Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space

David M. Palmer wrote:

In article , Pat Flannery
wrote:



Jim Oberg wrote:



Be paranoid, be very paranoid....

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html


This is going to blow up so bad in the next week or so that you have no
idea where it's going.



Worrying about this in particular is rearranging the deck chairs on the
Carpathian.

I just saw telemedicine pioneer Bill Frist on CNN characterize the most
recent data trawl through your phone records as voluntary. (I presume
he means that it was possible for a sufficiently ballsy long distance
company to ask for a letter from the Atty General before they would
cave.)

Meanwhile the Bush administration is arguing that you don't have an
expectation of privacy unless you are hermetically sealed, alone, in a
small lead box--in which case it requires a vague suspicion on the part
of the President to provide legal justification for a colonoscopy.
(The technical term is 'backdoor warrant'.)


No, the technical term is "settled law."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=442&invol=735
U.S. Supreme Court
SMITH v. MARYLAND, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)
442 U.S. 735

SMITH v. MARYLAND.
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.

No. 78-5374.

Argued March 28, 1979.
Decided June 20, 1979.

The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central
offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone
at petitioner's home. Prior to his robbery trial, petitioner moved to
suppress "all fruits derived from" the pen register. The Maryland trial
court denied this motion, holding that the warrantless installation of
the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner was
convicted, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held:

The installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within
the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required.
Pp. 739-746.

(a) Application of the Fourth Amendment depends on whether the
person invoking its protection can claim a "legitimate expectation of
privacy" that has been invaded by government action. This inquiry
normally embraces two questions: first, whether the individual has
exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and second,
whether his expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as
"reasonable." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 . Pp. 739-741.

(b) Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual
expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he
did, his expectation was not "legitimate." First, it is doubtful that
telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the
numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone
numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for
recording this information and does in fact record it for various
legitimate business purposes. And petitioner did not demonstrate an
expectation of privacy merely by using his home phone rather than some
other phone, since his conduct, although perhaps calculated to keep the
contents of his conversation private, was not calculated to preserve the
privacy of the number he dialed. Second, even if petitioner did harbor
some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one
that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." When petitioner
voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and
"exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of
business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the
information [442 U.S. 735, 736] to the police, cf. United States v.
Miller, 425 U.S. 435 . Pp. 741-746.
---

In other words: this is not what the media is trying to make it out to
be. Surprise, surprise, surprise.



--
Collectivism killed 100 million people, and all I got was this lousy sig.

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...
David M. Palmer wrote:

In article , Pat Flannery
wrote:



Jim Oberg wrote:



Be paranoid, be very paranoid....

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html


This is going to blow up so bad in the next week or so that you have no
idea where it's going.



Worrying about this in particular is rearranging the deck chairs on the
Carpathian.

I just saw telemedicine pioneer Bill Frist on CNN characterize the most
recent data trawl through your phone records as voluntary. (I presume
he means that it was possible for a sufficiently ballsy long distance
company to ask for a letter from the Atty General before they would
cave.)

Meanwhile the Bush administration is arguing that you don't have an
expectation of privacy unless you are hermetically sealed, alone, in a
small lead box--in which case it requires a vague suspicion on the part
of the President to provide legal justification for a colonoscopy.
(The technical term is 'backdoor warrant'.)


No, the technical term is "settled law."


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=442&invol=735
U.S. Supreme Court
SMITH v. MARYLAND, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)
442 U.S. 735

SMITH v. MARYLAND.
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.

No. 78-5374.

Argued March 28, 1979.
Decided June 20, 1979.



The police were not doing the surveillance, it was the NSA
while gathering foreign intelligence regarding terrorism.
The law is clear that US persons are not to be watched by
agencies meant for foreign intelligence, such as the NSA.
A US business is considered a US person.
And the NSA has been doing more than just monitoring
phone numbers, but tapping the lines under FISA temporary
authorization.



NSA Frequently Asked Questions
http://www.nsa.gov/about/about00020.cfm

What do you mean by production of foreign intelligence information?

NSA/CSS's Signal Intelligence mission is to intercept and analyze foreign
adversaries' communications signals, many of which are protected by codes
and other complex countermeasures. We collect, process, and disseminate
intelligence reports on foreign intelligence targets in response to
intelligence requirements set at the highest levels of government.

Executive Order 12333 authorizes agencies of the intelligence community to
produce foreign intelligence and foreign counterintelligence consistent with
applicable U.S. law and with full consideration of the rights of United
States persons. The Order defines "foreign intelligence" and
"counterintelligence" as follows:

Foreign intelligence means information relating to the capabilities,
intentions, and activities of foreign powers, organizations or persons.

Counterintelligence means information gathered and activities conducted to
protect against espionage, other intelligence activities, sabotage, or
assassinations conducted for or on international terrorist groups or
activities.

Return to top

Does NSA/CSS unconstitutionally spy on Americans?

No. NSA/CSS performs SIGINT operations against foreign powers or agents of
foreign powers. It strictly follows laws and regulations designed to
preserve every American's privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment to the
United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects U.S. persons from
unreasonable searches and seizures by the U.S. government or any person or
agency acting on behalf of the U.S. government.

Return to top

I believe that as a U.S. person I am not targeted in the United States. What
happens when I travel abroad?

U.S. persons traveling abroad are still covered by the same rules,
regulations, and oversight procedures.

Return to top

Who is considered a U.S. Person?

Federal law and executive order define a U.S. Person as:

a citizen of the United States
an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence
an unincorporated association with a substantial number of members who are
citizens of the U.S. or are aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence
a corporation that is incorporated in the U.S.



TITLE 50 CHAPTER 36

CHAPTER 36-FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE


§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order;
certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees;
transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common
carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court


Release date: 2005-03-17

(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney
General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under
this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that-

(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at-

(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means
of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as
defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or

(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken
communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and
exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1),

(2), or (3) of this title;

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire
the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a
party; and

(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance
meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of
this title; and
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html





The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central
offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone
at petitioner's home. Prior to his robbery trial, petitioner moved to
suppress "all fruits derived from" the pen register. The Maryland trial
court denied this motion, holding that the warrantless installation of
the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner was
convicted, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held:

The installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within
the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required.
Pp. 739-746.

(a) Application of the Fourth Amendment depends on whether the
person invoking its protection can claim a "legitimate expectation of
privacy" that has been invaded by government action. This inquiry
normally embraces two questions: first, whether the individual has
exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and second,
whether his expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as
"reasonable." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 . Pp. 739-741.

(b) Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual
expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he
did, his expectation was not "legitimate." First, it is doubtful that
telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the
numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone
numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for
recording this information and does in fact record it for various
legitimate business purposes. And petitioner did not demonstrate an
expectation of privacy merely by using his home phone rather than some
other phone, since his conduct, although perhaps calculated to keep the
contents of his conversation private, was not calculated to preserve the
privacy of the number he dialed. Second, even if petitioner did harbor
some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one
that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." When petitioner
voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and
"exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of
business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the
information [442 U.S. 735, 736] to the police, cf. United States v.
Miller, 425 U.S. 435 . Pp. 741-746.
---

In other words: this is not what the media is trying to make it out to
be. Surprise, surprise, surprise.



--
Collectivism killed 100 million people, and all I got was this lousy sig.

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...
No, the technical term is "settled law."

The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central offices
a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at
petitioner's home.

My understanding is that the NSA does not have the authority to make the
above request, but local police and the FBI do.

In article , Scott Lowther
wrote:

David M. Palmer wrote:

Meanwhile the Bush administration is arguing that you don't have an
expectation of privacy unless you are hermetically sealed, alone, in a
small lead box--in which case it requires a vague suspicion on the part
of the President to provide legal justification for a colonoscopy.
(The technical term is 'backdoor warrant'.)


No, the technical term is "settled law."

....
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=442&invol=735
....
(b) Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual
expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he
did, his expectation was not "legitimate."

A decision that was so abhorrent that even Congress decided to protect
people's privacy with the Pen Register Act
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...1_18_10_II_20_
206.html

....no person may install or use a pen register or a trap and trace
device without first obtaining a court order under [extremely minimal
requirements for court rubberstamping*] or [FISA]**.

*Basically making a claim that there is a criminal investigation; and
saying who it's against and who's phone is to be monitored.
Requirements that the current program as reported couldn't even meet.

** Which the Bush admin. didn't bother with either, as far as is known.


For comparison, before the Pen Register Act, what the Bush
administration is doing would be no more an unconstitutional invasion
of privacy than the following:

A comprehensive network of cameras covering every square inch of public
space (including any part of your home that can be seen through your
windows from any piece of land that you don't personally own), keeping
a detailed record of everything you do and everywhere you go from the
moment you step out your front door in the morning to when you return
in the evening, with a very few exceptions.

At a touch of a button, anyone connected with the government (in any
way, from Homeland Security to the local schoolboard, to the Saudi
Enforcers of Public Morals under an exchange agreement) can see where
you went, what you bought at the dirty book store, what church you
attended, how long you spent in the confessional (although the contents
of your confession are still private, as long as you keep your voice
down) and every other aspect of your public life.

After all, you don't have any reasonable expectation of privacy if you
insist on doing things in public.

It won't make us any safer, but it will inconvenience the terrorists to
the extent that they'll have to draw the shades before making their
bombs.

--
David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)

David M. Palmer wrote:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=442&invol=735


...


(b) Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual
expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he
did, his expectation was not "legitimate."



A decision that was so abhorrent that even Congress decided to protect
people's privacy with the Pen Register Act
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...1_18_10_II_20_
206.html

...no person may install or use a pen register or a trap and trace
device without first obtaining a court order under [extremely minimal
requirements for court rubberstamping*] or [FISA]**.

*Basically making a claim that there is a criminal investigation; and
saying who it's against and who's phone is to be monitored.
Requirements that the current program as reported couldn't even meet.

** Which the Bush admin. didn't bother with either, as far as is known.



"Oh, this isn't about justice Mr. Hart.... this is about the law."
The Paper Chase
Be very concerned when those two concepts start to diverge.

Pat