Screw the Telecommunications Act.

[mishdogg.livejournal.com]

And forget about the constitution, too. We weren't really using it anyway.

Seriously. The more this story unfolds, the more it stinks.

Comments

[vlion.livejournal.com]

We get the point: mishdogg thinks it's wrong. Fine.

But enough with the stupid; enough with the strawman already: the government is not harassing people and it's not Bush- he's just the man at the top. You/the cartoonist need to get a clue: the NSA set this up, and did so quite some time ago. You should be levelling fire at the NSA, not Bush.
Second, the government is not personally harassing people. Bad cartoonist. No dinner.

[mishdogg.livejournal.com]

My shortsighted and ill-informed friend, the problem is the LEGALITY of it all.

1) the NSA is part of the Executive branch. The president endorses and approves its operations.

2) The law was broken. The NSA requested phone records without a warrant. Qwest denied them, citing their legality. Verizon, AT&T and Bell South forked over the documents anyway and are in big trouble now because of it.

3) Any inquiries into the NSA's workings are killed with the magic words: "classified information." (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/10/domestic.spying.ap/) This especially stinks, because if the Attorney General's group "the Office of Professional Responsibility" is refused evidence, who then can check the president's power?

[shadowfox24.livejournal.com]

Are you one of those kids that can't find Louisiana on a map? The Supreme Court ruled on this nearly 30 years ago, the law wasn't broken (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=442&invol=735). Try again.

[dlmorgoth.livejournal.com]

And of course the Supreme Court is never wrong.

[vlion.livejournal.com]

the question was on the legality, not the ethicality.

[goumindong.livejournal.com]

Two reasons. The first is the first reason written by the justice.

"(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."

I.E. Things change.

The second reason is that the law has changed and made it illegal to hand over those records without express consent or a warrant. And new law trumps old caselaw. Specifically, the Telecommunications Act


As usual, republican idiots defeated by reading.

[vlion.livejournal.com]

From the analysis kmilligan linked to, the legality is still open to question.
Try not to grind axes against bush.

[shadowfox24.livejournal.com]

If the January 22, 1973 decision is sacred and beyond reproach, how is SMITH v. MARYLAND any different?

[goumindong.livejournal.com]

Two reasons. The first is the first reason written by the justice.

"(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."

I.E. Things change.

The second reason is that the law has changed and made it illegal to hand over those records without express consent or a warrant. And new law trumps old caselaw.

As usual, republican idiots defeated by reading.

Specifically, the Telecommunications Act

[shadowfox24.livejournal.com]

As usual, liberal jackasses are too stupid to actually read ALL of the decisions they think are being violated.

"[E]ven if [a caller] did harbor some subjective expectation that the phone numbers he dialed would remain private, this expectation is not "one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'" . . . This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties. . . . [W]hen [a caller] used his phone, [he] voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business. In so doing, [the caller] assumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the numbers he dialed."

Secondly, the NSA's actions are neither an illegal search nor do they violate FISA. (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZjMDllOTRlYmFlMmQ3ZGEzNDJjNzExYjZiNGMxZWM=)

"FISA distinguishes between "electronic surveillance," which collects the substantive content of electronic communications, and "pen registers," which collect only the addressing information of electronic communications. Although the language of FISA is somewhat convoluted, information about what calls were being made that doesn't involve listening in on the discussions themselves should be classified as a pen register rather than electronic surveillance under the statute.

However, the definition of "pen register" in FISA shows that the statute doesn't regulate the government with respect to the technology at issue here. FISA states that the regulations governing pen registers do not "include any device or process used by a provider or customer of a wire or electronic communication service for billing, or recording as an incident to billing, for communications services provided by such provider." That is precisely what was alleged in this case: The sources who spoke to USA Today said that the three participating telecommunications companies handed over information that was collected pursuant to their regular billing procedures. FISA does not implicate such action."

The facts refute liberalism every time.

[goumindong.livejournal.com]

You link the NRO? Why dont you just tell me what Tony Snow says about it?

Secondly, the first paragraph implies that the second paragraph, about the expectations one has, can change.

The second paragraph lists how they viewed the expectations at the time, the first describes the law.

[goumindong.livejournal.com]

The article, also ignores laws other than FISA. Like the telecommunications act, or the Stored Communications Act.

[kmilligan.livejournal.com]

This is a good thread about the legality of it all from a law professor (http://www.volokh.com/posts/chain_1147467625.shtml)

[vlion.livejournal.com]

1. The president does not personally sign off on every action every person in the NSA takes. Don't be stupid.

2. Was it?

3. So what happens if everything was declassified? Are you arguing against the classification system?

[goumindong.livejournal.com]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_source_.html

Oh really?

[vlion.livejournal.com]

I observed. I also know that people have axes to grind and lies to tell.
Notice how this is reported *now*? Notice how it's a liberal group?

Yeah. Trust level = 0.

[goumindong.livejournal.com]

ABC news is a liberal group?

Are you out of your fucking mind?

how about the next fucking entry in the blog.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/fbi_acknowledge.html

[vlion.livejournal.com]

Don't curse at me.

[goumindong.livejournal.com]

Dont be stupid then.

[kmilligan.livejournal.com]

This is another program I just can't really get too worked up about. I don't care too much that the government has who I call in a database somewhere, when they collect very personal details about my finances for the privilege of paying the income tax, and knows details of millions of citizens' health through medicare/medicaid.

Our government knows more about us than any other government in human history. The trick is that we should also demand to know more about our government than any people in history. Certainly the government will need to keep secrets, especially during war. But this administration seems to be reflexively secretive. Maybe instead of getting our knickers in a bunch every time it's revealed the NSA or CIA is, well, spying on the enemy, we should start demanding more transparency in other areas.

[madmethod.livejournal.com]

Information used to accurately determine your taxes or medical benifits from Medicare is (supposedly) handed over to the government with our consent. This information was being collected without our knowledge or consent.

Still, I'd have to agree that this would not be such a big deal to most Americans if there were more transparency in other areas, and if most Americans felt they could trust this administration with ANYTHING, let alone our private information.

[studmuff.livejournal.com]

Haha. I'm beginning to think these cartoons are making fun of liberals instead of Bush and his supporters. What a joke.