...continued
Fourth Amendment protections expanded significantly with Katz v. United States (1967).[37][39] In Katz, the Supreme Court expanded that focus to embrace an individual's right to privacy, and ruled that a search had occurred when the government wiretapped a telephone booth using a microphone attached to the outside of the glass. While there was no physical intrusion into the booth, the Court reasoned that: 1) Katz, by entering the booth and shutting the door behind him, had exhibited his expectation that "the words he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to the world"; and 2) society believes that his expectation was reasonable. Justice Potter Stewart wrote in the majority opinion that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places".[40] A "search" occurs for purposes of the Fourth Amendment when the government violates a person's "reasonable expectation of privacy."[41] Katz's reasonable expectation of privacy thus provided the basis to rule that the government's intrusion, though electronic rather than physical, was a search covered by the Fourth Amendment, and thus necessitated a warrant.[37][42] The Court said that it was not recognizing any general right to privacy in the Fourth Amendment,[43] and that this wiretap could have been authorized if proper procedures had been followed.[42]
This decision in Katz was later developed into the now commonly used two-prong test, adopted in Smith v. Maryland (1979),[44] for determining whether the Fourth Amendment is applicable in a given circumstance:[45][46]
a person "has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy"; and
society is prepared to recognize that this expectation is (objectively) reasonable.
No, it's not. Saying "the government watches the government" absolutely
does not satisfy the requirements of checks and balances.
The Executive has appointment powers, but Congress has confirmation powers over those appointments; Congress has legislative powers, but the Judiciary has review powers over that legislation; lower courts are subject to review by higher courts through the appellate process; higher courts are filled by Executive appointment, which is subject to confirmation.... You see?
The FISA court judge is appointed by the USSC Chief Justice, with no confirmation hearing; FISA court decisions placing citizens under orders are not open to judicial review (there is no appellate process); court opinion and case law is
secret by nature, which precludes citizens who desire redress from seeking further legal remedy, which means there is no review of anything the FISA court does by a higher court... which means it's building it's own
system of secret case law. There is a review panel, but it works to offer the government clarification and review on warrants that are rejected. So, the government gets to appeal the decisions of the court that hold it back from doing what it wants to do, but not the people it may be doing it against.
No, it's not. Supervision implies the court watches the NSA and measures its performance. No court performs this job.
Guidance, in this case, is referring to the building of a legal case. The FISA court will authorize certain methods and objects for collection, but it doesn't actively tell the NSA what to do and what not to do like you seem to be implying with "guidance". If the NSA wants to build a case against someone to turn over to the Justice Department, there are certain things they can't do when collecting evidence, and the purpose of the court is to 1) grant warrants, and 2) provide guidance in the obtaining of those warrants (i.e. "if you want to tap that guy's phone, you're going to have to bring me some evidence he's up to no good"... that kind of guidance).
There is neither supervision nor guidance (in the way you were using the word) of the NSA being performed by any court.
If said SIGINT is being applied against US citizens? That sounds like the purview of the Justice Department, I'd wager. Law enforcement is who would use any such information, and they would want any information they get to be constitutionally and legally obtained, or else the Judiciary will check that **** right on outta their courtroom. And, of course, the constitutionality of any such evidence would have to filter up through the normal court system, ultimately arriving at the Supreme Court for actual judicial review.
You realize Top Secret gag orders prevent people from appealing to the Supreme Court, right? The Supreme Court can't review what it can't hear.
You keep ignoring the fact that review is required to prove constitutionality (and, thus, true legality), and the way the court is set up
there can be no review. But with the actions of Snowden, these practices may finally have their day in court, so to speak. Open court, that is, not the rubber-stamp "secret court" that has thus far been removed from all scrutiny.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/us/politics/federal-judge-rules-against-nsa-phone-data-program.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
“I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary’ invasion than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval,” Judge Leon wrote in a 68-page ruling. “Surely, such a program infringes on ‘that degree of privacy’ that the founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment,” which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
.....
The case is the first in which a federal judge who is not on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which authorized the once-secret program, has examined the bulk data collection on behalf of someone who is not a criminal defendant.
.....
It also marks the first successful legal challenge brought against the program since it was revealed in June after leaks by the former N.S.A. contractor Edward J. Snowden.
If the government is trying to collect data against constitutionally protected US citizens who are not the subjects of criminal investigations, then I'm glad their job is more difficult. Again, I really didn't like the foreign collection aspect of his whistleblowing, but I get why he did it. He also reported a massive collusion between the US and our allies that basically negates the constitution altogether by spying on each others citizens and simply trading the information. The fact that we have the capability and intent to spy on our allies? Yeah, that's politically damaging. But the reason why we do it? THAT'S unconstitutional!