Right, so having done a bit of thinking about this, I'd like to apologise for making the statements above publicly. I do stand by them, and based on the number of upvotes my comments received there I was not alone in forming the impression I did. However, my concerns, justified or not, should have been sent privately rather than making a public fuss about it on a thread at the top of HN.
It was a mistake to post this as a thread on a public forum, and I apologise for that.
I think you should be wary that other people might form the same impressions that I've formed, and perhaps be more exact and clear in your responses. For example, you say you meant to say:
> I replied by suggesting that refutation conflated a lack of transparency in an area of law specifically designed by Congress not to be transparent with a general contempt for the laws of Congress, which contempt is not actually in evidence. I also, as you pointedly refused to acknowledge, expressed dissatisfaction with that state of affairs.
When what you said was:
> It's clear to me (and I hope everyone) that the executive branch and particularly the DoD is not transparent.
> While most laws exist simultaneously in the distinct (and sometimes even contradictory) forms of statutes, rules, and operational norms, foreign intelligence laws start out by necessity with fuzzy statutory foundations, and end by necessity with secret operational norms. This situation is indeed exacerbated by the DoD's (and, I suppose, FISC's) unwillingness to be clear about its rules and rulemaking process.
> But this is an article about the use of surveillance evidence as criminal evidence. So, my refined question would be, in what sense does this executive branch have secret rules or norms that apply to the criminal justice system?*
I still don't quite see where you point out that there's a conflation of "a lack of transparency in an area of law specifically designed by Congress not to be transparent with a general contempt for the laws of Congress, which contempt is not actually in evidence". Perhaps I'm not smart enough to read between the lines, but then that's probably the case of others too. What it sounded to me was a get-out clause for anyone to ignore the laws (roughly equivalent to the statement "no one can possibly know exactly what was meant by the people who wrote the law, so those who vigorously stretch the meaning of those laws are perfectly in their right to do so.").
Surveillance is a touchy topic for many. It can get people emotional. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that the society that is currently forming thanks to those laws is a direct existential threat - i.e. that if those people win the game entirely, I (and you) will either have to join them and give up our freedom to choose to do the right thing, or give up our lives. I'm sorry I brought this up in a public forum rather than via an email, but I think you should be aware of this possible reactions to what I (and perhaps others) sometimes perceive as a vigorous defence of the government surveillance programmes.
Happy to continue this conversation by email if you wish to do so. My email is on my blog, at swombat.com.