Showing posts with label FISA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FISA. Show all posts

Friday, January 3, 2014

F.I.S.A. Court Secretly Takes Away Your Constitutional Rights

At A Political Statement, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by A Political Statement and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, A Political Statement makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

A Political Statement does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on A Political Statement.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to A Political Statement and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on A Political Statement send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

A Political Statement has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. A Political Statement"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


F.I.S.A. Court Secretly Takes Away Your Constitutional Rights

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

FISA Court: The 21st Century Star Chamber of the Secret US Government


A dragnet warrant for “certain tangible things” by a judge who operates in secret and whose decisions are “Top Secret”


David Knight
Infowars.com
Oct. 16, 2013


Help, master, help! here’s a fish hangs in the net, like a poor man’s right in the law.
(Pericles — Shakespeare)



Is there a shadow government with a secret set of laws that have nothing to do with statutory law, much less the Constitution?


Revelations about the secretive FISA “court” (FISC) have been trickling out in the wake of the Snowden NSA leaks. What has emerged indicates that the Federal government believes it can secretly set precedents that amend the Constitution in a “court” that consists of a single judge acting in a process that allows no argument by opposing sides. The resulting opinion is then classified “Top Secret” and used as legal cover for government actions that are clearly in violation of the Constitution.


Phone Dragnet Reauthorized


This secret FISC issued a decision over the weekend extending “authority to collect telephony metadata in bulk”. We know about this secret decision only because DNI Clapper “decided to declassify and disclose” it publicly.


That same day, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, co-architect of the Patriot Act, (R) publicly came out against the NSA’s phone data dragnet calling it abusive, excessive and un-American and saying it was time “to put their metadata program out of business”.


We can always hope that Sensenbrenner has finally come to his senses about government abuse of power. But besides the Patriot Act, he was also author of the Real ID Act, supporter of Gitmo violations of human rights, author of the Digital Transition Content Security Act that attacked fair use of intellectual property and an advocate of extending the Espionage Act of 1917 to go after journalists. It’s much more likely that he’s just trying to distance himself from public outrage. The villagers are grabbing pitchforks and lighting torches over phone surveillance even if they don’t understand the full spectrum of the Frankenstein monster Sensenbrenner has worked so hard to build for over a decade.


A 21st Century Star Chamber


These authoritarians don’t just torture suspects at Gitmo and rendition sites. They torture logic and language to justify their criminal behavior. For example when DNI Clapper released a secret court opinion on Sep 17 he said, “The release of this opinion is consistent with the President’s call for more transparency on these valuable intelligence programs”.


Clapper and Obama brag about transparency when we continue to have a secret “court” issuing classified “top secret” decisions that impinge on Constitutionally recognized rights of the people. If they wanted to be transparent, they would only use a real court where arguments are heard and opinions are public, not classified.


The heavily redacted, “top secret” FISC opinion replaces Constitutional warrants from judges with “reasonable, articulable suspicion (RAS) as determined by a limited set of personnel”.


But don’t worry, there are safeguards and oversight. The FISC decision “requires the government to notify the Court [remember it"s really just a single FISA judge] in writing immediately concerning any instance of non-compliance.” Not surprisingly, the opinion continues adds, “According to the government, in the prior authorization period there have been no compliance incidents.” Move along, there’s nothing to worry about. Do we really believe that the government is going to blow the whistle on itself when it zealously persecutes and prosecutes whistleblowers?


The Obama administration continues to extend the surveillance state but this is not something that started with Obama. Just like the infamous Star Chamber, the FISA “court” was established in 1978 as a reform measure. In the aftermath of the Church Committee hearings it was designed to prevent the violations of the Fourth Amendment under President Nixon. But it had a fundamental flaw. It did an end run around the Constitution in the name of expediency allowing surveillance without court order and allowing it to act in secrecy.


The original Star Chamber was created as a tool against those who were too big to jail. But there are terrible consequences whenever we violate the principles of jury trials, open to the public. The Star Chamber, meeting secretly with no indictments and no witnesses, didn’t restrain the powerful but became their most feared tool of oppression. In the same way, the FISA “court” with its secret process and secret decisions has not protected the Fourth Amendment but has become a tool of oppression.


Here’s what Chief Supreme Court Justice Roberts said about FISC in July, after the Snowden revelations brought it to public attention:


“When I first learned about the FISA court, I was surprised,” Roberts told the committee. “It’s not what we usually think of when we think of a court. We think of a place where we can go, we can watch, the lawyers argue, and it’s subject to the glare of publicity. And the judges explain their decision to the public and they can examine them.”



He was surprised that it existed. Why? Because there is nothing in the Constitution about a secret “court” of one judge, no jury and no argument. But Roberts played along and appointed judges anyway. And most of the public outrage from Congress and the crony media has been that it’s mainly Republicans getting appointed to FISC and not enough Democrats. That’s the sorry state of our republic.


Our Rights in the Fickle Hands of Political Judges


The FISC decision that Clapper released says that to authorize a dragnet search of phone data “the Court [a single judge] considered whether the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution imposed any impediment to the government’s proposed collection”. These statists pretended the Fourth Amendment’s simple and clear prohibitions weren’t applicable and they looked to guidance from Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions.


The FISC decision cites three SCOTUS cases. The first, Olmstead v US (1928) was written in the throes of Alcohol Prohibition and said that wiretapping private telephone conversations wasn’t a violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments.


That decision was overturned in the period of temporary sanity between the Prohibition Wars by Katz v US (1967) which held that unreasonable search & seizure referred to all areas where a person has a “reasonable expectation of privacy”.


But under the political pressures of Prohibition II, the War on Drugs, the SCOTUS decision on Smith v Maryland (1979) produced a new twist on the idea of an “expectation of privacy”. The trial focused on phone company pen registers. Pen registers are devices that record all numbers called from a particular phone. The SCOTUS decision reasoned that there was no “expectation of privacy” since the caller voluntarily provided the numbers to the phone company when they dialed the phone numbers.


Business Records Not Private?


That SCOTUS decision is the FISC excuse for ignoring the Fourth Amendment in its dragnet collection of phone data. It is also the rationale for the government collecting data from internet companies as part of the PRISM program. And it is the argument that government at every level is using to track you constantly via your cellphone.


In mid-July the NJ State Supreme Court ruled that police required a warrant to track someone by cellphone. But two weeks later, the federal Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, ruled that there was no expectation of privacy because your cellphone location is “a business record” that they can get from a third party. It looks like this will also go to the Supreme Court.


The “logic” of Smith v Maryland — that any records that any business has about you are not private and that the government needs no warrant — is the legal evasion at the heart of the surveillance state. THAT is the issue with meta-data and that is why it is a fight the people must not lose to the authoritarians.


The remedies against an American Star Chamber were the 4th, 5th Amendments and open trial by jury. The remedy against the 21st Century Star Chamber — the secretive FISA Court — is their reinstatement.


Follow David Knight on PrisonPlanet.TV
YouTube @ InfoWarsNewsHD


—————-
David Knight is a host for the InfoWars Nightly News


This article was posted: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 at 9:01 am







Infowars



FISA Court: The 21st Century Star Chamber of the Secret US Government

Friday, September 13, 2013

Gems Mined from the NSA Documents and FISA Court Opinions Released Today


Today, in response to Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released hundreds of pages of documents about the NSA telephone call record program. The documents primarily concern events in 2009, when the FISA court first learned that the NSA had been misusing its phone records surveillance program for years. We’re still reviewing the documents, but here are a few particularly interesting items we’ve uncovered so far.


Clapper’s Continued Trouble with the Truth


On June 6, just days after the Guardian newspaper published the first of many articles on NSA spying, Director of National Intelligence Clapper attempted to reassure the public that the NSA telephone record program was limited and restrained. “The information acquired does not include … the identity of any subscriber.”


Documents released today show this to be false.  In an August 3, 2009 declaration to the FISA court, NSA Director Keith Alexander wrote that “the collected metadata thus holds contact information that can be immediately access as a new terrorist-associated telephone identified are identified.” While it is not surprising that the NSA can correlate a phone number to a person (phone book technology has been available for some time), here we have it in black and white that Dir. Clapper attempted to mislead the public. 


The Search for a Basis for Searching


In a March 2, 2009 FISA court opinion, the Court noted that the program collects “communication of U.S. person who are not the subject of an FBI investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, and are data that otherwise could not be legally captured in bulk by the government.” (first emphasis by the court, second ours).  ”Ordinarily, this alone would provide sufficient grounds for a FISC judge to deny the application.”


The Court noted that, nevertheless, the spying was approved, based on the Court’s confidence in the NSA’s assurances of a good process and strict controls. By March 2009, however, “The Court no longer has such confidence.” The Court’s particularly scathing statement about its distrust in the NSA can be found on page 12 here.


What happened was that the FISC required the NSA have a “reasonable articulable suspicion” before conducting a search on a phone number.  The NSA decided, independently, that it could run searches on the database to develop the basis for the reasonable articulable suspicion.  Hence, the NSA was conducting suspicionless searches for information to obtain the court-required basis to search for that information.


The NSA’s Word Games Confuse Even the NSA


As we’ve noted time and time again, the NSA plays with language, using words in non-standard ways.  After not reporting violations to the FISC for years, the NSA had this explanation: “there was never a complete understanding among the key personnel who reviewed the report … regarding what each individual meant by the terminology used in the report.”  The NSA presents this as an excuse why it misled the court.


Want to Know Why the NSA Gave Raw Access to the CIA, FBI and NCTC in Violation of a Court Order?


So did the Court, who ordered the NSA to explain the violation of its prior order. So did we. However, you’re not going to find out today. Four pages of NSA Director Alexander’s response to this question are redacted.


NSA Director General Keith Alexander 2009 v. 2013


Gen. Alexander, June 25, 2013: The telephone records program was “approved by the Administration, Congress, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. With these exceptional authorities came significant oversight from all three branches of the government.”


Gen Alexander, August 17, 2009: Non-compliance with court ordered “stemmed from a basic lack of shared understanding among key NSA mission, legal and oversight stakeholders concerning the full scope of the” telephone records program.


Related Cases


Jewel v. NSA
First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. NSA




Truthout Stories



Gems Mined from the NSA Documents and FISA Court Opinions Released Today

Friday, August 23, 2013

FISA Judge: NSA misrepresented themselves, violated the Constitution





CSO – A federal judge said in a recently declassified opinion, issued during his time serving on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court, that the National Security Agency misrepresented themselves and violated the Constitution for several years.


After the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) won their lawsuit to obtain an 86-page opinion from the secret Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court (FISC) issued in October of 2011, the government released the redacted version on Wednesday, as written
by Judge John D. Bates.


In it, Judge Bates outlines the NSA’s Fourth Amendment violations as they go about collecting intelligence, including upstream
ISP traffic, and how the agency collected as many as 56,000 completely domestic communications per year, for several years.
Yet, according to the opinion, the court was just now learning that the nature of the information the NSA said they were collecting
was fundamentally different.


“The court is troubled that the government’s revelations regarding NSA’s acquisition of Internet transactions mark the third
instance in less than three years in which the government has disclosed a substantial misrepresentation regarding the scope
of a major collection program& Contrary to the government’s repeated assurances, NSA had been routinely running queries of
the metadata using querying terms that did not meet the standard for querying,” Judge Bates wrote in his opinion [PDF].


Related: NSA collected thousands of domestic communications in 2011


“The government’s submissions make clear not only that NSA has been acquiring Internet transactions since before the Court’s
approval of the first Section 702 certification in 2008, but also that NSA seeks to continue the collection of Internet transactions&”


At issue is the wholesale collection of Internet and telecommunications data, which by law is supposed to be largely restricted
in scope, with regard to what is collected and why, as well as restricted as to content. However, the FISC ruled that the
NSA overstepped their bounds, and collected far more data than was previously approved. Going so far as to mislead the court
as to what exactly was being collected and examined.


Two years later, the NSA says they have changed the way data is collected and processed, but documents leaked by Edward Snowden,
and recent reports from the Wall Street Journal, bring the FISC’s condemnation and accusations back into the spotlight. The
assumption being, if they misled the courts on three separate occasions, what’s to prevent further instances?


On Monday, the Wall Street Journal (citing both current and former officials as sources) says that the NSA has developed a
surveillance network that has the ability to cover more than 75 percent of all U.S. Internet traffic. In some cases, this
collection network retains the written content of emails written by citizens, as well as VoIP-based phone calls.


“The programs, code-named Blarney, Fairview, Oakstar, Lithium and Stormbrew, among others, filter and gather information at
major telecommunications companies,” the Wall Street Journal reported.




Netflash



FISA Judge: NSA misrepresented themselves, violated the Constitution

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Former senior NSA official: Maybe only 30 or 40 agency officials had access to that FISA order that leaked


posted at 2:01 pm on June 11, 2013 by Allahpundit



Normally, this is where I’d say there are only two obvious possibilities: Either I’m right that he conspired with someone higher up the chain who fed him these highly sensitive documents or the guy’s some sort of master hacker who managed to slip past NSA’s internal security to lift top-secret stuff off their servers. But I can’t say that in this case because none of us really has any idea how NSA operates. Could the IT guy have had routine access to bombshell surveillance program data? I … don’t think so, but I … guess, maybe?


Even the intel guys can’t figure it out:


Among the questions is how a contract employee at a distant NSA satellite office was able to obtain a copy of an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a highly classified document that would presumably be sealed from most employees and of little use to someone in his position.


A former senior NSA official said that the number of agency officials with access to such court orders is “maybe 30 or maybe 40. Not large numbers.”…


Officials questioned some of Snowden’s assertions in his interview with the Guardian, saying that several of his claims seemed exaggerated. Among them were assertions that he could order wiretaps on anyone from “a federal judge to even the president.”


“When he said he had access to every CIA station around the world, he’s lying,” said a former senior agency official, who added that information is so closely compartmented that only a handful of top-ranking executives at the agency could access it.



“Investigators also need to determine whether anyone else was involved in disclosing the information to reporters,” per WaPo’s sources. That’s one possibility — Snowden in cahoots with a more senior person who wants the information out but doesn’t want his fingerprints on it. In theory, though, security at NSA is so tight that there’s no way to access, let alone remove, information without leaving a cyber-fingerprint of some kind. That’s the whole point of PRISM, right? Finding even the faintest cyber-prints? An agency that can track people’s physical movements based on their use of electronic devices should, one would think, be able to track their own contracted employees’ virtual movements on their premises. And yet here we are, with Snowden safely decamped with the goods to Hong Kong and Glenn Greenwald promising even more revelations.


Theory two, then: Snowden’s a hacking genius who somehow beat NSA’s internal security. Marc Ambinder assesses the degree of difficulty:


According to several current and former officials who’ve worked on NSANet, every keystroke is logged and subject to random audits. “Screengrabs” are prohibited. Documents can be printed with special facilities but that, too, leaves a record. As a mission support specialist, Snowden would have had access as part of his jobs to the physical servers and hard drives that contain material.


If he did not want to leave an audit trail, he might have disconnected a hard drive containing temporarily cached documents, brought them into an area that included desktops and hardware not cleared for such access, connected them, and then printed documents out. It is also possible that he disabled, under the guise of fixing something, access privileges for auditors. He could have temporarily escalated his own access privileges, although this would have raised flags among his superiors.


In theory, this would have alerted NISIRT, the NSA’s Information Systems Incident Response Team, which maintains a 24/7 watch over the backend of NSANet. Operational branches, including Special Source Operations (domestic and compartmented collection programs), Global Access Operations (satellites and other international SIGINT platforms), and Tailored Access Operations (cyber) have their own NISIRT team.



The agency also has a counterspy team that looks at NSA employees — and contractors? — in hopes of anticipating who might be ready to leak. Evidently they missed the Ron-Paul-donating loner who’d apparently been in contact with Glenn Greenwald for months before he skipped town. And if Ambinder’s scenario is correct, they also missed one of their hard drives going offline. Would a powerpoint on PRISM and a FISA order authorizing phone-record harvesting even be on the same hard drive? I.e. did Snowden collect this stuff steadily over time, by accessing different NSA “compartments,” rather than in one grand heist? Because if so, that’s an even more catastrophic internal security breakdown. Could NSA counterspies have missed repeated breaches?


Hopefully we’ll be able to game all of this out as part of the great national debate on NSA spying that Obama supposedly welcomes but won’t lift a finger to actually make possible. (“If President Obama really welcomed a debate, there are all kinds of things he could do in terms of declassification and disclosure to foster it.”) Exit question: Why did Snowden claim he was making $ 200,000 a year if he was only making $ 122,000? Is he including benefits in measuring his compensation? Any lie he tells, however small, will raise doubts about his motives. Seems weird that he’d open himself up to a challenge on something as minor as that.



Related Posts:



Hot Air



Former senior NSA official: Maybe only 30 or 40 agency officials had access to that FISA order that leaked

Former senior NSA official: Maybe only 30 or 40 agency officials had access to that FISA order that leaked


posted at 2:01 pm on June 11, 2013 by Allahpundit



Normally, this is where I’d say there are only two obvious possibilities: Either I’m right that he conspired with someone higher up the chain who fed him these highly sensitive documents or the guy’s some sort of master hacker who managed to slip past NSA’s internal security to lift top-secret stuff off their servers. But I can’t say that in this case because none of us really has any idea how NSA operates. Could the IT guy have had routine access to bombshell surveillance program data? I … don’t think so, but I … guess, maybe?


Even the intel guys can’t figure it out:


Among the questions is how a contract employee at a distant NSA satellite office was able to obtain a copy of an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a highly classified document that would presumably be sealed from most employees and of little use to someone in his position.


A former senior NSA official said that the number of agency officials with access to such court orders is “maybe 30 or maybe 40. Not large numbers.”…


Officials questioned some of Snowden’s assertions in his interview with the Guardian, saying that several of his claims seemed exaggerated. Among them were assertions that he could order wiretaps on anyone from “a federal judge to even the president.”


“When he said he had access to every CIA station around the world, he’s lying,” said a former senior agency official, who added that information is so closely compartmented that only a handful of top-ranking executives at the agency could access it.



“Investigators also need to determine whether anyone else was involved in disclosing the information to reporters,” per WaPo’s sources. That’s one possibility — Snowden in cahoots with a more senior person who wants the information out but doesn’t want his fingerprints on it. In theory, though, security at NSA is so tight that there’s no way to access, let alone remove, information without leaving a cyber-fingerprint of some kind. That’s the whole point of PRISM, right? Finding even the faintest cyber-prints? An agency that can track people’s physical movements based on their use of electronic devices should, one would think, be able to track their own contracted employees’ virtual movements on their premises. And yet here we are, with Snowden safely decamped with the goods to Hong Kong and Glenn Greenwald promising even more revelations.


Theory two, then: Snowden’s a hacking genius who somehow beat NSA’s internal security. Marc Ambinder assesses the degree of difficulty:


According to several current and former officials who’ve worked on NSANet, every keystroke is logged and subject to random audits. “Screengrabs” are prohibited. Documents can be printed with special facilities but that, too, leaves a record. As a mission support specialist, Snowden would have had access as part of his jobs to the physical servers and hard drives that contain material.


If he did not want to leave an audit trail, he might have disconnected a hard drive containing temporarily cached documents, brought them into an area that included desktops and hardware not cleared for such access, connected them, and then printed documents out. It is also possible that he disabled, under the guise of fixing something, access privileges for auditors. He could have temporarily escalated his own access privileges, although this would have raised flags among his superiors.


In theory, this would have alerted NISIRT, the NSA’s Information Systems Incident Response Team, which maintains a 24/7 watch over the backend of NSANet. Operational branches, including Special Source Operations (domestic and compartmented collection programs), Global Access Operations (satellites and other international SIGINT platforms), and Tailored Access Operations (cyber) have their own NISIRT team.



The agency also has a counterspy team that looks at NSA employees — and contractors? — in hopes of anticipating who might be ready to leak. Evidently they missed the Ron-Paul-donating loner who’d apparently been in contact with Glenn Greenwald for months before he skipped town. And if Ambinder’s scenario is correct, they also missed one of their hard drives going offline. Would a powerpoint on PRISM and a FISA order authorizing phone-record harvesting even be on the same hard drive? I.e. did Snowden collect this stuff steadily over time, by accessing different NSA “compartments,” rather than in one grand heist? Because if so, that’s an even more catastrophic internal security breakdown. Could NSA counterspies have missed repeated breaches?


Hopefully we’ll be able to game all of this out as part of the great national debate on NSA spying that Obama supposedly welcomes but won’t lift a finger to actually make possible. (“If President Obama really welcomed a debate, there are all kinds of things he could do in terms of declassification and disclosure to foster it.”) Exit question: Why did Snowden claim he was making $ 200,000 a year if he was only making $ 122,000? Is he including benefits in measuring his compensation? Any lie he tells, however small, will raise doubts about his motives. Seems weird that he’d open himself up to a challenge on something as minor as that.



Related Posts:



Hot Air



Former senior NSA official: Maybe only 30 or 40 agency officials had access to that FISA order that leaked