Secret Court's Redefinition of 'Relevant' Empowered Vast NSA Data-Gathering

[kpete]

Source: Wall Street Journal

Secret Court's Redefinition of 'Relevant' Empowered Vast NSA Data-Gathering



The National Security Agency's ability to gather phone data on millions of Americans hinges on a secret court ruling that redefined a single word: "relevant."

This change—which specifically enabled the surveillance recently revealed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden—was made by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a group of judges responsible for making decisions about government surveillance in national-security cases. In classified orders starting in the mid-2000s, the court accepted that "relevant" could be broadened to permit an entire database of records on millions of people, in contrast to a more conservative interpretation widely applied in criminal cases, in which only some of those records would likely be allowed, according to people familiar with the ruling.

In interviews with The Wall Street Journal, current and former administration and congressional officials are shedding new light on the history of the NSA program and the secret legal theory underpinning it. The court's interpretation of the word enabled the government, under the Patriot Act, to collect the phone records of the majority of Americans, including phone numbers people dialed and where they were calling from, as part of a continuing investigation into international terrorism.

"Relevant" has long been a broad standard, but the way the court is interpreting it, to mean, in effect, "everything," is new, says Mark Eckenwiler, a senior counsel at Perkins Coie LLP who, until December, was the Justice Department's primary authority on federal criminal surveillance law.


Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323873904578571893758853344.html

[Th1onein]

1. Fuckers.

Sorry rat fuckers. They're redefining a lot of words these days. Of course, it's all a secret.

[xtraxritical]

2. New speak...

[brett_jv]

3. I see that the 'good' interpretation of the word 'relevant' ...

Is the 'conservative' definition.

Never mind that it's almost entirely the LIBERAL Democrats in Congress that are actually challenging the NSA on their data-gathering practices.

A great reminder to never underestimate the bullsh*t that Murdoch's minions will attempt to interject into our public discourse.

[kpete]

6. new·speak (nspk, ny-) n.

Deliberately ambiguous and contradictory language used to mislead and manipulate the public.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/newspeak

[JDPriestly]

4. Oh!!! If the Zimmerman judge defined "relevant" to mean what the FISA Court says it means,

Zimmerman's attorney could keep the jury sequestered for months and months.

The term "relevant" is really important to courts.

California Evidence Code:

350. No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence.

351. Except as otherwise provided by statute, all relevant evidence
is admissible.

352. The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its
probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that
its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b)
create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the
issues, or of misleading the jury.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&group=00001-01000&file=350-356

More.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&group=00001-01000&file=400-406

Deciding what is or is not relevant is just basic in the law.

Sounds like the FISA Court just gave up, stopped doing its job and ruled that anything the government wants to grab is relevant to something.

This is crazy. The FISA Court is not doing its job -- which is among other things -- to consider relevance and probable cause in deciding whether to approve the request for a court order. This is in part the practical work of the court and in part the court's duty under the Constitution.

[Igel]

5. It's how laws are expanded and changed without the legislature.

The text of the law says one thing.

Then for a while the interpretation of the text is fairly "conservative" in the sense that it follows fairly strictly the meaning of the words and their most likely interpretation in that context at the time the law was passed. If necessary, the intent of the legislature and the President, their understanding when the law was enacted, is considered.

But then new applications are proposed. There's a problem and law is needed to cover that new exigency. Suddenly the law is found to be "living." Not in big ways, but in small ways, often unnoticed. Over time, the law grows, evolves, as the words and their interpretations take on new meanings. Eventually a year's growth isn't a small, barely noticeable creep, but a leap.

Eventually the courts aren't applying the law as passed. They're applying a new, different law. Suddenly the public notices that the case law has so changed the meaning of the law from what it originally meant that people can take sides: some like the new version of the law and some like the old version. Those who like the old version are on occasion called "originalists."

It's established practice in the courts. That it's done in secret is irrelevant. It's most often done in public but it's not as though the public is asked to weigh in and approve the changes. Most of the time the Congress isn't involved--unless the court's new interpretation is so at odds with what the majority in *both* chambers of Congress, plus the president, want the law to be ... and they think there's political gain in taking on the issue. It's also crucial that the law that's suddenly become animated and found to have "evolved" isn't the Constitution.

Person A deems this a horrid practice when the courts make the laws into something Person A despises; if he's conservative, he might call it "legislating from the bench," because the law is found to be essentially new and only the legislature can enact new laws. If Person A likes the new interpretation, he glories in the idea of a living and evolving law that's flexible enough to be applied to circumstances as needed or desirable. The idea that the law is just words written on paper is horrible, because then a dysfunctional, unpredictable, sluggardly Congress would have take action and it would become a political football.

[bemildred]

7. Does this remind you of the IRS deciding that "exclusively" meant 51%? nt

[Solly Mack]

8. K&R

[Hydra]

9. And here it is

This is legalese that they used to justify this, and even the FISA court decided to object in 2011 about they "violating the spirit of the 4th amendment."

But don't question it- after all, it's all "legal" and we have to "trust" the NSA to behave themselves according to the Ministry of Truth here.