| The article you cited shows there is rather heavy oversight, and at a very high level. And that only about 1500 FISA requests are granted a year, which is a very small number for 300 M people, relating to another 7 Billion. A single case might yield 5 or 10 warrants, ergo, possibly as few as 150 serious cases. That's small. That 'they are almost always granted' is not so bad in and of itself. If there's a 'known process' for getting warrants, and law enforcement knows what will be approved and what won't - well - then there shouldn't be too many that are denied. Underlying the 'warrant' is not something 'pro forma' - it's a set of expectations and requirements upon the part of the overview system in place. The 'form' requires that the applicant fulfills some very important criteria. I do think it's fair to be suspicious and that we should be vigilant about it, but I don't think that 1500 requests a year is too out of line. I think the big concern is the 'mass surveillance' - or when local cops are making requests to do local-yocal small cases that don't have relevance to things like actual terrorism. |
Those 1500 requests cover about 15 million people though, which skews the weighting. That gives me concern.
> If there's a 'known process' for getting warrants, and law enforcement knows what will be approved and what won't
Either that, or there is a culture that rejecting a warrant needs extenuating circumstances, in which case it becomes a large concern.
We can't know if the oversight is simply managerial, or actually effective. It's done with the utmost secrecy, with many punishments awaiting any who might speak out.
> I think the big concern is the 'mass surveillance' - or when local cops are making requests to do local-yocal small cases that don't have relevance to things like actual terrorism.
Unfortunately FISA enables mass surveillance. And the checks and balances seem heavily weighted against the individual, and in favour of a state they can't oppose.