FISA Court Argues To Senate That It's Not A Rubber Stamp

from the sometimes-it-requests-changes dept

The FISA Court is still trying to shed its reputation as a rubber stamp. In a new letter, responding to questions from Senator Grassley, the court explains that, while it's true that it eventually approves basically all requests that the intelligence community brings before the court, that doesn't take into account the changes it requires. It starts out by noting, as it has previously, that the "over 99%" approval rate is only for "final applications" and doesn't fairly consider that it frequently asks for substantial changes. In response to that earlier statement, Senator Grassley had asked how many times does it ask for substantial changes, and the court sent back the following late last week:
During the three month period from July 1, 2013 through September 30, 2013, we have observed that 24.4% of matters submitted ultimately involved substantive changes to the information provided by the government or to the authorities granted as a result of Court inquiry or action. This does not include, for example, mere typographical corrections. Although we have every reason to believe that this three month period is typical in terms of the historic rate of modifications, we will continue to collect these statistics for an additional period of time and we will inform you if those data suggest that the recent three months were anomalous.
Of course, by July 1st, it's pretty clear that the FISC knew that it was going to be under substantial scrutiny concerning these efforts, and the whole "rubber stamp" discussion had already been widespread in the press. While the court insists that this is probably no different than in the past, the real question is what was it in the past... and there, the FISC admits, it has no idea. In responding to the request for historical data, it notes:
FISC [is] just beginning a practice of collecting statistics on the rate at which such modifications occur.
In other words, back before there was any public scrutiny, nobody much bothered to monitor these things and make sure that the FISC wasn't just a rubber stamp -- and there's no real way to go back and check.

Also, there's the whole question of how do you define "substantial." While the FISC at least admits the bar is higher than typographical corrections, it also admits that the rating is somewhat in the eye of the beholder:
It should be noted, however, that these statistics are an attempt to measure the results of what are, typically, informal communications between the branches. Therefore, the determination of exactly when a modification is "substantial," and whether it was caused solely by the FISC's intervention, can be a judgment call.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: fisa, fisa court, fisc, nsa, nsa surveillance, rubber stamp


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2013 @ 3:04pm

    Can't the government create a schema where all information is entered between tags and automatically anonymized?

    Agent [agent name]John Smith[/agent name] requests [judicial act]surveillance[/judicial act] of [target]John Smith Jr.[/target] on [date]january[/date] on his property located at [location]GPS coordinates xxxx.yyyy[/location], [address][/address].

    This protects names, locations, dates and operations doesn't it, while still creating a way to track and observe in an open forum if it is being abused or not.

    Is this not exactly what the government is doing to its people and saying is perfectly safe?
    So what are the reasons the government wouldn't want to do it now?

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.