Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Even though the federal Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court acknowledged that "Enhanced public scrutiny could provide an additional safeguard against mistakes, overreaching or abuse", the FISC declined to even review declassification of the portions of its decisions that made interpretations and rulings on federal surveillance law.
[Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?]
<
3 comments:
That is a very troubling ruling. One would think that they could separate out the facts from the law in order to assure that the former remain secret. . . . or at least are discussed at a sufficiently high level of generality to assure that nothing threatening security is released.
Somebody needs to look at the trade secret cases where the TS is preserved via protective order but the decision is still publicly justified in an opinion.
I converted a bunch of widely scattered pdfs to web pages with links a while back, all relating to this issue.
The collection is here:
http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/nsa.html
The downloadable collection is here:
http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/012006_HouseDemJudBriefing.zip
EFF v. ATT Complaint (initial filing):
http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/att-complaint.html
ACLU v. NSA :
http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/aclu-nsa-complaint.html
- dcm
I converted a bunch of widely scattered pdfs to web pages with links a while back, all relating to this issue.
The collection is here:
http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/nsa.html
The downloadable collection is here:
>http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/012006_HouseDemJudBriefing.zip
EFF v. ATT Complaint (initial filing):
>http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/att-complaint.html
ACLU v. NSA :
>http://thewall.civiblog.org/rsf/aclu-nsa-complaint.html
- dcm
(Webmaster - sorry about duplicate post - this one has the links)
Post a Comment