My favorite part is Huawei is supposedly using our own law enforcement back doors. I hope that this is forever used as an example to fight the ongoing push for "good guy only" back doors.
The "good guys" (telco/law enforcement) have strict criterias to access it, like court order. Thus it is regulated by the local government.
Meanwhile Huawei is supposedly actively created a workaround:
> U.S. officials say Huawei has built equipment that secretly preserves the manufacturer’s ability to access networks through these interfaces without the carriers’ knowledge.
> The "good guys" (telco/law enforcement) have strict criterias to access it, like court order.
The good guys have a non-transparent approval mechanism for permission which no one can audit. In reality, you have no basis for claiming it's an effective overall control mechanism because none of us can see most of the data. Further, there have been numerous documented cases of abuse like intelligence officials spying on their significant others, parallel reconstruction on cases where secret data shouldn't have been used, etc.
An administrative policy control where application of the control is handled by the people holding the data with 0 auditing by anyone outside the system is not a strict control. Do I trust American intelligence more than the Chinese government or Huawei? Definitely, but that does not let American intelligence off the hook or justify what they are doing with mass data collection.
Do I trust American intelligence more than the Chinese government or Huawei?
Why would you trust American intelligence/law enforcement more than a foreign government (unless you have something to hide from that government, like if you are fostering unrest from abroad)?
There's not much reason for China to be interested in me, but there's lots of reasons I wouldn't want US law enforcement spying on me, since they are in a better position to make trouble for me.
This take is essentially the "I have nothing to hide" argument except applied to China. Moreover, even if China is not interested in you in particular, it is interested in the executives, politicians, and decision makers that use our telecom infrastructure along with you. And you should care if those people are spied on by the Chinese government, probably more than about yourself being spied on by the US government.
While the US is not perfect and has executed a number of immoral/illegal projects, the world order under the US seems far superior to what a world order under China could be.
> While the US is not perfect and has executed a number of immoral/illegal projects, the world order under the US seems far superior to what a world order under China could be.
Which specific part of the Middle East are you thinking of with that little gem? I'm looking at Iran on a map and they are the last stable center amongst a sea of catastrophes from Syria to Afghanistan that all have the sticky fingerprints of American influence on them. The entire Arabian peninsula is a mess hold together only by US support and stands as a real-time embarrassment of all the rhetoric out of Washington in my lifetime.
Compared to that, what exactly is China likely to do that could be worse?
The US has a bunch of stuff they can be proud of, but nobody is going to (indeed nobody is) take them seriously when their ambassadors hand-wringing about the risks of foreign spies or foreign influence. The US has been doing whatever they feel like for decades with little regard for anyone else and they have not shown themselves to be particularly honourable when there are real stakes, like oil, on the table.
One place where China could do worse than US (or in the case of Syria, Russian) influence is internet access. In the Middle East there is some filtering and blocking on internet connections, but it remains trivial to circumvent and many computer-savvy teenagers already know how. China has already shown that it is interested in exporting its Great Firewall technology -- which is very challenging to circumvent -- to nations with which it establishes close ties.
FISA courts have a high acceptance rate because prosecutors don't put anything in the ring unless they're very sure they'll get approved. This has been affirmed by many ex-FISA court appointees, lawyers and those in the intelligence community.
Please let the "FISA court is a rubber stamp" myth die already.
This doesn't mean that there's not widespread abuse of secret warrants/NSLs.
It could easily mean that they've developed a formula to ensure that they meet* the standards set by the FISA court.
Maybe every single one of them has some kind of magic phrasing that's technically true, but kinda bullshit if you're able to view it from a wider viewpoint. Maybe all it takes is to say that this person has a connection to known terrorists. The connection could be incredibly distant, but hey - there's a sworn statement from some analyst/agent/whomever saying that there's a connection.
Because the courts are secret, there's no opportunity for those outside the intelligence community to review things and see whether there are routine abuses or other questionable situations.
I don't know if the FISA system is abused or not, but I certainly would not take the word of anyone who made a living off it to tell me it's all good. I submit I may have a very different definition of reasonable use. I know the opinions of regular police and courts and I disagree with them too.
I think if your proof is "I don't trust anyone in government" that's a pretty weak argument, no? Also, isn't it true that every warrant is just opinions about whether someone has done something warranting investigation? I don't see what any of these objections have to do with FISA.
Article 1 section 9 isn't an amendment and is still just a bunch of restrictions :P
The first one, for example, is
> 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The constitution is all about checks and balances. There was implicit trust in the government from the very outset of the founding of this country. It was a documented designed to guarantee trust. If you don't trust the checks and balances that the government provides, then the constitution is a worthless piece of paper. Warrants are by definition, a check and balance of sorts, although I understand it doesn't feel that way. Police (executive branch) comes to a judge (judicial branch), who approves or rejects the warrant. The judiciary has the final say over whether the police can search a home, for example.
I think it's interesting how many people point to how we need to get back to the roots of constitutionalism, but also say "I never trust anything governments do or say".
If that's the case, why do you think the constitution will help you there? The document itself requires huge levels of trust.
Well sure, if I took the extreme position of arguing to never trust the government you'd be right.
That's not what I, or the person you are originally replying to is doing. Rather we would say something like "you are asking us to trust the government when it is bypassing or ignoring the checks and balances put into the constitution precisely because of issues like this". For a few examples:
Checks and balances are why the 6th amendment requires to a "speedy and public trial". Which the FISA courts are not providing. They are why the 6th amendment requires the accused to be informed of the "nature and cause of the accusation", which is regularly being violated by these secret proceedings by way of parallel construction.
You bring up the topic of warrants, but warrants (by the 4th amendment) must "upon probable cause [... describe] the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized". From what little we have seen of the FISA proceedings, neither of those conditions are being respected.
You bring up the judicial branch, but the judicial branch is required (by article 3 section 2 of the constitution) to hear only cases and controversies, one sided proceedings that aren't even released publicly after the fact to be challenged are neither. This clause exists (I believe) precisely because one sided arguments lack the necessary checks and balances to reach a fair verdict
What were your thoughts on the police and court system while Black Lives Matter was making all the headlines? Or if that's not your cup of tea, how about when the court let Epstein go free when he was raping children?
I'm expressing a mainstream opinion at the least if not the majority. Being a more secret court doesn't make me feel more trusting.
Most Americans only experience small parts justice systems eg: traffic tickets, civil courts, the usual things in our daily life. But the US justice system is huge and has really varied uses and applications.
To extrapolate all the abuses of the wider justice system to a highly specialized court whose only purpose is national security would be a mistake, in my opinion. It's such a specific purpose and such a specialized role, it's hard to say for certain.
The only thing we have to go off is the testimony and opinions of those who have experienced it. We have no other barometer or metric, everything else is hearsay.
You're not wrong, it's just not a strong argument.
The state regularly tortures, murders, starts civil wars, provides weapons to genocidal allies, etc. I have literally the entire history of the world on my side. You have, as you admitted, hearsay. The sane position is that they will be at least as bad in private as they are in public.
The state is not a monolith. It’s barely top-down. It’s a collection of people in many different departments with their own ideals and relations. The people who decide what dictators to arms are NOT judges, nor come from the domestic judicial branch.
"They" are the people requesting those FISA warrants. "They" are the people who put you in prison forever without a trial. "They" are the people Snowden revealed to be flaunting the law with illegal domestic surveillance programs.
People requesting FISA warrants are in agencies like the NSA. They’re not in the White House determining international policy. Hell, with this president, most of what they say is ignored!
What prison forever without a trial? Are you talking about the few captured during war in Guantanamo? Again, this is not the judges running secret courts that ok FISA requests.
If you’ve ever worked in a large company, you’ll see the diversity of opinions, dominions, political battles, and generally chaos. And yet the public sees the output as unified, when the input was anything but. Now just imagine the government, far bigger in size, full of people that came from all kinds of backgrounds and ways — thru elections, normal job applications, the military, etc... from a variety of political backgrounds and moral standards.
I encourage you not to paint with such broad brushstrokes.
If the state is as unethical and as shady as claimed, why bother with FISA and warrants? Why not just do whatever you feel like, because as you say, anything goes?
" I submit I may have a very different definition of reasonable use."
That's fine - you can go ahead and vote. There's an election coming up. Collectively, most Americans probably agree with the current use, and there are actual control and oversight by the Judicial system. Which is unlike China.
What's the alternative to high approval rate = rubber stamp? Low approval rate > prosecutors wasting time on shit that won't get approved > prosecutors figuring out what shit will get approved > prosecutors do that > high approval rate?
This is on the money. All the overreaches of the US government can be viewed as what happens when the world's hegemon actually is constrained by people, and has limits to its authority. Its what a country with its power and influence does, when its restrained.
Imagine the overreaches of a hegemon without those restraints. If the CCP were to replace the US/western alliances, as the dominant power - the catastrophe would be unimaginable.
