re: NSA will be allowed to keep illegally acquired data

The article states that the judge stopped the most problematic kind of upstream collection. Although allowing to keep data gained illegally (they were collecting and keeping it illegally already anyway). I am unsure how not prohibiting collection of data that is already prohibited means you are allowing it and the article does not really clarify. How did the judge permit said illegal back door searches?

either way Losh is blaming Trump for an Obama appointed judge continuing to allow the NSA to illegally collect/store information they have been illegally collecting for +/- a decade.

I am not trying to be all MAGA, but Losh presented this as Trump expanding spying and overreach. I agree with the sentiment that spying on Americans is deeply problematic. It is not helpful to point the blame at Trump, who is not a part of the judiciary, nor is he in charge of writing the laws that govern FISC.

This is primarily fault of congress our senators/HOR wrote the laws allowing and providing rules for FISC. These are the representatives that need blamed, and to a lesser degree the executives that put people in place who would allow for violation of the 4th.

quote:

---

It is not helpful to point the blame at Trump, who is not a part of the judiciary, nor is he in charge of writing the laws that govern FISC.

---

He is, however, in charge of the NSA. He doesn't have to wait on handpicked judges or Congressional laws to narrow the scope of NSA's authority. He could, if he wanted, do so entirely on his own. Courts determine the outer limits of what bureaucracies can do. They don't prevent the executive from adopting tougher standards.

And John Roberts, not Obama or Trump, determines which federal judges sit on FISC. Collyer was a Bush appointee.

Who do you think puts arguments in front of the judge on behalf of the government?

In reality, this is big government law and order Sessions run amock again, and Trump again shows no willingness to reign him in due either to agreement with Sessions' position or ignorance of it altogether.

I was mistaken on FISC appointments, thank you for enlightening me. However my point remains that it is not Trump's people expanding these powers.

FISC was created by congress via FISA. FISC is not the same as the NSA.

POTUS is in charge of the NSA overall, but the more proximate body allowing the infractions would be the judiciary, followed by congress, then POTUS.

FISC is the secret court prescribed by congress to regulate the NSA from within. I would rather law makers and judges determine the ins and outs of the legality of surveillance rather than whomever happens to be POTUS at the time.

I guess I just don't think POTUS should be as involved in warrantless surveillance as you do?

I'm more annoyed at NC's style of posting something cryptic and then making you play 20 questions

EDIT: There's an ancient Chinese proverb that says "When you're full of shite, make up an ancient Chinese proverb"

You're entertaining in the same way that the Demon Sword Dueler and the Sea Monster Hunter are entertaining.

Losh maybe I missed it in the article, but how did the judge allow for expanding back door searches?

I am under the impression that article said those domestic back door searches were already prohibited. I do not see it explain how the judge permitted it, only that she didn't prohibit it. Did Colly actually rule that it was allowed, or simply not adress prohibition?
I also see it stopped the most problematic kind of collection, but not how he ended up permitting/expanding other problematic searches. I understand it was prohibited in the past by other judges, did Colly reverse that, or just not adress prohibition of that, therefore allowing it?

quote:

---

I'm honored y'all enjoy my posting so much

---

Find it yet?

quote:

---

He is, however, in charge of the NSA. He doesn't have to wait on handpicked judges or Congressional laws to narrow the scope of NSA's authority. He could, if he wanted, do so entirely on his own. Courts determine the outer limits of what bureaucracies can do. They don't prevent the executive from adopting tougher standards.

---

Yup. Takes me back to my point about Trump from the beginning. He is the the highest authority in the most powerful branch. He could make hundreds if not thousands of meaningful changes with a stroke of the pen. No reason to "make a deal" or even delay in doing things like reducing the scope of NSA collection, or reducing US involvement in these conflicts abroad.

Of course everyone agreed the POTUS had this unilateral power from 2009-2016. Now, of course, the situation is much more nuanced....