Eternity RPC Board
10-24-2018, 07:33 AM
I think its a fair point that if the US is a bit of a starting point, then yes, probably, there would be severe restrictions placed on anything like the FSD to spy on citizens. On wikipedia I found something like the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and I think its something I can work with.
I do want to note however that in terms of protecting civil rights etc... the FBI is not necessarily very ''American'' either. Until the 1970's its tasks and powers were not even enshrined in the law, and the rather lawless manner in which Edgar J. Hoover abused the power of the FBI to virtually spy on anyone he liked would be unthinkable in Western-Europe at that time, with no British MI5 or West-German BfV ever having had so much power.
Its not that the European services can spy on anyone they see fit. Also, unlike the FBI, they do not land anyone in jail. As Lines suggested, their reports are not about what Person X or Z has been doing all day - its more anonymous: ''Soviet services continue to look for recruits among the Foreign Office. This is how.''
Occasionally, they have really concrete suspicions that Person X is working as a KGB mole or part of a terror network. 9 out of ten times, that is information that is kept to the chest and that person is studied for as long as possible to find out more about the organization behind Person X - which is the real threat. Only when Person X as an individual is becoming a severe threat, will the security services seek to take specific action against him. How? If he is a terrorist threat, about to blow himself up, what the service does is they tip the police and Justice department. The tip remains fairly basic: ''we have reason to believe such and such person or persons are about to commit a serious crime or terrorist attack.''
Without transferring any intelligence or specific information, it is now the job of the police and Justice dept to find that person, get a warrant to arrest them (based on that tip from a credible source which is in this case the Security Service), search their homes - and from there the criminal case starts to roll. It has occurred in both the UK and the Netherlands that the police failed to find much credible evidence of a concrete terrorist plot - making it hard to prove in court that there was actually a plot. The media portrayed it as a failure, but it arises out of the strict separation of the Security Service and Law enforcement. The Security Service was following Person X because they believed he posed a credible threat, and when he began to look for weapons on the internet they simply wouldn't take any risks and warn the police. Whatever happens in court leaves them cold. The police may not find any further credible evidence, the lawyer gets Person X out of jail. The public and media see it as a failure to land a terrorist behind bars. The Security Service simply concludes: whatever the reality of Person X' intentions was, he was interrupted and the plot (if it ever existed) had in any case been thwarted.
I think this is the crucial difference between the FBI and what I'm looking to create. The FBI is very, very interventionist - and yes - I think that justifies strong legal oversight and protection of civil liberties against a powerful executive. In Europe the executive itself is very much constrained by the legislature, and the secret services are mainly subject to them and although they are ''special'' in the sense they are given special legal powers to invade someone's privacy, they aren't allowed to share or do anything with the information they collect. They may warn or advise other people about threats or dangers in general terms, based on the information they collected, but they do not share the delicate details. Thats information they secretly collected, and will be kept secret, and someday it gets destroyed.
I do want to note however that in terms of protecting civil rights etc... the FBI is not necessarily very ''American'' either. Until the 1970's its tasks and powers were not even enshrined in the law, and the rather lawless manner in which Edgar J. Hoover abused the power of the FBI to virtually spy on anyone he liked would be unthinkable in Western-Europe at that time, with no British MI5 or West-German BfV ever having had so much power.
Its not that the European services can spy on anyone they see fit. Also, unlike the FBI, they do not land anyone in jail. As Lines suggested, their reports are not about what Person X or Z has been doing all day - its more anonymous: ''Soviet services continue to look for recruits among the Foreign Office. This is how.''
Occasionally, they have really concrete suspicions that Person X is working as a KGB mole or part of a terror network. 9 out of ten times, that is information that is kept to the chest and that person is studied for as long as possible to find out more about the organization behind Person X - which is the real threat. Only when Person X as an individual is becoming a severe threat, will the security services seek to take specific action against him. How? If he is a terrorist threat, about to blow himself up, what the service does is they tip the police and Justice department. The tip remains fairly basic: ''we have reason to believe such and such person or persons are about to commit a serious crime or terrorist attack.''
Without transferring any intelligence or specific information, it is now the job of the police and Justice dept to find that person, get a warrant to arrest them (based on that tip from a credible source which is in this case the Security Service), search their homes - and from there the criminal case starts to roll. It has occurred in both the UK and the Netherlands that the police failed to find much credible evidence of a concrete terrorist plot - making it hard to prove in court that there was actually a plot. The media portrayed it as a failure, but it arises out of the strict separation of the Security Service and Law enforcement. The Security Service was following Person X because they believed he posed a credible threat, and when he began to look for weapons on the internet they simply wouldn't take any risks and warn the police. Whatever happens in court leaves them cold. The police may not find any further credible evidence, the lawyer gets Person X out of jail. The public and media see it as a failure to land a terrorist behind bars. The Security Service simply concludes: whatever the reality of Person X' intentions was, he was interrupted and the plot (if it ever existed) had in any case been thwarted.
I think this is the crucial difference between the FBI and what I'm looking to create. The FBI is very, very interventionist - and yes - I think that justifies strong legal oversight and protection of civil liberties against a powerful executive. In Europe the executive itself is very much constrained by the legislature, and the secret services are mainly subject to them and although they are ''special'' in the sense they are given special legal powers to invade someone's privacy, they aren't allowed to share or do anything with the information they collect. They may warn or advise other people about threats or dangers in general terms, based on the information they collected, but they do not share the delicate details. Thats information they secretly collected, and will be kept secret, and someday it gets destroyed.