherwise, you don't get convictions. and there are civil rights lawsuits now on a civil level for blatant abuses, so maybe some lawsuits can be brought forward on those grounds against the NSA and federal government seeking injunctive remedies.

it's one thing to say the 4th amendment is violated. that happens all the time by every police station, sometimes knowingly and sometimes unknowingly. the issue is saying that that evidence is now admissible in a trial, and the constitution and supreme court clearly say it is not. and you are right, i don't know much about the FISC court, but i know they don't have the authority or the jurisdiction to create a ruling like dumping the exclusionary rule.

b/c really that's the whole point of all this - the government using evidence without warrants to get convictions and throw people in jail. right now they are just collecting all this evidence (in violation of the 4th amendment) to use for intelligence purposes. i don't like it either and they shouldn't be doing it, but ultimately that's not my major first concern. my first major concern is whether they are trying to justify using that improperly collected evidence to convict people. which would be fuckin craziness.

as it is we've seen drone strikes on US citizens who went and joined terrorist groups. which nobody particularly cares about since they are pieces of shit, but the idea that US citizens can potentially be targets for execution without due process is a scary thought.

 

[Fawlty]

Come guys, nobody thought it would slide down this kind of slippery slope (except everyone who fucking said it would)

Yeah, the minute the words "information sharing provisions" first sprang up in the 00's, pretty much everybody simultaneously predicted this shit. It has been going on for quite a while, not sure how long. Obama seems to have zero problem with it.

 

[Lead]

I don't understand how the NSA has become a deeper issue with the public. When Snowden did that leak, I think there were polls showing it mostly split on whether the NSA should be doing this or not. It's like no one gives a fuck really and a politician gets past the topic entirely just by playing the tough of security card. Being tough of security doesn't get you out of these issues but somehow it does so far, you just get blind applause BS. I'm not even against a type of agency that would try to collect some types of meta data. What is concerning is being able to access specific private information on an individual without warrant and then allowing other intelligence agencies access. There is no control on that.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I don't understand how the NSA has become a deeper issue with the public.

Because almost nobody has felt the sting and figure those that do got whatever they deserved. What I don't understand is why there's not more outrage in the legal community and Constitutional support in the courts.

 

[Awesomesauce]

yes, but this is where the law is kind of tricky. nothing actually stops police from improperly collecting evidence. the remedy in court isn't to stop police from doing it, it's to deny the use of the evidence in judicial proceedings and trials. so by that very consequence, police have the incentive to install proper procedures so that evidence isn't excluded - otherwise, you don't get convictions. and there are civil rights lawsuits now on a civil level for blatant abuses, so maybe some lawsuits can be brought forward on those grounds against the NSA and federal government seeking injunctive remedies.

it's one thing to say the 4th amendment is violated. that happens all the time by every police station, sometimes knowingly and sometimes unknowingly. the issue is saying that that evidence is now admissible in a trial, and the constitution and supreme court clearly say it is not. and you are right, i don't know much about the FISC court, but i know they don't have the authority or the jurisdiction to create a ruling like dumping the exclusionary rule.

b/c really that's the whole point of all this - the government using evidence without warrants to get convictions and throw people in jail. right now they are just collecting all this evidence (in violation of the 4th amendment) to use for intelligence purposes. i don't like it either and they shouldn't be doing it, but ultimately that's not my major first concern. my first major concern is whether they are trying to justify using that improperly collected evidence to convict people. which would be fuckin craziness.

as it is we've seen drone strikes on US citizens who went and joined terrorist groups. which nobody particularly cares about since they are pieces of shit, but the idea that US citizens can potentially be targets for execution without due process is a scary thought.

Ok, I think we pretty much agree. But here is my question by example;

Lets say the police get some information from the NSA. FISC, an entirely secret court that for all intents and purposes never stops anyone from doing anything regardless of legality has passed the legality of the method of collection in secret hearings. Could a lawyer then take that to a criminal court and use that information based on the fact that the FISC ruled on it? Would a judge require more then the approval of FISC? If so, what else would be required and if so on what grounds? Would a judge be justified in or able to demand knowledge of the method by which that information was gained in order to judge for themselves? Could the NSA be trusted to actually be honest about this in any way, what safeguards exist for this purpose?

I guess I am having trouble with the nuance of interplay between the FISC courts rulings and how they would be taken in criminal court because from what I can see there really isn't anything stopping the use of this intel in a real world scenario. That of course is besides the point that I would imagine that information provided blind from the NSA could probably be used as basis for a search warrant. Seems awfully abusive.

 

[Awesomesauce]

I don't understand how the NSA has become a deeper issue with the public. When Snowden did that leak, I think there were polls showing it mostly split on whether the NSA should be doing this or not. It's like no one gives a fuck really and a politician gets past the topic entirely just by playing the tough of security card. Being tough of security doesn't get you out of these issues but somehow it does so far, you just get blind applause BS. I'm not even against a type of agency that would try to collect some types of meta data. What is concerning is being able to access specific private information on an individual without warrant and then allowing other intelligence agencies access. There is no control on that.

Your assuming two things, that people understand a very complex issue or are motivated to understand them.

This is where the notion of empty hands being the devils playground come in, people are incredibly busy in the modern world. Even jobless slobs living in there parents basement have an endless number of distractions which are far more appealing for the vast majority of people then trying to understand the nuances of the NSA's behavior.

Have you seen the polls on what percentage of people actually know who Snowden is or what he actually did? Forget the content that he released, they literally have no idea who he is.

Number two, the ability of people to see past the end of their own nose. Not many people can effectively predict the actual effects of policies far less complex then these legal and intelligence related issues.

 

[uppercutbus]

Lets say the police get some information from the NSA. FISC, an entirely secret court that for all intents and purposes never stops anyone from doing anything regardless of legality has passed the legality of the method of collection in secret hearings. Could a lawyer then take that to a criminal court and use that information based on the fact that the FISC ruled on it? Would a judge require more then the approval of FISC? If so, what else would be required and if so on what grounds? Would a judge be justified in or able to demand knowledge of the method by which that information was gained in order to judge for themselves?

The way it works is they won't use the NSA information in court, they'll just setup stings for other made up shit in a roundabout way.

Kind of like when a cop wants to search someones house and makes up some bullshit story about neighbors complaining about something.

Make up lies to obtain a search warrant etc. Simple example: