FBI Sought Approval To Use Spyware Through FISC

An anonymous reader writes "Wired is reporting that the FBI sought approval to use its custom spyware program, CIPAV, from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in terrorism or spying investigations. Affidavits prepared for the court are among 3,000 pages of documents gathered, but not yet released, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from Wired. The FBI hasn't answered any questions about its use of the CIPAV since the program's existence became widely known in July. The FISC is generally regarded as a rubber stamp; it approved over 4,000 surveillance requests in 2005 and 2006[PDF], rejecting none."

And yet...

[Phroggy]

The FISC is generally regarded as a rubber stamp; it approved over 4,000 surveillance requests in 2005 and 2006[PDF], rejecting none.

Bush has been warning Congress that this same rubber stamp will prevent the government from being able to stop potential terrorist attacks, urging them to extend an unconstitutional law that grants the executive branch permission to bypass the rubber stamp.

Not surprising, but not necessarily bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading up a bit: "The FISA Court did not reject a single warrant application from its beginning in 1979 through 2002. In 2003 it rejected four applications. In 2004, the number was again zero."

What does this tell us? That the applicants are presenting material in manner that presents the court little choice but to approve the applications. The judges have guidelines regarding what they're supposed to do, and you'd expect the intelligence agencies to be able to put together applications that fit those guidelines.

Of more concern is the question of what the intelligence agencies may be doing off-the-books. It's been claimed that the Bush government has been carrying out surveillance without submitting applications to the FISC, and it's been suggested that the resignation of James Robertson from the FISC is related to revelation of this unauthorised surveillance.

One of the reasons for FISC is to ensure that the surveillance excesses of Nixon and his predecessors - often for political gain - couldn't happen again and provide some oversight to the process of spying on people in the United States. I don't consider myself to be a card-carrying tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist nutjob (in part because if we had cards it would make it easier for governments to crack our membership database and figure out who we are and decide to open our mail), but I don't for a minute believe that a single govenment since Nixon completely gave up ALL secret surveillance of US citizens on US soil. Governments are made up of people, and people are secretive beasts who often do things they're officially told not to for reasons of their own and who share information with other like-minded people they come across if they believe it will be to their benefit. The FISC was created for good and noble reasons, and are probably doing the right thing most of the time - the trouble is, I don't believe they're necessarily being told about everything that's happening and may well be given fabricated evidence in support of applications. If Bush and his advisors and/or puppeteers have no problem lying about weapons of mass destruction to start a war, then why should they or their underlings have a problem cooking up believable applications to support their agenda?

None rejected means nothing

[n6kuy]

> The FISC is generally regarded as a rubber stamp; it approved over 4,000 surveillance requests in
> 2005 and 2006[PDF], rejecting none.

This means nothing interesting, unless you can point to some requests that should have been rejected.

Shhh! They'll mod you "Troll"...

[Mr. Roadkill]

...and open your mail, and tap your phone, and monitor your internet traffic, because you have different views and aren't afraid to state them. All quite legally. And in many others, they'd probably do it anyway if they felt it was "right" to do so.

Parent raises a fair and intersting point, that Bush considers the FISC to be an impediment to those who are simply trying to protect the American People. If the FISC was merely rubber-stamping whatever the U.S. Government wanted to do, then how could its oversight prevent government from protecting the American People? How come this deserves the "Troll" mod it got?

They say those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it. Seems to me like a lot of Americans need to bone up on things like the Church Committee.

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

"That's not necessarily a bad thing. It could be that the government only goes to the FISA court when they have solid evidence that supports a warrant. There isn't enough information available to determine what is going on with FISA." That's by design you idiot. It's a secret court! It is by its very nature a bad thing. This is not freedom. It is fear. It is opression.

Well, since the current administration was engaged in so much warrantless wiretapping, that does suggest the the FISA court was doing a decent job. Why would you engage in illegal warrantless wiretapping if you could do the same thing legally?

And in general, there is a need to wiretap. There are bad people in the world, and a government should have the power to do so after presenting convincing evidence to a judge.

And when the government doesn't have solid evidence, then what do they do? They indiscriminently kill innocent people-- just like they have for 120,000 years.

120,000 years? Is Dick Cheney that old? I think you need to dial down the paranoia a bit. Government hasn't been around that long - you're talking about times before metal was known.