interpretation of the law by the Bush Admin and the CIA has been one of the key criticisms...not to mention its review by this sham "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."
The issue here is that the law removed the warrant requirement for surveillance of targets "reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States."
Vague terminology ++

And how does it affect me directly?
I have friends that live outside of the US, with whom I speak to regularly via phone, email, and IM. I would kindly like the government to stay the fuck out of my conversations.

Allows the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Attorney General (AG), for periods up to one year, to authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons outside the United States if the DNI and AG determine that: (1) there are reasonable procedures in place for determining that such acquisition concerns persons outside the United States, and such procedures will be subject to review by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Court); (2) the acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance; (3) the acquisition involves obtaining foreign intelligence information from or with the assistance of a communication service provider or other person who has access to communications; (4) a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information; and (5) the minimization procedures (procedures to ensure the smallest level of privacy intrusion while obtaining such information) to be used meet the definition of minimization procedures under FISA. Requires such determination to be certified and submitted to the Court.

Whats allowed under that statute:


If you fell within that definition I don't give a shit about your privacy... as it is, your privacy wasn't violated and you know it (unless you have some shady ass friends).

So no, you weren't directly affected by this, and if the court established to handle the sensitive information involved is a "sham" that isn't in the statute. I don't think this was vague at all... and i STILL don't understand the complaint about it. Not getting warrants for INTELLIGENCE (military) on people outside of the U.S. in a checked and balanced manner doesn't really scare me that much. If this allowed for unchecked and limitless power to watch everyone (including in US), then i'd be with you, but i just don't see it.

"(4) a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information"
Significant purpose, not its only purpose. This wasn't the only requirement... stop selectively reading what you want to hear

And I'd consider it a sham court, considering the federal judges deliberate in secret.
And how about allowing the Attorney General to issue these warrants?
Checks and balances my ass...


But whatever. I despise intrusions, or opening the door to intrusions (slippery slope laws like this one), in to citizen privacy.
You don't see any problem with that, from what you've clearly stated.

I hear constantly how rights have been "taken away" but have yet to be shown how. Maybe even some ABUSES of the system would go to helping how this was a bad thing, but i haven't even seen that.

Either you two answer this:



or stfu. I'm not really sure how Zach hopes to win this argument without doing that.

the abuse won't happen until other steps have been taken securing other freedoms which we didn't know were at risk. it's a checkmate move, and this is just a pawn of a step.

Protect America from the Protect America Act

by Rep. Ron Paul

Before the US House of Representatives, Jan. 30, 2008

Madame Speaker, I rise in opposition to the extension of the Protect America Act of 2007 because the underlying legislation violates the US Constitution.

The misnamed Protect America Act allows the US government to monitor telephone calls and other electronic communications of American citizens without a warrant. This clearly violates the Fourth Amendment, which states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their 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."

The Protect America Act sidelines the FISA Court system and places authority over foreign surveillance in the director of national intelligence and the attorney general with little if any oversight. While proponents of this legislation have argued that the monitoring of American citizens would still require a court-issued warrant, the bill only requires that subjects be "reasonably believed to be outside the United States." Further, it does not provide for the Fourth Amendment protection of American citizens if they happen to be on the other end of the electronic communication where the subject of surveillance is a non-citizen overseas.

We must remember that the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed in 1978 as a result of the U.S. Senate investigations into the federal government's illegal spying on American citizens. Its purpose was to prevent the abuse of power from occurring in the future by establishing guidelines and prescribing oversight to the process. It was designed to protect citizens, not the government. The effect seems to have been opposite of what was intended. These recent attempts to "upgrade" FISA do not appear to be designed to enhance protection of our civil liberties, but to make it easier for the government to spy on us!

The only legitimate "upgrade" to the original FISA legislation would be to allow surveillance of conversations that begin and end outside the United States between non-US citizens where the telephone call is routed through the United States . Technology and the global communications market have led to more foreign to foreign calls being routed through the United States . This adjustment would solve the problems outlined by the administration without violating the rights of US citizens.

While I would not oppose technical changes in FISA that the intelligence community has indicated are necessary, Congress should not use this opportunity to chip away at even more of our constitutional protections and civil liberties. I urge my colleagues to oppose this and any legislation that violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

Good way of putting it.

By the way, for those that supported Ron Paul (Billy for sure: "I would vote for Ron Paul if he were nominated. But unfortunately, the good people never win it.")





But anyways, nobody seems to understand this "slippery-slope" shit.
And to be quite honest, a 10 minute Google search can't find me a recorded story of an abuse of that specific act (other than the government getting phone records from AT&T and Google searches). So you know what?...I'll concede that one.
Spy on my phone calls, I'm not hiding anything. Hell, go ahead and put a camera on every street corner, it'll cut down on crime. What? You're allowed to film inside my home with those cameras? SURE! Again, nothing to hide here.
Slippery slope. Keep supporting the chipping away of privacy. It's all in the name of security, right?

the abuse won't happen until other steps have been taken securing other freedoms which we didn't know were at risk. it's a checkmate move, and this is just a pawn of a step.

and what does this even mean?

The "War on Terror" as a "War on Emotion" was just a play on words....'terror' is an emotion.
Didn't mean it to be taken so literally. But hey, this IS Techsans.

You're SO clever !

You're SO clever !