Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The reasoning here is pretty sound:

- In any case the USA FREEDOM Act explicitly rules out bulk collection by the NSA in 6 months ( it's done by the phone companies afterwards, not sure if that's really any better)

- The Second Circuit ruled that Section 215 of the Patriot Act was not intended to allow for mass surveillance. But they did not issue an injunction, saying that further action is dependent on the USA FREEDOM Act

- Congress passed the act _with this 6 month period_ and otherwise similar language, basically saying "We know this is interpreted as mass surveillance, and we are not contradicting that"

The second circuit ruling was not based off of constitutional interpretation, but off of the interpretation of the law. By passing the Freedom act with that 6 month period, Congress has made clear that the "mass surveillance" interpretation is acceptable to them (again, for that 6 month period).



And yet how does the FISA court have jurisdiction in the matter at all? My understanding was that the FISA court existed solely for the purpose of evaluating the validity of warrants that if applied for in a general court would prove a natural security risk.


The FISA court does not handle criminal warrants. It was created to add a layer of judicial oversight for foreign power surveillance activities that previously did not require warrants.


IANAL, but I think this is to say whether the FISC will accept any warrants of a "bulk collection" style for this 6-month period.

If their opinion went the other way, they could rescind previous bulk collection warrants, which means the NSA would have to stop their activity.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: