Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Thomas Schoene wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Kevin Willoughby wrote:
:
: :Have you read the Fourth Amendment recently? Unwarranted / unreasonable
: :searches are clearly in violation of this amendment.
:
: And just what is being 'searched'?
:
:Our phone records. The courts have been pretty clear that the police
:need a warrant to get a record of someone's phone calls in a criminal
:investigation. The NSA records trawl represents a pretty clear violation
f the FISA rules for national security searches.

Got any cites?


The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act forbids the intelligence
agencies from conducting any electronic surveillance of US persons
without a warrant if domestic law enforcement would be obliged to seek a
warrant for the same type of surveillance.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 specifically sets a
requirement for warrants for the use of a "pen register," which is
defined as any device used to record phone numbers called by a certain
user. This was done to override a 1979 court decision that had allowed
police to use pen registers without warrants.

Seems to me that the records of who you called don't
belong to you. WHAT was said would seem to be covered, but marketers
can get hold of a lot more intimate things.

What marketers can get access to is irrelevant. The government is held
to higher standards in many ways, because it has greater powers. All a
marketer can do is annoy me or potentially rob me; the government can
arrest me (or in this era hold me without charge).

How is a listing of who you've called any different than a record of
what web sites you've visited?

It isn't. But that's not disclosable without a warrant either.


--
Tom Schoene lid
To email me, replace "invalid" with "net"

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

No, the problem isn't to refuse we're at war. The problem is that many us
value our freedoms as well as our lives.

As do I. But I don't place zero value on my life.

"jonathan" wrote in message
. ..

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
.. .
What makes you think there was no explanation?

Makes me wondere how many other memos you didn't get. Next time learn to
obey your noodly master a bit better.


I heard yesterday it had something to do with his #3 and the Duke
Cunningham
bribery scandal.

Why go on rumors? It's in the memo. If you didn't get it, then you're not on
the list.

Ami Silberman wrote:

I get the DoD 5240.1R brief every year, and it's pretty clear. You must
have reasonable belief that a specific US person targeted for collection
is in contact with a terrorist (or foreign intelligence agent, etc.)
before you can collect on them.


One of the fears is, that with this administration (or actually, many past
ones), would be that they would be very interested in finding out who
reporters talk to.

I can see why they would fear that. It might actually plug some of the
leaks. If these leakers, who seem to be more at war with the
administration than with the people who are actually trying to kill us,
were so brave, they would openly go to the papers, and not hide behind
anonymity.

"jonathan" wrote in message
news
That really isn't the issue. It's that these are secret agencies

If they were *secret*, you wouldn't know about them.

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
Are you asking why it *is*, or why it *ought* to be?
It *is* because laws concerning phone eavesdropping are well established,
There was no eavesdropping involved in the latest foofaraw. Collecting
records of calls is not "eavesdropping."

I deliberately said "phone eavesdropping" rather than "wiretapping" in an
attempt to refer to all forms of covert monitoring of your use of the
phone system, not just the specific act of listening to the calls.
Clearly I should have been still more explicit for the slow learners. :-)

As others have noted, there are explicit laws about collecting records of
calls, not just about listening in.


The thing is, the whole thing could have been done within the
existing laws. With a recognized legal background and procedure
combined with the current security situation, the odds of the
FISA judged turning this down was remote.

It isn't as much the actions themselves that present the
problem. It was the circumvention of existing laws and
procedures that established checks and balances that is
the problem.

The actions - as taken - have a much greater
chance of not surviving any legal challenge on simple
procedural technicalities than any other reason. Had they
followed procedures, then it would be a court challenge
on the underlying plan. That is a crap shoot, but the
government stood a very good chance of winning. But,
even if you agree with the policy as a judge, the laws
are quite clear on the matter. To selectively not enforce
the existing laws is judicial activism at its worst.

The satellite photos seem to be legal and not require
a warrant. That changes if they switch to IR or other
devices designed to see through walls and obstructions.
The legal requirement there is that anything that
provides privacy at visible wavelengths is presumed to
do so at other wavelengths also.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
jonathan wrote:

But doesn't anyone find it
rather curious that Porter Goss suddenly and without
explanation quits the CIA.

What makes you think there was no explanation?

Makes me wondere how many other memos you didn't get. Next time learn to
obey your noodly master a bit better.



I heard yesterday it had something to do with his #3 and the Duke
Cunningham
bribery scandal. Maybe I've watched one too many episodes of
Alias. "SHE" is my only master~

Gee, I "heard yesterday" that you molest children, and probably with as
much basis.

Just because you're unaware of the true explanation doesn't mean that it
lacks existence.


Don't get too upset, Bush managed to push it off the front page with
his 'emergency' deployment of National Guard troops to the
Mexican border. Whew! I sure hope they get there in time.

Nothing like having the troops come back from Iraq, just to sit
under the hot southern california sun, so Bush can
cut a deal on the immigration bill.

I wonder what he'll do with the troops just before the next election?

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
Jim Oberg wrote:

Yeah, but at the same time, don't we hear a lot
of whining from Bushaters that he FAILED to take
these steps to prevent 9-11?


Yup. In their twenty-twenty hindsight, Bush wasn't doing enough dot
connecting prior to 9-11, but since then, unaccountably, he's done too
much. Hard to connect dots when you're not allowed to see them.


I'll hold my tongue here and wait for the next scandal to come along.
The way things are going for Bush, that shouldn't be more than another
week or so.

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
.. .

"jonathan" wrote in message
news
That really isn't the issue. It's that these are secret agencies

If they were *secret*, you wouldn't know about them.


The nickname for the NSA is 'No Such Agency'~

jonathan wrote:

Yeah, but at the same time, don't we hear a lot
of whining from Bushaters that he FAILED to take
these steps to prevent 9-11?


Yup. In their twenty-twenty hindsight, Bush wasn't doing enough dot
connecting prior to 9-11, but since then, unaccountably, he's done too
much. Hard to connect dots when you're not allowed to see them.

I'll hold my tongue here and wait for the next scandal to come along.
The way things are going for Bush, that shouldn't be more than another
week or so.

No doubt, since the media seems determined to manufacture them, from
whole cloth if necessary.