Support NeoGAF

[APF]

More importantly, he qualifies it with "individuals under investigation." That's not what's happening here.

By "he" you mean the author of this piece, of course. And the important thing are the legal requirements, as I stated.

 

[Lonestar]

"Bush: We're not trolling your personal life"

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Photoshop time

 

[maynerd]

Bush=Troll

Bush needs to be banned. Where are the mods when you need them?

 

[Mandark]

Law's here.

§ 3121. General prohibition on pen register and trap and trace device use; exception


(a) In general.--Except as provided in this section, no person may install or use a pen register or a trap and trace device without first obtaining a court order under section 3123 of this title or under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

...

§ 3122. Application for an order for a pen register or a trap and trace device



(a) Application.--(1) An attorney for the Government may make application for an order or an extension of an order under section 3123 of this title authorizing or approving the installation and use of a pen register or a trap and trace device under this chapter, in writing under oath or equivalent affirmation, to a court of competent jurisdiction.

(2) Unless prohibited by State law, a State investigative or law enforcement officer may make application for an order or an extension of an order under section 3123 of this title authorizing or approving the installation and use of a pen register or a trap and trace device under this chapter, in writing under oath or equivalent affirmation, to a court of competent jurisdiction of such State.

(b) Contents of application.--An application under subsection (a) of this section shall include--

(1) the identity of the attorney for the Government or the State law enforcement or investigative officer making the application and the identity of the law enforcement agency conducting the investigation; and

(2) a certification by the applicant that the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation being conducted by that agency.

So my initial reaction is that this is not kosher. If they're getting the same information as a pen register, and the pen register law is guiding them, then the entire population of the USA would have to be under "ongoing criminal investigation," which seems to be a stretch. Other law might be applicable, I dunno.

I don't like this, whether it's technically legal or not. If it's legal, than it's not as big a deal as the wiretapping stuff (cause the executive branch ignoring law set down by the legislative is officially a Big Deal). Also, this would be less of a deal if it weren't for the context: detention without charges, torture, suspension of habeas corpus, the FISA violation, etc. I'd like some signs that the executive branch is trying to color strictly within the lines.


Also, Adam here gives us a nice preview of the typical defense people are going to offer. They've always done it/other people do it/anyone who cares about it wears a tinfoil hat/worrying about this is infantile and weak. There are no serious arguments of course. It's mostly just projection by someone being guided by their own irrational fears.

 

[bob_arctor]

Selective bolding FTW

Ain't that the truth. Why leave out the rest of what she said?

Even so, she warned, "I happen to believe that we are on our way to a major Constitutional confrontation on the Fourth Amendment guarantees over unreasonable search and seizure."

Let's just ask CIA head nominee Gen. Hayden about the 4th Amendment. He knows it like the back of the invisible hand caressing our phone records.

 

[Incognito]

Hey, guys, come on. Your liberties won't matter much when you're dead from a terrorist attack! /John Cornyn

 

[Beergut]

Bush looks absolutely shaken in that photograph...

 

[SupaFlySoccerMom]

i wanna hear some phone sex

 

[ToxicAdam]

Also, Adam here gives us a nice preview of the typical defense people are going to offer. They've always done it/other people do it/anyone who cares about it wears a tinfoil hat/worrying about this is infantile and weak. There are no serious arguments of course. It's mostly just projection by someone being guided by their own irrational fears.

I don't know how my fears of a destabilized Iraq (which was in reference to us abruptly pulling out of Iraq at that time) has any bearing on how I feel about the NSA collecting phone numbers. I don't see the connection.


This will be the fourth time I have reiterated that we need to have an independent commision watch the NSA. Yet, I am still the posterboy for ostrich like naivete in this thread. Also, I haven't seen anyone else advocate any kind of substantive changes, except to throw out the same tired barbs about Bush. Or they mark anyone that isn't on the knee-jerk express as a 31 percenter.

File Under: Big fucking deal.

 

[xsarien]

Bush looks absolutely shaken in that photograph...

It's the same deer-in-headlights look he's had since 2000.

 

[bob_arctor]

I don't know how my fears of a destabilized Iraq (which was in reference to us abruptly pulling out of Iraq at that time) has any bearing on how I feel about the NSA collecting phone numbers. I don't see the connection.


This will be the fourth time I have reiterated that we need to have an independent commision watch the NSA. Yet, I am still the posterboy for ostrich like naivete in this thread. Also, I haven't seen anyone else advocate any kind of substantive changes, except to throw out the same tired barbs about Bush. Or they mark anyone that isn't on the knee-jerk express as a 31 percenter.

File Under: Big fucking deal.

Nigga please. You don't give a rat's ass about anything unless it's belittling people actually giving a rat's ass. Reiterate anything the fuck you want, the only thing that lasts when it comes to you is your willful ignorance. You say the NSA leveraged 9/11 to sucker these telecom companies into forking over their records. I say this Administration leveraged 9/11 for pretty much anything you can name. So where does the buck stop?

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

I don't know how my fears of a destabilized Iraq (which was in reference to us abruptly pulling out of Iraq at that time) has any bearing on how I feel about the NSA collecting phone numbers. I don't see the connection.


This will be the fourth time I have reiterated that we need to have an independent commision watch the NSA. Yet, I am still the posterboy for ostrich like naivete in this thread. Also, I haven't seen anyone else advocate any kind of substantive changes, except to throw out the same tired barbs about Bush. Or they mark anyone that isn't on the knee-jerk express as a 31 percenter.

File Under: Big fucking deal.

destabilized iraq?

 

[Mandark]

ToxicAdam: Just like with the FISA violations, your primary reaction was to dismiss, ridicule, or question the motives of people opposing this. What sort of conclusions do you expect people to draw from that?

"Oh, I'm sure Adam cares a lot about the abuse of executive power. I mean, in his seventh post, he says that an independent commission to regulate the NSA would be nice (even if he immediately dismisses it as a pipe dream)!"

You think these are serious issues, or you think it's so unserious that anyone paying attention is a crank. You can have it one way or the other, not both. Don't come crying to me about it.

destabilized Iraq?

Check out the link to the thread in my first post. It's fun. ToxicAdam argued that if the US left Iraq, the Shi'ite government there would be pro-Sunni-terrorism, and without local honkeys to kill, they'd all fly over here, or something like that.

 

[Dedalus]

Someone needs to stand up and say "Fuck you." That's all it takes. This looks like the beginning of a very slippery slope. It's pretty calm here in the UK (maybe things will change!), but you guys need to sort this shit out, and you're the only ones in the position to do so.

 

[APF]

Someone needs to stand up and say "Fuck you." That's all it takes.

The backwash left has been saying "Fuck you" since 2000. The cries have only gotten louder from Democrats after their defeats in 2002, and in the aftermath of the Iraq war. Maybe instead of just screaming "Fuck you," they could perhaps... win elections?

 

[bob_arctor]

The backwash left has been saying "Fuck you" since 2000. The cries have only gotten louder from Democrats after their defeats in 2002, and in the aftermath of the Iraq war. Maybe instead of just screaming "Fuck you," they could perhaps... win elections?

I coined that phrase. Made it up entirely. Back and wash. Smashed them together and out came greatness. Right from the gut.

 

[APF]

http://homepage.mac.com/hbsherwood/images/colbert1.jpg

I coined that phrase. Made it up entirely. Back and wash. Smashed them together and out came greatness. Right from the gut.

YOU SAW WHAT I DID THERE

 

[bob_arctor]

YOU SAW WHAT I DID THERE

God, how I wish I didn't see any of it. Honestly. *Sighs*

 

[videogamer]

There is an older thread with the same material:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=99847

 

[datruth29]

You know, whenever I think of big sweeping government programs like this (espcially this one since its considerably big) I have to ask myself: how are we able to resource this. Grant it, technology has gotten better, but man power has not increased. Not only that, but lets say if they are only going via filter for certain words. Can you imagine the amount of wasted resources that going to go into researching each record, dealing with each person, that person's background, surveillance, etc., and in the end finding out its just a big waste of time. Not only that, but this could be used entirely against us as a means of misinformation.

So, not only is this a giant invasion of privacy, this might even deter our ability to protect ourselves, simply because it's too big, requires way to many resources, and ultimately may not be successful.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

You know, whenever I think of big sweeping government programs like this (espcially this one since its considerably big) I have to ask myself: how are we able to resource this. Grant it, technology has gotten better, but man power has not increased. Not only that, but lets say if they are only going via filter for certain words. Can you imagine the amount of wasted resources that going to go into researching each record, dealing with each person, that person's background, surveillance, etc., and in the end finding out its just a big waste of time. Not only that, but this could be used entirely against us as a means of misinformation.

So, not only is this a giant invasion of privacy, this might even deter our ability to protect ourselves, simply because it's too big, requires way to many resources, and ultimately may not be successful.

ARSENAL GEAR FTW!!!

 

[ronito]

I'm so disgusted I've posted in TWO threads about this.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

"Now this is how you do business!"

 

[SFA_AOK]

Posted here because wasn't sure if it warranted its own thread.

THE SPIES WHO SHAG US
The Times and USA Today have Missed the Bigger Story -- Again
by Greg Palast
For Buzzflash
Friday, May 12, 2006

I know you're shocked -- SHOCKED! -- that George Bush is listening in on all your phone calls. Without a warrant. That's nothing. And it's not news.

This is: the snooping into your phone bill is just the snout of the pig of a strange, lucrative link-up between the Administration's Homeland Security spy network and private companies operating beyond the reach of the laws meant to protect us from our government. You can call it the privatization of the FBI -- though it is better described as the creation of a private KGB.

********************
For the full story, see "Double Cheese With Fear," in Armed Madhouse: Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf and Other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War." ********************

The leader in the field of what is called "data mining," is a company, formed in 1997, called, "ChoicePoint, Inc," which has sucked up over a billion dollars in national security contracts.

Worried about Dick Cheney listening in Sunday on your call to Mom? That ain't nothing. You should be more concerned that they are linking this info to your medical records, your bill purchases and your entire personal profile including, not incidentally, your voting registration. Five years ago, I discovered that ChoicePoint had already gathered 16 billion data files on Americans -- and I know they've expanded their ops at an explosive rate.

They are paid to keep an eye on you -- because the FBI can't. For the government to collect this stuff is against the law unless you're suspected of a crime. (The law in question is the Constitution.) But ChoicePoint can collect if for "commercial" purchases -- and under the Bush Administration's suspect reading of the Patriot Act -- our domestic spying apparatchiks can then BUY the info from ChoicePoint.

Who ARE these guys selling George Bush a piece of you?

ChoicePoint's board has more Republicans than a Palm Beach country club. It was funded, and its board stocked, by such Republican sugar daddies as billionaires Bernie Marcus and Ken Langone -- even after Langone was charged by the Securities Exchange Commission with abuse of inside information.

I first ran across these guys in 2000 in Florida when our Guardian/BBC team discovered the list of 94,000 "felons" that Katherine Harris had ordered removed from Florida's voter rolls before the election. Virtually every voter purged was innocent of any crime except, in most cases, Voting While Black. Who came up with this electoral hit list that gave Bush the White House? ChoicePoint, Inc.

And worse, they KNEW the racially-tainted list of felons was bogus. And when we caught them, they lied about it. While they've since apologized to the NAACP, ChoicePoint's ethnic cleansing of voter rolls has been amply assuaged by the man the company elected.

And now ChoicePoint and George Bush want your blood. Forget your phone bill. ChoicePoint, a sickened executive of the company told us in confidence, "hope to build a database of DNA samples from every person in the United States ...linked to all the other information held by CP [ChoicePoint]" from medical to voting records.

And ChoicePoint lied about that too. The company publicly denied they gave DNA to the Feds -- but then told our investigator, pretending to seek work, that ChoicePoint was "the number one" provider of DNA info to the FBI.

"And that scares the hell out of me," said the executive (who has since left the company), because ChoicePoint gets it WRONG so often. We are not contracting out our Homeland Security to James Bond here. It's more like Austin Powers, Inc. Besides the 97% error rate in finding Florida "felons," Illinois State Police fired the company after discovering ChoicePoint had produced test "results" on rape case evidence ... that didn't exist. And ChoicePoint just got hit with the largest fine in Federal Trade Commission history for letting identity thieves purchase 145,000 credit card records.

But it won't stop, despite Republican senators shedding big crocodile tears about "surveillance" of innocent Americans. That's because FEAR is a lucrative business -- not just for ChoicePoint, but for firms such as Syntech, Sybase and Lockheed-Martin -- each of which has provided lucrative posts or profits to connected Republicans including former Total Information Awareness chief John Poindexter (Syntech), Marvin Bush (Sybase) and Lynn Cheney (Lockheed-Martin).

But how can they get Americans to give up our personal files, our phone logs, our DNA and our rights? Easy. Fear sells better than sex -- and they want you to be afraid. Back to today's New York Times, page 28: "Wider Use of DNA Lists is Urged in Fighting Crime." And who is providing the technology? It comes, says the Times, from the work done on using DNA fragments to identity victims of the September 11 attack. And who did that job (for $12 million, no bid)? ChoicePoint, Inc. Which is NOT mentioned by the Times.

"Genetic surveillance would thus shift from the individual [the alleged criminal] to the family," says the Times -- which will require, of course, a national DNA database of NON-criminals.

It doesn't end there. Turn to the same newspaper, page 23, with a story about a weird new law passed by the state of Georgia to fight illegal immigration. Every single employer and government agency will be required to match citizen or worker data against national databases to affirm citizenship. It won't stop illegal border crossing, but hey, someone's going to make big bucks on selling data. And guess what local boy owns the data mine? ChoicePoint, Inc., of Alpharetta, Georgia.

The knuckleheads at the Times don't put the three stories together because the real players aren't in the press releases their reporters re-write.

But that's the Fear Industry for you. You aren't safer from terrorists or criminals or "felon" voters. But the national wallet is several billion dollars lighter and the Bill of Rights is a couple amendments shorter.

And that's their program. They get the data mine -- and we get the shaft.

 

[bob_arctor]

The former chief executive of Qwest, the nation's fourth-largest phone company, rebuffed government requests for the company's calling records after 9/11 because of "a disinclination on the part of the authorities to use any legal process," his lawyer said yesterday.

"Americans expect their government to do everything in its power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties," Bush said.

My efforts are focused on links to al Qaeda and their known affiliates.

Are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al Qaeda?

This is nuts. We are in a war, and we‘ve got to collect intelligence on the enemy.

Is it? Is it legal? Then why did the Justice Department suddenly drop its investigation of the warrantless spying on citizens? Because the NSA said Justice Department lawyers didn't have the necessary security clearance to do the investigation.

Read that sentence again. A secret government agency has told our Justice Department that it's not allowed to investigate it. And the Justice Department just says, OK, and drops the whole thing. We're in some serious trouble here, boys and girls.

For instance, asked about the government's abrupt end this week to an inquiry into the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping program, Snow deferred to deputy press secretary Dana Perino. When reporters couldn't hear the soft-spoken Perino, Snow read a few talking points and ended the line of questioning. "As the new kid on the block, I'm not fully briefed," he said.

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. May 11, 2006. N=502 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.5. Fieldwork by TNS.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling protecting Americans' privacy rights as the government investigates terrorism?"

Approve Disapprove Unsure
51% 47% 2%


"As it conducts the war on terrorism, do you think the United States government is or is not doing enough to protect the rights of American citizens?"

Is Is Not Unsure
53% 45% 1%


"What do you think is more important right now -- for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy; or for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats?"

Investigate Not Intrude Unsure
65% 31% 4%


"It's been reported that the National Security Agency has been collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. It then analyzes calling patterns in an effort to identify possible terrorism suspects, without listening to or recording the conversations. Would you consider this an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism?"

Acceptable Unacceptable Unsure
63% 35% 2%


"If you found out that the NSA had a record of phone numbers that you yourself have called, would that bother you, or not?" If "Yes": "Would it bother you a lot, or just somewhat?"

YES, A Lot YES, Somewhat No
24% 10% 66%


"Do you think it is right or wrong for the news media to have disclosed this secret government program?"

Right Wrong Unsure
56% 42% 1%

"Somehow, The Washington Post -- on the very same day most people learned about the new NSA data-collection program -- managed to conduct a poll which purports to show that "63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism."

Nevertheless, the civil liberties Chicken Little are screaming "Bushitler!" on cue. What they should be screaming for are the heads of the blabbermouths endangering all of us by running to the fifth-column press when they don't get their way in Washington. But you can never find the leak-decriers when you need them, can you?

Fox News host Brenda Butler disagreed, saying that Wall Street would “not going to let some puny, little traitor, some leaker who went ahead and compromised our national security, take down this, take down our market, take down our country.”

*Shakes head*

 

[ronito]

<see avatar for appropriate response>

 

[Lo-Volt]

May 13, 2006 - Has the Bush administration gone too far in expanding the powers of the President to fight terrorism? Yes, say a majority of Americans, following this week’s revelation that the National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone records of U.S. citizens since the September 11 terrorist attacks. According to the latest NEWSWEEK poll, 53 percent of Americans think the NSA’s surveillance program “goes too far in invading people’s privacy,” while 41 percent see it as a necessary tool to combat terrorism.

President Bush tried to reassure the public this week that its privacy is “fiercely protected,” and that “we’re not mining or trolling through the personal lives of innocent Americans.” Nonetheless, Americans think the White House has overstepped its bounds: 57 percent said that in light of the NSA data-mining news and other executive actions, the Bush-Cheney Administration has “gone too far in expanding presidential power.” That compares to 38 percent who think the Administration’s actions are appropriate.

There’s more bad news for the White House in the NEWSWEEK poll: President Bush’s approval rating has dropped to the lowest in his presidency. At 35 percent, his rating is one point below the 36 percent he received in Newsweek’s polls in March and November, 2005.

Iraq continues to be the biggest drain on the president’s popularity: 86 percent of Americans say the Iraq situation, coupled with new information about the decision to go to war, have negatively influenced their view of the president. Asked about Bush’s performance on a variety of issues, from the economy to taxes, respondents gave the president some of the worst marks of his tenure, and in no instance did approval reach more than 50 percent.

Anger over the recent spike in prices at the pump has cost the president dearly: only 17 percent of Americans approve of the way Bush is handling gas prices. Nor do they like the way he is dealing with the federal budget deficit (only 19 percent approve) or immigration policy (25 percent). Even as Congress was approving the latest Bush tax cuts this week, public opinion of his handling of taxes dropped to a record low for him of 39 percent. Half of Americans (50 percent) now think George W. Bush will go down in history as a “below-average” president.

News of the NSA’s secret phone-records program comes at an especially awkward time for the president. His nominee for the top job at the CIA—former NSA head Gen. Michael Hayden—heads into confirmation hearings on the Hill next week. With Democrats expressing outrage over the surveillance program, and several Republicans voicing concern as well, the hearings could turn into something of a Congressional probe into the NSA’s collection of phone data.

According to the Newsweek poll, 73 percent of Democrats and 26 percent of Republicans think the NSA’s program is overly intrusive. Details of the surveillance efforts were first reported on Wednesday by USA Today. The newspaper said the NSA has collected tens of millions of customer phone records from AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Bell-South Corp., in an effort to assemble a database of every call made within the United States. While the records include detailed information about when and where phone calls were made, the government isn’t listening in to the actual conversations, a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the program told the newspaper. The only big telecommunications company that has refused to participate is Denver-based Qwest, which says it was concerned about the legal implications of turning over customer information to the government without warrants.

The fracas over surveillance is yet another headache the Republicans didn’t need heading into the November midterm elections. Seventy-one percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country, and more than half—52 percent—say they would like the Democrats to win enough seats to take over Congress this November (only 35 percent want the Republicans to keep control). Looking ahead to the presidential race in 2008, more Americans said they would like to see a Democrat elected than a Republican—50 percent versus 31 percent. That, despite the fact that a majority of those polled don’t believe a Democrat would do any better than Bush is doing on a variety of issues. Democrats also have a significant lead in being perceived as better able to bring about the changes the country needs: 53 percent to 30 percent.

Bush’s new approval low of 35 percent in the NEWSWEEK poll is below the nadir of Bill Clinton’s presidency in May 1993, when the former president hit 36 percent. The 41st president, George H.W. Bush, hit his lowest ratings late in 1992 before he was defeated by Clinton: A Gallup poll in July 1992 recorded a 32 percent approval rate for the first President Bush. But other presidents have fared worse. Jimmy Carter scored 28-29 percent in June and July 1979, according to Gallup. President Richard Nixon’s Gallup number dropped to 24 percent in August 1974. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12771821/site/newsweek/

 

[APF]

I completely disregard that poll as it is clearly biased and given too soon for people to have a good idea of the issue.

 

[bob_arctor]

Section 2703. Required disclosure of customer communications or records


(a) Contents of wire or electronic communications in electronic storage.--A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication, that is in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for one hundred and eighty days or less, only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation or equivalent State warrant. A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communications services of the contents of a wire or electronic communication that has been in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for more than one hundred and eighty days by the means available under subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Contents of wire or electronic communications in a remote computing service.--(1) A governmental entity may require a provider of remote computing service to disclose the contents of any wire or electronic communication to which this paragraph is made applicable by paragraph (2) of this subsection--

(A) without required notice to the subscriber or customer, if the governmental entity obtains a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation or equivalent State warrant; or

(B) with prior notice from the governmental entity to the subscriber or customer if the governmental entity--

(i) uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial subpoena; or

(ii) obtains a court order for such disclosure under subsection (d) of this section;


except that delayed notice may be given pursuant to section 2705 of this title.

(2) Paragraph (1) is applicable with respect to any wire or electronic communication that is held or maintained on that service--

(A) on behalf of, and received by means of electronic transmission from (or created by means of computer processing of communications received by means of electronic transmission from), a subscriber or customer of such remote computing service; and

(B) solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer processing services to such subscriber or customer, if the provider is not authorized to access the contents of any such communications for purposes of providing any services other than storage or computer processing.

(c) Records concerning electronic communication service or remote computing service.--(1) A governmental entity may require a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service to disclose a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications) only when the governmental entity--

(A) obtains a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation or equivalent State warrant;

(B) obtains a court order for such disclosure under subsection (d) of this section;

(C) has the consent of the subscriber or customer to such disclosure; or

(D) submits a formal written request relevant to a law enforcement investigation concerning telemarketing fraud for the name, address, and place of business of a subscriber or customer of such provider, which subscriber or customer is engaged in telemarketing (as such term is defined in section 2325 of this title); or


(E) seeks information under paragraph (2).

(2) A provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service shall disclose to a governmental entity the--

(A) name;

(B) address;

(C) local and long distance telephone connection records, or records of session times and durations;

(D) length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized;

(E) telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number or identity, including any temporarily assigned network address; and

(F) means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number),

of a subscriber to or customer of such service when the governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial subpoena or any means available under paragraph (1).

(3) A governmental entity receiving records or information under this subsection is not required to provide notice to a subscriber or customer.

(d) Requirements for court order.--A court order for disclosure under subsection (b) or (c) may be issued by any court that is a court of competent jurisdiction and shall issue only if the governmental entity offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation. In the case of a State governmental authority, such a court order shall not issue if prohibited by the law of such State. A court issuing an order pursuant to this section, on a motion made promptly by the service provider, may quash or modify such order, if the information or records requested are unusually voluminous in nature or compliance with such order otherwise would cause an undue burden on such provider.

(e) No cause of action against a provider disclosing information under this chapter.--No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, agents, or other specified persons for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order, warrant, subpoena, statutory authorization, or certification under this chapter.

(f) Requirement to preserve evidence.--

(1) In general.--A provider of wire or electronic communication services or a remote computing service, upon the request of a governmental entity, shall take all necessary steps to preserve records and other evidence in its possession pending the issuance of a court order or other process.

(2) Period of retention.--Records referred to in paragraph (1) shall be retained for a period of 90 days, which shall be extended for an additional 90- day period upon a renewed request by the governmental entity.

(g) Presence of officer not required.--Notwithstanding section 3105 of this title, the presence of an officer shall not be required for service or execution of a search warrant issued in accordance with this chapter requiring disclosure by a provider of electronic communications service or remote computing service of the contents of communications or records or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service.

Xbox Live Name: illegalwiretap

 

[bob_arctor]

I completely disregard that poll as it is clearly biased and given too soon for people to have a good idea of the issue.

:lol

 

[Pimpwerx]

I ranted and raved years ago, prior to the Iraq war that national security is the biggest sham being pulled on the American public. There is a system devoid of checks and balances, and it's the intelligence community. Who is watching these guys? Why should we blindly take what they say at face value when in the same breath they tell us how every other government lies to its people? I hate the fact that so many were gullible enough to give away our rights for security. I don't feel anymore secure now. Hell, I feel less secure b/c now I have to worry about terrorists AND my government spying on me. PEACE.

 

[bob_arctor]

Government seeks to quash eavesdropping lawsuit

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The U.S. government filed a motion Saturday to intervene and seek dismissal of a lawsuit by a civil liberties group against AT&T Inc. over a federal program to monitor U.S. communications.

The suit filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California accuses AT&T of unlawful collaboration with the National Security Agency in its surveillance program to intercept telephone and e-mail communications between the United States and people linked to al Qaeda and affiliated organizations.

The class-action suit was filed by San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation on behalf of AT&T customers in January -- before reports this week that AT&T and two other phone companies were secretly helping the government compile a massive database of phone calls made in the United States.

In its motion seeking intervention, posted on the court's Web site, the government said the interests of the parties in the lawsuit "may well be in the disclosure of state secrets" in their effort to present their claims or defenses.

"Only the United States is in a position to protect against the disclosure of information over which it has asserted the state secrets privilege, and the United States is the only entity properly positioned to explain why continued litigation of the matter threatens the national security," said the motion, dated May 12.

A hearing is scheduled for June 21 before federal Judge Vaughn Walker.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has said in court filings that a former AT&T technician had approached the group in January to share details of the company's role in the surveillance program.

The revelation in December that the NSA was eavesdropping inside the United States without warrants on international calls and e-mails of terrorism suspects sparked an uproar.

Thursday, USA Today reported that the NSA, helped by AT&T, Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp., was secretly collecting phone records of tens of millions of people, and using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity.

President Bush denied the government was "mining and trolling through" the personal lives of Americans.

That one's just for you Pimpwerx.

 

[Lo-Volt]

I completely disregard that poll as it is clearly biased and given too soon for people to have a good idea of the issue.

Maybe, maybe not.

For the NEWSWEEK poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates International interviewed 1,007 adults aged 18 and older between May 11 and 12 by telephone. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

 

[APF]

Maybe, maybe not.

You didn't grasp my extremely subtle humor, fine, but I don't understand what you're trying to get at with that quote.

 

[DCharlie]

WHAT THE FUCK WILL IT TAKE??

seriously, i think it'll be when the right goes really far right and removes all the porn from the internet saying "The Bible says it's wrong to wank!"

 

[Lo-Volt]

You didn't grasp my extremely subtle humor, fine, but I don't understand what you're trying to get at with that quote.

It was to be thorough. It was the only part of the article I had not posted.

P.S. Dcharlie has a damned disturbing avatar. :-O Kutaragi!

 

[DCharlie]

P.S. Dcharlie has a damned disturbing avatar. :-O Kutaragi!

i can't take any credit - that's from the latest consolevania , which is fantastic.