Sources on warrantless wiretapping?
DiscussiePolitical Conservatives
Sluit je aan bij LibraryThing om te posten.
Dit onderwerp is gemarkeerd als "slapend"—het laatste bericht is van meer dan 90 dagen geleden. Je kan het activeren door een een bericht toe te voegen.
1Carnophile
Can anyone suggest some?
This is something I haven't been paying much attention to. I was just cleaning out my newspaper stack and came across a WSJ editorial piece in which they said that the gov't tracked numbers you made overseas phone calls to/received overseas calls from. But if they actually tapped you they got a warrant.
However, it's not clear if this is just one of several surveillance programs; also the piece is from May 2006 so there may have been other develpments since then.
This is something I haven't been paying much attention to. I was just cleaning out my newspaper stack and came across a WSJ editorial piece in which they said that the gov't tracked numbers you made overseas phone calls to/received overseas calls from. But if they actually tapped you they got a warrant.
However, it's not clear if this is just one of several surveillance programs; also the piece is from May 2006 so there may have been other develpments since then.
2enevada
Well, here is a link to the text of public law 110-260, which is what H.R. 6304, FISA Amendments Act of 2008, became:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_laws&a...
Is that what you are looking for?
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_laws&a...
Is that what you are looking for?
3Carnophile
Ah, yes. I haven't read it yet but it looks like sections 102 and 103 might have what I'm looking for. Thanks E!
5Bretzky1
Wired is stretching the court's decision here when it says that the court ok'd warrantless wiretapping.
What the 9th Circuit actually held is that the civil liabilities provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not apply to the federal government because Congress did not expressly waive the government's sovereign immunity from suit. In other words, if the government has placed an illegal wiretap on your communications, you can sue the individuals who did it, but not the government itself.
Anything that was obtained by the government from those illegal wiretaps would still be inadmissible against the person in a criminal proceeding.
What the 9th Circuit actually held is that the civil liabilities provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not apply to the federal government because Congress did not expressly waive the government's sovereign immunity from suit. In other words, if the government has placed an illegal wiretap on your communications, you can sue the individuals who did it, but not the government itself.
Anything that was obtained by the government from those illegal wiretaps would still be inadmissible against the person in a criminal proceeding.
6Carnophile
you can sue the individuals who did it
I hope you're right about that.
Even so, I wonder how easy it would be, though, to find out who the particular individuals were.
I hope you're right about that.
Even so, I wonder how easy it would be, though, to find out who the particular individuals were.
7lawecon
I am curious what you guys mean by "wiretapping." Obviously, most written and oral communications over a distance these days don't travel over a wire. Emails, most forms of cell phone communication, etc. are, of course, not secure and there is no expectation of privacy.
Further, you presumably know that these are prohibitions only on the use of such evidence in criminal proceedings. Most employers, for instance, have you explicitly waive any expectation of privacy in use of their facilities or even in use of your own facilities while "on the job."
An unrelated third party is, of course, not bound by such prohibitions (but may be separately charged with a crime if they "go too far" and a prosecutor feels like charging them - which no prosecutor will).
I can't find the references right now, but as I recall major ISP hub suppliers were found not liable to civil suit by court decision, although they allowed Bush II to monitor communications across their hubs. The rationale, as I recall, was that the plaintiffs had to show specific damage as a part of their pleadings (which is, frankly, a ridiculous standard). If that is not right, I'd like your sources so I can correct my recollection.
Further, you presumably know that these are prohibitions only on the use of such evidence in criminal proceedings. Most employers, for instance, have you explicitly waive any expectation of privacy in use of their facilities or even in use of your own facilities while "on the job."
An unrelated third party is, of course, not bound by such prohibitions (but may be separately charged with a crime if they "go too far" and a prosecutor feels like charging them - which no prosecutor will).
I can't find the references right now, but as I recall major ISP hub suppliers were found not liable to civil suit by court decision, although they allowed Bush II to monitor communications across their hubs. The rationale, as I recall, was that the plaintiffs had to show specific damage as a part of their pleadings (which is, frankly, a ridiculous standard). If that is not right, I'd like your sources so I can correct my recollection.
