Home Tags Posts tagged with "1A"
Tag:

1A

Manch TalkVideo

HB 1002 Needs to Die (Manch Talk 01/31/24)

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

WATCH THE VIDEO BELOW ABOUT THE MOST INSIDIOUS NH HOUSE BILL BEING HEARD TOMORROW!!!

They’re creating a tax for open record requests. We HAVE TO KILL HB 1002!!!

Here’s the documents created by Right-to-Know NH regarding HB 1002. HUGE SHOUT OUT to Katherine Kokko of Right-to-Know NH for the incredible work she did on this issue, including the Q&A below. Right-to-Know NH is a nonpartisan group working together to keep NH government open, transparent, and ACCOUNTABLE to the people.

HB1002: Frequently Asked Questions

How does HB1002 impact the public’s Right to Know?

HB1002 imposes labor, retrieval, and redaction costs on requestors under RSA Chapter 91-A (NH’s “Right to Know” Law). HB1002 constrains a citizens’ right to know to what can be learned in 10 hours or less in a 30-day period, while charging for additional details within that time period.

A ten hour limit on requests sounds reasonable on paper. Why is this a problem?

The limit hampers the public’s ability to understand and scrutinize complex government operations thoroughly, setting conditions for opacity in government. HB1002 targets, and discourages members of the public from performing the public service of assuring transparency in government, jeopardizing public access and government transparency in New Hampshire. There are other ways to address the problem of “burdensome requests” as presented to the House (See inside).

What else is wrong with HB1002?

By defining the reasonableness of a request as a time limit, HB1002 contravenes the intent of the RTK Law repeatedly affirmed by the courts – to define reasonableness of a request in a manner that provides the greatest information, consistent with statutory and constitutional objectives.

Furthermore, high labor estimates for responding to a request are likely to be issued due to issues like poor record retention practices or the use of overzealous redactions. Those are the responsibility of the public body, not the fault of the requestor.

Why is it important for the public to have unfettered access to public information under NH’s Right to Know law?

NH’s law is entirely and uniquely reliant on private action by individuals for enforcement, giving the public a statutory role in ensuring transparency in NH. There is no oversight body to ensure that NH’s Right-to-Know law is enforced.

Any investigation, even by the RTK Ombudsman, must be instigated by private action. HB1002 erects financial barriers to the public and perversely incentivizes public bodies to increase their estimated labor in responding to RTK requests.

This bill appears to have lot of support from local communities, public bodies and their lobbyists. Who is opposing this bill?

Because this bill would severely harm government accountability and transparency in New Hampshire, it is opposed by a broad Coalition of stakeholders, including the Right-to-Know NH, the ACLU-NH, the New England First Amendment Coalition, the N.H. Press Association, the N.H. Union Leader, the N.H. Bulletin and Americans for Prosperity.

WHY VOTE NO

ON HB1002?

It sounds like “burdensome requests” are a big problem for public bodies/communities? Does RTKNH agree?

The bill’s sponsor Katelyn Kuttab (R-Windham), the NH Municipal Association and Right to Know NH have all confirmed that the large, problematic requests at issue are infrequent. In testimony, examples of “burdensome requests” were anecdotal and not placed in context. Most labor-intensive RTK requests come from commercial entities who are likely willing to pay.

By contrast, the average citizen will likely abandon their RTK request when faced with potential fees for a public interest inquiry, serving no public good. The impact on the average citizen request will be far more profound than the impact on burdensome commercial requests.

If this bill is NOT passed, how will public bodies/communities deal with these “burdensome requests”?

HB1002 addresses a perceived issue that is already addressed by the Right to Know law and existing State and Federal case law. HB1002 disincentivizes public bodies from understanding the existing parameters of the RTK law and the court’s definitions of “reasonableness”… at the public’s expense.

Finally, public bodies always have the option of communicating with the requestor to try and clarify the scope of the request. Many do not do this and choose a legalistic approach instead.

Are there other ways to address these “burdensome requests?”

Yes. Public bodies, including elected officials, should be trained on Right to Know. There is no training requirement. Relying on legal counsel or trying to base decisions on in-house interpretations – instead of training public employees on the front lines – exacerbates issues. When a community spends an inordinate amount of time on Right to Know requests, it is often due to this lack of training and/or reliance on overly legalistic responses.

• What else could be done to assist public bodies?

Multiple stakeholders have asked the AG’s Office to update its 2015 Memorandum on NH’s Right to Know Law so that public bodies can appropriately apply the many precedent-setting decisions made since 2015. The AG’s Office has not done so (claiming that it is in process) while failing to provide a timeline for completion. Meanwhile, it has endorsed HB1002 and specifically the proposed fee structure. This is an unacceptable abdication of its own role in assuring the integrity of the application of the Right-to-Know law.

• The House Judiciary Committee voted this bill OTPA. Why should I disagree with their recommendation?

With only 2 business days between the hearing and Executive Session, the House Judiciary Committee voted HB1002 OTPA 12-8 along evenly split party lines (6D/6R to 4D/4R), without:

(i) Investigating examples, or the origin and root causes of, burdensome requests that are being cited anecdotally to justify this bill

(ii) Considering more targeted proposals to limit excessive requests.

(iii) Investigating the role that RTK training and public guidance (including from the NH Attorney General’s office) could have in resolving this issue.

• How will this bill impact the “average” RTK request?

HB1002 reinforces the use of problematic practices like unnecessary redactions, use of outside contracted support staff and “data dumps” of large volumes of unnecessary documents by allowing billing for such labor. It will also have a “chilling effect” on anything but the most simple request, discouraging the public from researching and understanding issues of interest because they are “too complicated” to warrant paying for the public interest.

Developed and Funded by Committed NH Citizen-Advocates through Right-to-Know NH

Page 2

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Blog

AI & I: Whistleblowers & Secret Courts

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

List the most famous American whistleblowers and how their bravery to come forward led to actual substantive changes that improved government accountability and public trustChatGPT

ChatGPT

Several famous American whistleblowers have played a significant role in exposing government misconduct and promoting government accountability and public trust. Here are some of the most well-known American whistleblowers and the impact of their actions:

  1. Daniel Ellsberg:
    • Ellsberg was a former military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971, a top-secret Department of Defense study on the Vietnam War.
    • His actions exposed government deception and the secret escalation of the war, leading to increased public skepticism about the government’s actions.
    • The publication of the Pentagon Papers contributed to the eventual end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and led to greater transparency in government decision-making.
  2. Mark Felt (Deep Throat):
    • Felt, an associate director of the FBI, provided information to reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein during the Watergate scandal in the 1970s.
    • His anonymous leaks helped uncover the Watergate break-in and subsequent cover-up, leading to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.
    • Felt’s actions demonstrated the importance of whistleblowers in exposing government corruption and holding high-level officials accountable.
  3. Frank Serpico:
    • Serpico was a New York City police officer who exposed widespread corruption and bribery within the NYPD in the early 1970s.
    • His testimony before the Knapp Commission led to investigations and reforms within the police department, including the establishment of the independent Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) to oversee police misconduct.
    • Serpico’s actions inspired public debate about police integrity and accountability.
  4. Jeffrey Wigand:
    • Wigand was a former tobacco industry executive who blew the whistle on the industry’s knowledge of the health risks associated with smoking and the manipulation of nicotine levels in cigarettes.
    • His disclosures contributed to multiple lawsuits against tobacco companies and led to the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, which imposed significant financial penalties on the industry and led to greater regulation and public awareness of the dangers of smoking.
  5. Edward Snowden:
    • Snowden, a former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, leaked classified documents in 2013 that revealed the extent of government surveillance programs, including mass data collection on American citizens.
    • His disclosures sparked a global debate on privacy, surveillance, and government overreach.
    • Snowden’s actions led to reforms such as the USA Freedom Act and increased scrutiny of intelligence agencies’ activities.

These whistleblowers demonstrated immense courage in exposing government wrongdoing, leading to substantive changes in government policies, increased transparency, and greater public trust by holding those in power accountable for their actions.

You

Explain what “increased scrutiny of US intelligence agencies’ activities” happened after Snowden ChatGPT

ChatGPT

Edward Snowden’s revelations about the extent of surveillance conducted by U.S. intelligence agencies, particularly the National Security Agency (NSA), led to increased scrutiny and changes in the way these agencies operate. Here are some of the key ways in which increased scrutiny of U.S. intelligence agencies’ activities occurred after Snowden’s disclosures:

  1. Public Awareness and Debate: Snowden’s leaks brought the previously secret and massive surveillance programs into the public spotlight. This triggered a national and international conversation about the balance between national security and individual privacy. Citizens and policymakers became more informed about the scope of government surveillance.
  2. Legal Challenges: Snowden’s disclosures led to legal challenges against the NSA and its surveillance programs. Civil liberties organizations and concerned citizens filed lawsuits to challenge the constitutionality of certain surveillance practices, such as bulk data collection.
  3. Reform Legislation: The increased public and congressional scrutiny prompted efforts to reform U.S. intelligence agencies’ activities. The USA Freedom Act, signed into law in 2015, was a significant piece of legislation that imposed limitations on bulk data collection and introduced more transparency and oversight measures. It also ended the government’s bulk collection of call records.
  4. Increased Oversight: The revelations prompted calls for greater oversight of intelligence agencies. Congress established more robust mechanisms for overseeing surveillance programs, including increased reporting requirements and greater involvement of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in certain cases.
  5. International Diplomatic Fallout: Snowden’s disclosures strained U.S. relations with other countries, particularly European allies who were upset by reports of NSA surveillance on their leaders and citizens. This diplomatic fallout led to discussions and negotiations about international norms and rules for cyber espionage.
  6. Technology and Encryption: Snowden’s revelations encouraged tech companies to strengthen encryption and security measures to protect user data from government surveillance. Tech giants like Apple and Google started to prioritize user privacy and resist government demands for backdoors to encrypted data.
  7. Whistleblower Protections: Snowden’s actions spurred discussions about the need for stronger protections for whistleblowers who expose government misconduct. Some argued that there should be legal avenues for whistleblowers to come forward with classified information while still safeguarding national security.

Overall, Edward Snowden’s disclosures significantly increased transparency, accountability, and public scrutiny of U.S. intelligence agencies’ activities. While opinions about Snowden’s actions vary widely, there is no doubt that they had a profound impact on the national and international conversation surrounding surveillance, privacy, and government accountability.

You

Is it not true that Google and Apple routinely provide backdoors to governments now?ChatGPT

ChatGPT

As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, both Google and Apple have stated their commitment to user privacy and encryption, and they have resisted government requests for backdoors to access user data. However, the landscape of technology and government policies can change, and it’s essential to stay updated with the latest developments.

Here are some key points related to Google and Apple’s stance on user privacy and government access:

  1. Encryption: Both Google and Apple have implemented encryption measures to protect user data. This means that data stored on devices and transmitted over their services is typically end-to-end encrypted, making it challenging for anyone, including governments, to access user data without the user’s consent.
  2. Legal Requests: Both companies do comply with lawful government requests for user data when presented with appropriate legal process, such as court orders and subpoenas. However, they have been known to challenge overly broad or unconstitutional requests in court.
  3. Transparency Reports: Google and Apple publish transparency reports that provide information about the number and types of government requests for user data they receive. This transparency allows users to understand how often and why governments seek access to user information.
  4. Resistance to Backdoors: Historically, both companies have resisted government pressure to build backdoors or weaken encryption. They argue that weakening encryption would compromise user privacy and security.
  5. Government Access Debate: The debate over government access to encrypted communications and devices continues to be a topic of discussion among tech companies, privacy advocates, law enforcement agencies, and policymakers. There are ongoing debates about the balance between privacy and security in the digital age.

Since my knowledge is not up to date beyond January 2022, I recommend checking the latest news and developments regarding Google and Apple’s policies on government access and encryption to ensure you have the most current information on this topic. Technology companies’ positions and policies can evolve in response to legal and regulatory changes, as well as public and political pressure.

You

Post the most recent “transparency reports of government requests” by Apple and then GoogleChatGPT

ChatGPT

I apologize for any confusion, but I do not have the capability to access real-time data or the internet, including the most recent reports. My knowledge is based on information available up to January 2022, and I cannot provide updates beyond that date.

To access the most recent transparency reports from Apple and Google regarding government requests for user data, I recommend visiting the respective companies’ official websites or conducting an internet search using relevant keywords. Both Apple and Google regularly update their transparency reports to provide information on government requests for user data, and you can find the latest information directly from their official sources.

You

Summarize the current scope of “secret government surveillance” as it relates to social media ChatGPT

ChatGPT

As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, the scope of secret government surveillance related to social media was a subject of concern and debate, with several key aspects:

  1. Bulk Data Collection: Government agencies, particularly in the United States, had been engaged in bulk data collection programs where they collected vast amounts of metadata related to social media communications. This metadata included information about who was communicating with whom, when, and for how long. The content of the messages was typically not collected through these programs.
  2. National Security Agency (NSA): The NSA, as revealed by Edward Snowden in 2013, had programs like PRISM that reportedly allowed the agency to access data from major tech companies, including social media platforms. These programs were aimed at identifying potential threats to national security.
  3. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court: Surveillance requests by government agencies were subject to oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in the United States. FISC was responsible for granting or denying requests for surveillance, including those related to social media and internet communications.
  4. Private Companies’ Role: Social media companies were often compelled to provide user data to government agencies in response to legal requests, such as court orders and subpoenas. These companies generally complied with lawful requests while advocating for transparency and limits on government access.
  5. Global Concerns: Surveillance activities related to social media were not limited to the United States. Governments in various countries were also engaged in surveillance efforts, and revelations about these practices raised concerns about the balance between national security and individual privacy worldwide.
  6. Encryption Debates: The use of end-to-end encryption in messaging apps raised debates about government access to private communications. Some governments argued for “backdoors” that would allow them to access encrypted messages, while tech companies and privacy advocates argued against weakening encryption, citing security and privacy concerns.

Please note that the scope and nature of government surveillance can evolve over time due to changes in laws, policies, and technology. Since my knowledge is not up to date beyond January 2022, I recommend consulting the latest news and reports for the most current information on government surveillance related to social media. It’s also essential to stay informed about any legislative or policy changes that may impact the scope of surveillance activities.

You

How many FISA requests have been issued? ChatGPT

ChatGPT

I don’t have access to real-time or current data, including the exact number of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requests that have been issued since my last knowledge update in January 2022. FISA requests are typically classified and subject to national security considerations, and detailed statistics about them may not be publicly available.

To obtain the most up-to-date information on FISA requests and related statistics, you may need to refer to official government reports, statements, or releases from the relevant government agencies responsible for FISA oversight and compliance, such as the U.S. Department of Justice or the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Keep in mind that some aspects of FISA activities may remain classified or sensitive for national security reasons.

You

How can there be public trust and oversight of government surveillance if the number of FISA requests are secret? ChatGPT

ChatGPT

The tension between maintaining national security and ensuring public trust and oversight in government surveillance is a complex and ongoing challenge. While some aspects of government surveillance, such as specific FISA requests, may need to remain classified for legitimate national security reasons, there are mechanisms in place to balance these concerns:

  1. Transparency Reports: Government agencies, particularly in democratic countries like the United States, often release periodic transparency reports. These reports provide aggregated statistics on surveillance requests and activities without disclosing specific details that could compromise national security. Transparency reports offer the public insight into the scale and scope of surveillance efforts.
  2. Oversight Bodies: Many countries have established oversight bodies or committees responsible for reviewing government surveillance activities. These bodies, often composed of lawmakers, legal experts, and sometimes members of the public, are tasked with ensuring that surveillance activities are conducted within the bounds of the law and respect individual privacy rights.
  3. Judicial Review: In countries with legal frameworks like the United States, government surveillance requests, especially those related to FISA, are subject to judicial review. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in the U.S. reviews and approves or denies surveillance requests. The court operates behind closed doors to protect classified information but is intended to provide a check on government surveillance.
  4. Legislative Oversight: Elected representatives in legislatures have a role in overseeing government surveillance activities. They can hold hearings, request information, and pass legislation to address concerns about surveillance and enhance transparency.
  5. Whistleblower Protections: Whistleblowers play a vital role in exposing government misconduct, including unlawful or overreaching surveillance practices. Laws protecting whistleblowers can encourage individuals to come forward with concerns about government surveillance without fear of retaliation.
  6. Public Advocacy and Civil Liberties Groups: Public advocacy groups and civil liberties organizations actively monitor and advocate for transparency, accountability, and privacy protections in government surveillance programs. They often use legal means, advocacy campaigns, and public education efforts to promote awareness and accountability.

Balancing national security and individual privacy is an ongoing challenge, and the appropriate level of transparency and oversight may vary from one country to another. Striking the right balance requires constant vigilance, public engagement, and adaptation of laws and policies to address emerging technologies and threats while upholding democratic values and principles. It’s an area where public debate, legal challenges, and legislative reforms play a crucial role in shaping the rules governing government surveillance.

You

You mention “whistleblower protections”. Can you tell me how the past 10 most famous whistleblowers were protected?ChatGPT

ChatGPT

Whistleblower protections vary depending on the specific circumstances and legal frameworks in place at the time of their disclosures. Here’s a brief overview of the past 10 most famous whistleblowers and how they were protected or faced legal consequences:

  1. Edward Snowden:
    • Snowden exposed classified NSA documents related to mass surveillance. He fled to Russia to avoid prosecution in the United States, where he faced charges under the Espionage Act.
    • He was granted temporary asylum in Russia, which protected him from extradition to the United States. Some countries and human rights organizations offered support and protection.
  2. Chelsea Manning:
    • Manning leaked classified documents to WikiLeaks, including diplomatic cables and military records. She was arrested and faced a court-martial.
    • Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison but had her sentence commuted by President Barack Obama in 2017. She was released from prison in 2017.
  3. Daniel Ellsberg:
    • Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret study of the Vietnam War, to the New York Times and other newspapers. He was charged with violating the Espionage Act.
    • His case was eventually dismissed due to government misconduct and illegal surveillance, which came to light during the trial.
  4. Mark Felt (Deep Throat):
    • Felt remained anonymous as Deep Throat during the Watergate scandal. His identity was revealed in 2005 after his death.
    • He was never prosecuted for his role as a whistleblower. His status as a confidential informant was known only to a few individuals at the time.
  5. Frank Serpico:
    • Serpico exposed widespread corruption within the NYPD in the 1970s. He testified before the Knapp Commission.
    • He faced retaliation from fellow officers but was eventually protected by the Knapp Commission and continued to speak out against corruption.
  6. Jeffrey Wigand:
    • Wigand exposed tobacco industry practices related to the health risks of smoking. He faced legal threats from tobacco companies.
    • His disclosures led to legal battles and lawsuits against tobacco companies. He received legal support and protection during the process.
  7. Katharine Gun:
    • Gun leaked a memo from the U.S. National Security Agency requesting British support for the Iraq War. She faced possible prosecution under the Official Secrets Act.
    • The charges against her were dropped, and she was not prosecuted due to concerns about her prosecution’s impact on the trial.
  8. Thomas Drake:
    • Drake exposed waste and abuse within the NSA, specifically regarding a failed surveillance program. He faced charges under the Espionage Act.
    • The government’s case against him collapsed, and he eventually pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge, receiving no jail time.
  9. John Kiriakou:
    • Kiriakou revealed details about the CIA’s use of waterboarding and faced charges related to the leak.
    • He was sentenced to prison but later released. He received support from advocacy groups during his legal battle.
  10. Reality Winner:
  • Winner leaked a classified NSA document related to Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. She faced charges under the Espionage Act.
  • She was sentenced to more than five years in prison but was released in June 2021 after a commutation of her sentence.

Whistleblower protection can be a complex and evolving process, involving legal battles, public support, advocacy groups, and sometimes presidential pardons or commutations. The level of protection and consequences can vary significantly based on the nature of the disclosures and the legal and political context at the time.

You

While you claim whistleblowers can act as a safeguard against secret government surveillance, the reality is the government punishes whistleblowers to try to silence them and to create a chilling effect in the future… is this not correct? ChatGPT

ChatGPT

You are correct that in some cases, governments have taken legal action against whistleblowers, and there have been instances where whistleblowers faced retaliation as a means to discourage others from coming forward. The treatment of whistleblowers can vary widely depending on the nature of their disclosures, the legal framework in place, and the prevailing political climate. Here are some key points to consider:

  1. Legal Protections: While there are legal protections for whistleblowers in many countries, including the United States (such as the Whistleblower Protection Act), these protections may not always be sufficient to shield whistleblowers from prosecution or retaliation, especially when they expose classified information.
  2. Espionage Act: In the United States, the Espionage Act has been used to prosecute whistleblowers who leak classified information. This has been a point of controversy, as it can lead to lengthy prison sentences for those convicted.
  3. Public Support: Whistleblowers often rely on public support, advocacy groups, and legal defense funds to help protect their rights and interests. Public awareness and support can play a significant role in the outcome of whistleblower cases.
  4. Presidential Pardons or Commutations: In some cases, outgoing U.S. presidents have issued pardons or commutations to whistleblowers, as seen with Chelsea Manning and Reality Winner, to mitigate their sentences or charges.
  5. Chilling Effect: The fear of retaliation and legal consequences can indeed have a chilling effect on potential whistleblowers. When individuals see others facing harsh penalties for exposing government wrongdoing, they may be less likely to come forward with information.

It is essential to acknowledge that whistleblowers often take significant personal and professional risks when they decide to expose government misconduct or classified information. Their actions can lead to legal battles, loss of employment, and personal hardships. However, whistleblowers also play a crucial role in holding governments accountable and promoting transparency and accountability in democratic societies.

Efforts to strengthen whistleblower protections and create more robust legal frameworks for disclosing government misconduct are ongoing. Public awareness, legal challenges, and advocacy are key elements in shaping the treatment of whistleblowers and influencing the broader conversation about the balance between national security, government transparency, and individual rights.

You

Under what legal framework does national security trump individual rights? ChatGPT

ChatGPT

The legal framework in which national security concerns may be used to justify limitations on individual rights varies from one country to another and can depend on the specific legal context and the balance struck by the country’s legal system. The extent to which national security can potentially trump individual rights is a complex and evolving issue, and different legal systems provide different mechanisms and standards for addressing this balance. Here are some general principles and legal frameworks that are commonly referenced:

  1. Constitutional Frameworks: Many countries have constitutions or foundational legal documents that outline individual rights and freedoms. These documents often include provisions that allow for the limitation of these rights in cases of national security or public safety. For example, the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights includes provisions such as the First and Fourth Amendments, which protect freedom of speech and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, but these rights are subject to limitations in certain circumstances.
  2. National Security Legislation: Many countries have specific national security laws that grant authorities the power to take measures to protect the nation from threats. These laws may outline the circumstances under which individual rights can be restricted in the interest of national security.
  3. Judicial Review: In many legal systems, including the United States, the judiciary plays a crucial role in determining the legality of government actions that may infringe on individual rights in the name of national security. Courts can assess whether government actions comply with constitutional and legal standards, and they may strike down measures that are deemed to be excessive or unconstitutional.
  4. International Human Rights Law: International human rights agreements and conventions, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, provide a framework for protecting individual rights on a global scale. These agreements recognize that individual rights may be limited in certain circumstances, but such limitations must be necessary, proportionate, and subject to judicial review.
  5. Balancing Tests: In some legal systems, including the United States, courts use balancing tests to weigh the government’s interest in national security against the individual’s right. Courts consider factors such as the nature of the threat, the impact on individual rights, and whether less intrusive means could achieve the same security objectives.

It’s important to note that the precise balance between national security and individual rights can vary significantly between countries and may be influenced by legal traditions, historical events, and public sentiment. Additionally, the interpretation and application of these legal frameworks can evolve over time through court decisions and legislative changes.

In democratic societies, there is an ongoing debate and tension between the need to protect national security and the imperative to uphold individual rights and civil liberties. Courts, lawmakers, and civil society organizations play essential roles in defining and preserving this balance.

You

Is this balancing test done in the secret FISA courts? ChatGPT

ChatGPT

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), also known as the FISA court, does perform a form of balancing test when considering government surveillance requests related to national security. However, it operates under a unique and somewhat secretive legal framework.

In FISC proceedings:

  1. Application for Surveillance: Government agencies, typically the FBI and the NSA, submit applications to the FISC requesting authorization to conduct surveillance on foreign individuals or entities within the United States when there is a suspicion of involvement in activities that pose a threat to national security. These applications are often made under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
  2. Probable Cause: The government is required to demonstrate to the FISC that there is “probable cause” to believe that the target of the surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. This threshold is lower than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal cases but still requires a reasonable basis for suspicion.
  3. Minimization Procedures: FISC orders typically include minimization procedures, which are designed to limit the collection, retention, and dissemination of information about U.S. persons who are incidentally collected during foreign intelligence surveillance.
  4. Ex Parte Proceedings: FISC proceedings are typically ex parte, meaning that only the government presents its case, and there is no adversarial process with opposing arguments. This secrecy is intended to protect national security interests.
  5. Balancing National Security: While FISC judges are tasked with ensuring that government surveillance requests comply with legal requirements, they also consider the government’s interest in national security. This can be seen as a form of balancing, where the court evaluates whether the surveillance is justified in the context of national security concerns.
  6. Judicial Review: The FISC operates under the oversight of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) and the ability of individuals or entities subject to FISC orders to challenge those orders in certain circumstances.

It’s important to note that FISC proceedings are not open to the public, and the court’s decisions are often classified due to the sensitive nature of national security matters. This lack of transparency has led to debates about the extent of oversight and the potential for abuse.

In recent years, there have been calls for greater transparency and reform in FISC proceedings, including efforts to declassify more decisions and provide opportunities for adversarial proceedings in certain cases. The balance between national security and individual rights remains a topic of ongoing discussion and scrutiny.

You

What was the last thing that was declassified? ChatGPT

ChatGPT

I don’t have access to real-time data, and my knowledge is based on information available up to January 2022. Declassification of government documents and information is an ongoing process, and it can vary depending on the specific documents, agencies, and national security considerations involved.

The declassification of government information is typically determined by the government agencies responsible for the classification of the information, and it can be influenced by a variety of factors, including the passage of time, changes in national security concerns, and legal or policy decisions.

To find the most recent declassified information, I recommend checking official government sources, such as the websites of government agencies responsible for declassification or relevant news reports from reputable sources. These sources often provide updates on declassified documents and information as they become available to the public.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Blog

And Just Like That, I’m Back

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

I was banned on Twitter/X for almost 6 months. I was never given a reason why. Whenever I appealed, I ended up in an infinite automatic loop of non-responses leading nowhere. I shudder to think of our futures in the hands of these inane auto-loops. If you think classical muzak on long-hold calls is bad, consider it an angelic symphony compared to stock email answers from a bot.

Last week, when my credit card was again charged for my Blue Check ($8) and Elon Musk subscription ($4) (which I merely took in support of the proof of concept for the subscription model and can hardly afford to be handing money to a billionaire, but m’kay), I decided I was going to get stroppy.

By which I mean, I was going to stop half-arsing my frustration, and take concrete action: reach out to tech contacts who might know people in X Legal; line up folks at Institute of Justice and F.I.R.E.; send one final appeal request.

In response to the receipt I received, I sent an email complaint back. Then suddenly things started to move and within an hour, I was restored, my 20,000 past Tweets came back, and then a bit later, my followers.

Friends and colleagues cheered my return. I’m pretty chuffed too. Follow me now.

But what did I learn during my six-month exile?

The urgency of the news cycle is fake. When you don’t know what’s cooking every second, you… eventually… don’t care AND… it… doesn’t actually matter? That you can, and likely, should, take a break. I’m not even sure I want to be back. I may be cured. I like having my attention span back. While in exile: I wrote more; I read more long form; I listened to more music. I’m going to protect these gains and protect my mind, because those who control your attention, control your mind. Mind your mind, because it matters.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Blog

What’s Up with My “X-File”?

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

I try and roll with the punches… so I haven’t complained much about getting banned from X after PorcFest…

But now that I’m trying to finalize a project before the end of the year, and have come to discover THEY’VE LITERALLY ERASED MY ENTIRE PRESENCE FROM TWITTER, I’m fucking pissed.

For a while, even though I couldn’t post anymore, you were still able to find my content, and you could still search my 20,000+ posts.

TWENTY THOUSAND IDEAS OVER 10+ YEARS THAT I PUT OUT IN THE UNIVERSE, ERASED.

ONE HUNDRED sequenced “My Life in Balance” post-its, sorted and ready to be compiled into a book, ERASED.

The history of erasing history is a “tyranny tell” that those of us who study history understand the historical significance of. By which I mean, as a self-respecting dissident: FUCK THIS SHIT.

Yes, I know I shouldn’t place trust in Big Tech and Big Bro. Together, they’re the worst bullies on the playground. But when you get pushed out of the playground entirely, things start to take a different bent.

This year, as you can see, my Halloween costume was Street Fighter CHUN-LI, the strongest woman in the world. This wasn’t an accidental choice. This was me manifesting the notion, if I can’t spread my ideas online, I will take them to the streets.

To the enemies of liberty: Be careful what you wish for.

What is the status of my X “case”–shall we call it my “X-File”?

* Every appeal has been dismissed without a reason being cited, and after my last complaint, they erased me down the memory-hole.

* X is still charging me for my Blue Check and Elon Musk subscription. Big mistake: I am literally a paying customer being denied service. This gives me strong standing and is going to be part of my First Amendment case to get reinstated.

* I am also going to approach FIRE and the Institute of Justice to see whether these organizations will help me. (If you’re reading this and have other suggestions, please DM me, thanks!)

* Many of you know I have been trying to get Elon’s attention about the Free State Project for years now. Guess the cosmos is telling me to sue his ass?

My frustration is heartfelt. I am sitting here writing in bed, fuming so hard, Louis can see smoke: “THIS ISN’T FAIR”!!! lol

But then I remind myself, Rome was not dismantled in a day, and I find gratitude in the fact that I have orchestrated a life where I know thousands of people in meatspace too, and that I can make a difference on the ground in New Hampshire because, ultimately, THIS is THE value proposition of the Free State: concentrating freedom fighters in one geographic area… IRL.

Finally, I am reminded, as you know, my secret middle name is PERSEVERANCE: I am unstoppable, and I’m coming for you, Big Bro.

May be an image of 1 person

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Blog

First Amendment Award Ceremony

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

On Thursday, October 19th, the Nackey S. Loeb School, in partnership with the NH Institute of Politics at St. Anslem, celebrated the First Amendment.

This year’s recipient is Laurie Ortolano, who served as president of Right-to-Know NH for a while. I have featured her on my show over the years, and deeply admire her relentless pursuit of open government.

Appearing above with attorney Gregory Sullivan and President and Chairman Joseph W. McQuaid, Laurie’s success story against the City of Nashua makes her the perfect recipient. Read about her story HERE.

Watch the 2023 Award Ceremony.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Blog

That Time, A Decade Ago, When Free Staters Fought Police Militarization

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

Whenever you see drama in the community, may I remind you:

1. Freedom is, in the immortal words of Ron Paul, “messy”.

2. The enemies of liberty will always lie and call you names. Start growing a thick skin because it is the nature of the game in politics and public life.

3. This too shall pass. Whatever “this” is at any given moment…

In THIS CASE, it was the Concord Police Department, a decade ago, calling Free Staters “domestic terrorists” and a “daily threat” in a federal grant application for a BEARCAT (a po-po “tank”).

We fought this, garnered 1,500 anti-tank petition signatures, testified at Concord City Hall for 6 hours, delayed the vote for a month, and then they–of course–voted to get it anyway.

If you’ve ever seen the MORE MAYBERRY LESS FALLUJAH sign, it’s from this incident.

We originally learned about the grant from the ACLU-NH, who were as outraged as we were. ACLU National had been working on a country-wide “police militarization” project when they uncovered the language… because of my personal relationships with people at ACLU-NH, it was passed on to me.

The BEARCAT story was covered in various MSM outlets, incl. Reason, VICE & Mother Jones.

The Concord police chief Duvall did sorta apologize, and, ahem, was forced into retirement as a result.

It was a PR battle we were winning, with a left/right coalition developing and working together, sympathetic coverage, townsfolk coming out with us to stand shoulder-to-shoulder against police militarization until that dumb-fuck Crying Nazi wrote a blog saying it was now probably a good time to start killing school teachers & postmen.

Yeah.

Sometimes you have to wonder.

This lead to the banning of Cantwell (truth in advertising: it’s right there in his name), the first person to be made persona non grata by the FSP board.

Over the years, I have struggled whenever big, unpopular decisions like this need to be made, and sometimes I’ve regretted the outcomes, but not once with Chris Cantwell, who went on to tiki-torches at Charlottesville and federal prison after that. I believe he is now out and hope he steers tf clear of New Hampshire.

I would also caution people regarding the addictive nature of social media and “hits” from online audiences. Writers and thinkers sometimes escalate their messaging over time in a desperate attempt to try to garner ever-more attention. Like chasing any other addictive substance, this is a recipe for disaster, resulting in either finding yourself in some real bad company or with increasingly un-libertarian positions and un-libertarian “culture war” messaging.

As a free speech absolutist, it is a constant challenge to find the right balance: even if you are free to say what you want, no one has to listen to you or stay your friend. If you find yourself saying increasingly unpleasant things for attention… you might want to take a moment and reflect on whether you are starting to suffer from The Cantwell Effect. You can probably do better!

What’s the point of sharing all this?

It’s good to know our history, which we haven’t always done the best job of capturing. I have a lot of stories in my head that I need to start getting down. And, while everything feels so intense IN THE MOMENT, this should serve as a reminder that whatever THE HUUUUGEST PROBLEM RIGHT NOW is, is often just one more fleeting piece of the great puzzle of Life.

Building a voluntary community based on consent isn’t a picnic, but I wouldn’t have it any other way. Live free and thrive!

0 comments
2 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Blog

A Quick Lesson in Po-Po PR

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

When a car hits a human, one would naturally assume the human was the one in peril, but rest assured, according to this po-po press release, our first concern is, of course, for the “police officer operating the cruiser” who “did not sustain any apparent injuries” (because, you know, he was in a fortified metal box). Sadly, the meat popsicle he hit did not fair as well.

Also, when YOU’RE in an accident, they sure like to put your name in the paper, but no worries, cops are special and above the law, so the identities are being “withheld.”

How can we do better?
1. Drop the passive language
2. Always name all players
3. Report the facts the same whether it’s a cop or not

Bastiat famously states in THE LAW: “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”

Do those who “serve” us think they’re of “finer clay”?

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Blog

You Can’t Trust The Basics Online Anymore

by Carla Gericke
written by Carla Gericke

I was listening to a Twitter Spaces recently where the speakers were lamenting about how bad the online censorship has been, and how little the Common Man understands this. During that talk, a panelist claimed that the hashtag “TRUMP2024” was suppressed on Twitter in… 2019!

2019… The same year Adam Schiffty-Schiff banned antivax documentaries from streaming platforms, wut???

During the same talk, it was mentioned that the Wayback Machine, a nonprofit organization my husband and I have regularly donated to, now allows you to edit the past post, thereby rendering it useless! I haven’t been able to independently confirm this, so if you have the scoop, let me know.

A real danger is that online dictionaries are now susceptible to manipulation real-time as well, as we saw during Covidmania when the plain meaning of words were changed to support Regime propaganda. See e.g. “Vaccine” (removed references to “natural immunity”) or “Pandemic” (changed to remove “causing severe illness”) or “Antivaxxer” (added anyone who is against mandates).

This means that unless you have independent KNOWLEDGE of something, the Internet is no longer your friend. Proceed with caution.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Close