Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« D.C. Lateral Roundup | Main | D.C. Circuit Upholds Damages in 'Contempt-of-Cop' Case »

July 09, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e201901e311e3d970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Privacy Board Hears from Surveillance Defenders, Critics:

Comments

Avon

Bravo for the initiatives to inject a challenge mechanism into FISA decisions!

I personally don't think it's policymaking to approve what amounts to blanket secret subpoenas as opposed to individual ones. I just think it's an outrage. I personally don't distrust the federal judges, though I wish they weren't all Republican appointees and I wish they didn't just parse language details of subpoena / demand-letter approvals.

Rather, I think we need to make the FISA court a place for advocacy. Without a "case or controversy," its very right to exist is in doubt. And without adversarial participation, American liberty is in doubt.

My list of complaints about the "PATRIOT" Act, FISA, and intelligence self-policing is long. But the Kerr-type reform would go a long way toward assuaging them.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements