US Lawmaker Cited NYC Protests in a Defense of Warrantless Spying
www.wired.com
A closed-door presentation for House lawmakers late last year portrayed American anti-war protesters as having possible ties to Hamas in an effort to kill privacy reforms to a major US spy program.

At a private meeting about the reauthorization of a major United States surveillance program late last year, the Republican chairman of the US House Intelligence Committee presented an image of Americans protesting the war in Gaza while implying possible ties between the protesters and Hamas, an allegation that was used to illustrate why surveillance reforms may prove detrimental to national security,

  • mozz
    11•9 months ago

    This is fuckin nuts

    They’re not debating whether they can spy on people. That’s a given. They’re debating whether they can bypass FISA judges to spy on people with no oversight in some circumstances, and what those circumstances can be. A summary of the history:

    “Hey we need to spy on these people ‘cause we’re law enforcement and they’re maybe doin crimes”

    “Okay cool get a warrant. It’s not like they’re shy about handing them out, but we need to have judges overseeing that. Our experience has been that if there are people who can just spy on whoever they want whenever they want it sometimes becomes a big big problem.

    “No I can’t get a warrant, the proof is way too secret to even show a judge.”

    “Uhhh… ok. Maybe? Okay. How about this: We’ll make a whole system of FISA courts where you can go and get a special warrant where you can share secret information to get the warrant. And we’ll make it so they’re very very very not shy about handing them out, like 99%.”

    (Time passes)

    “Hey I don’t wanna use the FISA courts, can I just”

    I can’t comprehend how anyone can look at that question and the answer is any kind to debate, instead of just shouting NO before the question is finished.