Appeals Court Rules Gov't. Has Broad Wiretapping Right 40
An anonymous reader writes: "Reuters reports that a special, secretive appeals court on Monday said the U.S. government has the right to use expanded powers to wiretap terrorism suspects under a law adopted by Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The ruling was seen as a setback for civil libertarians who have said the expanded powers, which allow greater leeway in conducting electronic surveillance and in using information obtained from the wiretaps and searches, jeopardize constitutional rights. In a 56-page ruling overturning a May opinion by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the three-judge appeals court panel said the Patriot Act gave the government the right to expanded powers."
Re:We're all (Score:1, Troll)
Re:We're all (Score:1)
Ok, you first try to tell us what the 'real' definition of a Democrat and a Liberal is, and why they differ. You make some huge jumps there, but nothing prepared me for the 'correct' definition of a Republican. I, too, dislike where the party is going, but this, sir, is complete flamebait. I don't think they are evil facists, oligarchs, and theocrats 100% of the time. Not even close. Look at Senator McCain's reaction and front against the Telecommunications Act, where he fought against a bicamerally-supported bill that gave the media giants more power and monopoly room, and less mandate for disclosure. He fought hard against a law that I'd bet (judging from your other posts) you'd also disagree with. 100% of the time? Get real, pal.
That statement would be a monumentally unsoud leap even if the premises in the previous statement were true. You want "progress?" Where to? Where are we now? You don't seem to have much of a clue where to begin... The Democrats have been hacking away at tax dollars, increasing the size and power of the domestic government since FDR, while the Republicans are now beginning to start their own "war on liberties," and have consistently increased the "defense" budget to mammoth porportions. Of course, since I'm arguing with you, I don't need to back this up at all.
I disagree. I think the Libertarians are "it." I'd love to tell you why I think that, but you don't actually have anything to say about it!
Re:We're all (Score:2)
Re:We're all (Score:1)
Re:We're all (Score:2)
Has this occurred to anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Has this occurred to anyone? (Score:2)
When did Osama bin Laden vow to destroy America?
Re:Has this occurred to anyone? (Score:1)
Laws can't grant the goverment rights (Score:4, Insightful)
congress grants the government rights. The
constitution reserves all rights not specifically
and explicitly granted to the federal government
for the states or the people. No act of congress
can legitimately abbrogate this fundamental
limitation.
Obviously, this decision is unconstitutional, and
void.
This isn't a question of rights. (Score:4, Insightful)
In the dawn of the telecom era--early 20th century--the Supreme Court faced a tough decision: did people have a Fourth Amendment right to privacy in their phone conversations? This was, is, a surprisingly difficult question. The Amendment is not near-absolutist, as are the First, Second and Fifth; instead, it only protects from unreasonable search and seizure, where reasonableness is determined by the courts.
There is a long-standing legal principle which guides these decisions of reasonableness. If you have a reasonable expectation of privacy--for instance, if you're in your own home behind closed doors talking to a guest--then the government needs a warrant. If you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy--for instance, if you're talking on a city street--then the government doesn't.
At the time, telephone calls were all routed manually by operators, and operators would often listen in on phone conversations. This was known and accepted practice of the time. Therefore, the Court found that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy when talking on a telephone; therefore, no warrant was required.
This caused outrage in the public, and Congress quickly passed laws requiring that warrants be issued for wiretaps. So privacy on your phone calls is purely an act of Congress; it is not, and never has been, held to be a Constitutional right.
If Congress is the one who provides you with the protection of wiretap warrants, Congress can also revoke that protection at their discretion. Don't like it? Write Congress. I have.
But don't accuse the judiciary of abrogating their most fundamental duty, when the reality is you don't know the law surrounding wiretap warrants.
Re:This isn't a question of rights. (Score:4, Informative)
> persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
> unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
> violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
> probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
> and particularly describing the place to be
> searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This explicit constitutional protection specifies
that no government under its jurisdiction can
do blanket searches of papers and effects (the
18th century equivalent of email and browser logs).
Not only is the right to do so not granted, but
it is explicitly denied.
Re:This isn't a question of rights. (Score:2)
That's not at all what it says. Did you even read it first? It explicitly prohibits unreasonable searches. It also expressly grants a mechnism for permitting searches, that is, the Warrant. If a law enforcement officer can prove probable cause (that would be the no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause part) describing what he's looking for and where he wants to look (that's the particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized part) the Court can grant a Warrant for him to do so. That process is what makes the search "reasonable," as opposed to "unreasonable."
Re:This isn't a question of rights. (Score:2)
a blanket search from a lawful one.
Your protestations remind me of nothing so much as
Bill Clinton's creative deconstruction of the word
"is".
Read the amendment. (Score:2)
Read the amendment. It says precisely what it says: the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, shall not be violated.
The Constitution is absolutely silent on searches deemed reasonable. It says absolutely nothing one way or another.
There is a trait common to humanity--a desire to substitute wishes for truth. What you wish the Constitution to say, it doesn't say. If you want things to change, the only way to make them change is to first frankly acknowledge the way things are, and then to work towards getting them where you want them to be.
Re:Read the amendment. (Score:2)
Fingers Crossed For the Supremes (Score:1, Insightful)
1984 (Score:4, Insightful)
Violates the fourth ammendment (Score:4, Interesting)
The court admitted that this act violated the fourth ammendmant. Check out this quote:
At least it comes close!!!! I hope this is just a poor quote. What's next? "It is the judgement of this court that we think the defendant is innocent, but it certainly comes close."
Re:Violates the fourth ammendment (Score:2)
What's next, "Well, if the person wasn't pointing a gun at the officer, he was at least thinking about it." God willing this law will get put in the trash bin were it belongs, but looking at the way things are going at the moment, I'm not going to hold my breath.
Makes me wonder, how hard is it for a US citizen to become a Canadian citizen?
Ask Security Services to deny this (Score:2)
Ask Security Services in the US, UK or Indonesia (Bali), or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught.
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - Meet you in the pub Monday (human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) that the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from CNET [zdnet.com]: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in the UK when government checked for dirt on individuals of the Paddington crash survivors group. This group was lead by the badly injured Pam Warren - whom they arrogantly presume would have nothing to worry about, having her privacy invaded.
All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the LIES of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists.
P.S. On the Domain Name System, big business steal words that belong to everybody in UDRP and Sunrise - abridging what words you can use - violating the First Amendment. Don't believe me? Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. Even common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat. It is major Corporations illegally abusing and expand their brand using domain names - above other trademarks and all smaller businesses who use similar words - violating Trademark and Competition Law.
The authorities LIE - they know how to make these trademark domains unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be. They are aiding and abetting the pervertion of Law. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization [wipo.org.uk] - not connected with the corrupt United Nations [wipo.org] !
what this means (Score:3, Insightful)
The implications are scary. Essentially, the FBI no longer needs a warrant to tap anyone's phone. They can say there is a suspected link to terrorism, whether there is or not, and get a wire tap. If it turns out there was no terrorist threat, that's okay, they can still use any evidence in court or in an investigation. It is a huge loophole. There are no procedures in place to make sure that this privilege is not abused, and given the excess of law enforcement in the past, it is not a stretch to imagine just such a thing happening.
link please? (Score:2)
Has anyone noticed... (Score:2, Interesting)
There are some more links on my page [flyingbuttmonkeys.com]
This is expected to pass TODAY, so call your Senator and URGE them not to vote for the bill.
Re:Has anyone noticed... (Score:1)
and a further quote from a friend "and setting the stage for the biggest government assfucking in a half-century as a way to declare total victory over the U.S. citizenry."
ACLU fights big brother (Score:2)