DOJ to drop bomb on EFF vs. AT&T Options

[pebkac]

http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/

The federal government intends to invoke the rarely used "State Secrets Privilege" -- the legal equivalent of a nuclear bomb -- in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's class action lawsuit against AT&T that alleges the telecom collaborated with the government's secret spying on American citizens.

Wow. Dubya's covering his own and his partners' asses.

[Spectatrix]

[Psykopath]

Anyone really suprised by this move?

Hated my a majority, lame-duck....guess he figures he might as well shore up his retirement account!

[Dogmeat]

Privacy hasn't existed in this country since 1989. Get over it people.

If you use any form of electronic financial services, tax filing, etc, you're being spied on.

If you have a social security number you're being spied on.

That right there is the biggest reason they want to make all the illegals legal, they're getting fucked outta taxes.

[Spectatrix]

Privacy hasn't existed in this country since 1989. Get over it people.

That's not the damn POINT. The point is, there was a LEGAL way to spy on US citizens and Bush didn't do things that way. If the law doesn't work, then change the goddamn law... don't try to tiptoe around and do things in a legally ambigous fashion!

[FORSAKENR320]

That's not the damn POINT. The point is, there was a LEGAL way to spy on US citizens and Bush didn't do things that way. If the law doesn't work, then change the goddamn law... don't try to tiptoe around and do things in a legally ambigous fashion!

tell that to lawyers

[zetec]

this is fucking gay.

seriously i think it's time for a coup

that and i think it needs to be illegal for senators/congressman to accept "contributions" from any businesses... that's all that motivates them anymore.

[nickluto]

legal nuclear bomb? so it instantly incinerates hundreds of thousands of people? what a stupid fucking analogy.

[nickluto]

Anyone really suprised by this move?

Hated my a majority, lame-duck....guess he figures he might as well shore up his retirement account!

Hated by a majority, yet he wont the popular vote in the last election?

[Spectatrix]

Hated by a majority

Not necessary hated, but the majority disapprove of how he's handling things:

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

[Throwdown]

That's not the damn POINT. The point is, there was a LEGAL way to spy on US citizens and Bush didn't do things that way. If the law doesn't work, then change the goddamn law... don't try to tiptoe around and do things in a legally ambigous fashion!

blah blah blah, boo hoo

[Psykopath]

Hated by a majority, yet he wont the popular vote in the last election?

election was almost 1.5 years ago.

But yeah, public sentiment can't change in that time span. MY BAD.



This post has been edited by Psykopath: Apr 29 2006, 07:41 PM

[woody]

That's not the damn POINT. The point is, there was a LEGAL way to spy on US citizens and Bush didn't do things that way. If the law doesn't work, then change the goddamn law... don't try to tiptoe around and do things in a legally ambigous fashion!

are you upset at the fact that you're being spyed on, or that it wasn't done "the legal way" and done "the other legal way"???

[Spectatrix]

are you upset at the fact that you're being spyed on, or that it wasn't done "the legal way" and done "the other legal way"???

I don't *like* the idea of being spied on, but I recognize that some amount of domestic spying is necessary.

I'm upset that the spying wasn't done using well-established legal methods. By going warrantless with the whole mess, it's legally ambiguous. If the courts decide that the president has the power, legally, to issue warrantless wiretaps, then fine. Right now, though, I think its legality is still very much up in the air.

I'm bothered that they wiretapped without warrants because that suggests that they may not have had strong enough evidence to get warrants for many of the wiretaps that were authorized. With the FISA court being as lenient as it is, that's a pretty bad implication.

[impala454]

wasn't this discussed a really long time ago? good God people they spied on like 500 people. it was probably a spur of the moment thing and they thought there was a real threat. it makes sense for immediate action if the threat is bad enough.

[zetec]

wasn't this discussed a really long time ago? good God people they spied on like 500 people. it was probably a spur of the moment thing and they thought there was a real threat. it makes sense for immediate action if the threat is bad enough.

500 people? The FBI alone this year asked for over 3000 secret wiretaps, and we can only assume that those numbers aren't made up. If the public FBI asks for 3000, would it not be logical that the "secret" NSA would be likely to have even more?

[Spectatrix]

it makes sense for immediate action if the threat is bad enough.

No it doesn't, considering that FISA can grant retroactive wiretaps. If they have to start wiretapping immediately, they have 72 hours from the start to go talk to the FISA court. To me, retroactive wiretaps aren't ideal, but it still means they can slap people down if they're wiretapping without cause.

[impala454]

No it doesn't, considering that FISA can grant retroactive wiretaps.  If they have to start wiretapping immediately, they have 72 hours from the start to go talk to the FISA court.  To me, retroactive wiretaps aren't ideal, but it still means they can slap people down if they're wiretapping without cause.

i just don't really get the point of "retroactive permission". asking for permission to do something you've already done is pretty pointless imo.

and zetec... even if it is 3000, we're still talking about an infinitesimal percentage of the population... it doesn't bother me at all, especially when there's a possibility to save thousands of lives in a thwarted attack. why does it bother you so much?

[pebkac]

i just don't really get the point of "retroactive permission".  asking for permission to do something you've already done is pretty pointless imo.

and zetec... even if it is 3000, we're still talking about an infinitesimal percentage of the population... it doesn't bother me at all, especially when there's a possibility to save thousands of lives in a thwarted attack.  why does it bother you so much?

Well, it would prevent the FBI and NSA from wiretapping people without reason. If it's found that the wire was invalid, then it can't be used in court. Really, I don't see why the Bush admin would want to circumvent the court anyway. According to wikipedia:

It is also rare for FISA warrant requests to be turned down by the court. Through the end of 2004, 18,761 warrants were granted, while just five were rejected (many sources say four). Fewer than 200 requests had to be modified before being accepted, almost all of them in 2003 and 2004.

If they can't get authorization from a court that almost always grants wiretap authorizations, something has to be wrong.

Not to mention that there's no reason why they couldn't have gotten the authorization to do so at any time:

Due to the nature of the matters heard before it, FISC hearings may need to take place at any time of day or night, weekdays or weekends; thus, at least one judge must be "on call" at all times to hear evidence and decide whether or not to issue a warrant.

[Spectatrix]

If they can't get authorization from a court that almost always grants wiretap authorizations, something has to be wrong.

[Billy]

Hey, let's arrest communists while we're at it. It won't really matter if it's just or not since it's only an infinitesimal percentage of the population. And gays. And non christians for being heretics.

Afterall, majority rules.

[chook]

i just don't really get the point of "retroactive permission". asking for permission to do something you've already done is pretty pointless imo.

Its a check that makes sure that there was a good cause to wiretap in the first place

[Divergent Realit...]

Hey, let's arrest communists while we're at it. It won't really matter if it's just or not since it's only an infinitesimal percentage of the population. And gays. And non christians for being heretics.

Afterall, majority rules.

am i gonna have to beat the shit out of the biggest badass in the prison now?

[woody]

domestic spying has been going on for along time, shit pre dates US history

it's nothing new, i dont lose sleep over it. i really don't care.

the fact that it's not even concrete if it's legal or illegal makes me care even less.

laws are so ambiguous its disgusting

[zetec]

and zetec... even if it is 3000, we're still talking about an infinitesimal percentage of the population... it doesn't bother me at all, especially when there's a possibility to save thousands of lives in a thwarted attack. why does it bother you so much?

that is possibly the stupidest thing i've ever heard.

for one, there's a very good chance the NSA isn't there to stop terrorism -- homeland security is the one doing the taps through the FISA court for that.

two, i'm just talking about the FBI there. not Homeland Security or the NSA.

three, oh wow, 3000 isn't much. but we also don't know WHY they are being tapped or what they're suspected of, if anything. for all we know, the only people being tapped by the NSA are people that the government sees as "enemies", and i don't mean the blowie-shit-up kind. I'm talking "deepthroat" kind, or members of the ACLU or the EFF.

four, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

seriously, thats some dumb fucking logic right there. we have a court system, it grants approval to almost everything. there's no reason for them NOT to use that. yes, domestic spying has been going on a long time, and there's a LEGAL way for them to do it. If they're having to circumvent those means, there's something else going on that we should probably look into.






btw, "States Secrets Privelege" is technically only common law, hopefully the judge in this case (characterized as a "free thinker" by some article i read earlier today and don't have offhand) will actually refuse the request by the DOJ to dismiss the case... which has never been done before, but is nonetheless his privelege.

[impala454]

Its a check that makes sure that there was a good cause to wiretap in the first place

right, so what do you think they'd do if there was no good cause found to wiretap the individual, and yet found out they were going to set off a nuclear bomb tomorrow?

[impala454]

that is possibly the stupidest thing i've ever heard.

zetec, any time i see crap like this i'm not going to even bother reading the rest of your post.

[Psykopath]

zetec, any time i see crap like this i'm not going to even bother reading the rest of your post.

yet you answer that line in a similar fashion...?

weeeeee, internetz!

[impala454]

yet you answer that line in a similar fashion...?

weeeeee, internetz!

how so? was just telling him i'm not reading posts that start off like that. what's the problem w/that?

[Psykopath]

how so? was just telling him i'm not reading posts that start off like that. what's the problem w/that?

I don't know...I just see it as a cop-out.

but whatever.

WIRETAPS FOR EVERYONE

[Spectatrix]

WIRETAPS FOR EVERYONE

WOOHOO!

[chook]

AWESOME!

[JRockTTU]

that is possibly the stupidest thing i've ever heard.

for one, there's a very good chance the NSA isn't there to stop terrorism -- homeland security is the one doing the taps through the FISA court for that.

two, i'm just talking about the FBI there. not Homeland Security or the NSA.

three, oh wow, 3000 isn't much. but we also don't know WHY they are being tapped or what they're suspected of, if anything. for all we know, the only people being tapped by the NSA are people that the government sees as "enemies", and i don't mean the blowie-shit-up kind. I'm talking "deepthroat" kind, or members of the ACLU or the EFF.

four, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

seriously, thats some dumb fucking logic right there. we have a court system, it grants approval to almost everything. there's no reason for them NOT to use that. yes, domestic spying has been going on a long time, and there's a LEGAL way for them to do it. If they're having to circumvent those means, there's something else going on that we should probably look into.






btw, "States Secrets Privelege" is technically only common law, hopefully the judge in this case (characterized as a "free thinker" by some article i read earlier today and don't have offhand) will actually refuse the request by the DOJ to dismiss the case... which has never been done before, but is nonetheless his privelege.

I think it's funny when someone who brags about breaking the law all of the time gives the government so much shit about doing something that is in a legal gray area.

[impala454]

WIRETAPS FOR EVERYONE

i know you're joking, but 3000 people out of the entire country is hardly "everyone". it's just the sort of melodrama that happens on these boards though. i suppose i should just accept it.

[Testm0nkey]

trumped up charges steming from pseudo legal actions taken by the police and courts = political prisoners. sometimes id like to burry myself in a underground bunker with every resource i can find and figure out what really is going on
america

[Psykopath]

i know you're joking, but 3000 people out of the entire country is hardly "everyone". it's just the sort of melodrama that happens on these boards though. i suppose i should just accept it.

3000 people were killed on 9/11

BUT 3000 PEOPLE, OH GOLLY THAT'S JUST SMALL POTATOES IT'S A-OK

/sarcasm

HI INTERNETZ

[pebkac]

i know you're joking, but 3000 people out of the entire country is hardly "everyone". it's just the sort of melodrama that happens on these boards though. i suppose i should just accept it.

Ok, so what's the threshold to make that wrong? Would it have to be 30,000? How about 30 million?

The point is that it doesn't matter if it's 1 person or if it's everyone. It's still not right.

[impala454]

Ok, so what's the threshold to make that wrong? Would it have to be 30,000? How about 30 million?

The point is that it doesn't matter if it's 1 person or if it's everyone. It's still not right.

so doing it without permission and then getting some super-lenient court to approve of it later makes you guys feel that much better about it?

[impala454]

sometimes id like to burry myself in a underground bunker with every resource i can find and figure out what really is going on
america

yes! what was that movie?

[Spectatrix]

so doing it without permission and then getting some super-lenient court to approve of it later makes you guys feel that much better about it?

1) If the court doesn't grant them a warrant, they can't use the evidence in court. That means that even if they're going to get a retroactive warrant, they have to make sure that they have sufficient evidence to justify a wiretap.

2) Just because the FISA court doesn't reject many warrant requests doesn't necessarily mean its lenient. How do statistics for that court compare to other courts? Are federal officers just more careful about gathering evidence for the FISA court?

3) It does make me feel better, because judicial oversight is one of the important checks & balances on the federal government that makes sure that none of the branches get too big for their britches.

[impala454]

1) If the court doesn't grant them a warrant, they can't use the evidence in court. That means that even if they're going to get a retroactive warrant, they have to make sure that they have sufficient evidence to justify a wiretap.

3) It does make me feel better, because judicial oversight is one of the important checks & balances on the federal government that makes sure that none of the branches get too big for their britches.

i realize this but the point is, you guys are upset about the wiretappings. at the time that they go get these retroactive warrants, the calls have already been listened to. nothing changes that. I understand there's no evidence admissible in court, but that's not what you guys are complaining about. You're complaining that the people were tapped in the first place, which doesn't change whether they get a retroactive warrant or not.

[zetec]

i realize this but the point is, you guys are upset about the wiretappings. at the time that they go get these retroactive warrants, the calls have already been listened to. nothing changes that. I understand there's no evidence admissible in court, but that's not what you guys are complaining about. You're complaining that the people were tapped in the first place, which doesn't change whether they get a retroactive warrant or not.

no, we're upset about the ILLEGAL wiretappings. There's already a secret court for them to go to to make this legal, there's absolutely no reason they should need to circumvent it unless they're having to cover other shady activities.

And jessica, aside from piracy online, which i'm somewhat more of an endorser of than straight out braggart about, what do i brag about doing illegal? Name me something.

Impala, quit trying to use the same fear-mongering tactics already employed by the current administration and try and propose a logical argument. "WE GOTTA SPY ON YOU BECAUSE THERE BOUT TO LAUNCH TEH BOMBZ!" is no kind of rational argument, just an attempt to instill fear and pass it off as an argument. Furthermore, as already stated, the 3000 were only, ONLY for the FBI, not Homeland Security and CERTAINLY not for the NSA. It's Homeland Security's job to monitor for terrorism. The NSA's actual job is more or less unknown, aside from domestic spying. As I've already stated, for all we know they are spying on political enemies, not suspected terrorists. If they were spying on terrorists, there's be little to no good reason not to announce the fact, as has already been done with HS. It gives them good public opinion, lets the terrorists know we're after them, and creates a general all-around fuzzy feeling in your loins. A secret German Stazi-esque secret police organization, however... well fuck, watch the history channel sometime and see how well those typically turn out.

[JRockTTU]

And jessica, aside from piracy online, which i'm somewhat more of an endorser of than straight out braggart about, what do i brag about doing illegal? Name me something.

It wasn't Jessica, it was me.

"HI I SMOKE WEED ALL THE TIME AND I'M REALLY COOL AND I'LL TELL YOU ALL ABOUT IT ALL THE TIME WHEN I DO!"

And you are a braggart.

[zetec]

It wasn't Jessica, it was me.

"HI I SMOKE WEED ALL THE TIME AND I'M REALLY COOL AND I'LL TELL YOU ALL ABOUT IT ALL THE TIME WHEN I DO!"

And you are a braggart.

sorry, thought it was her.


and i've posted numerous times that i've been clean for almost 10 months now.


numerous times. not my fault you don't read the board.

[FORSAKENR320]

It wasn't Jessica, it was me.

"HI I SMOKE WEED ALL THE TIME AND I'M REALLY COOL AND I'LL TELL YOU ALL ABOUT IT ALL THE TIME WHEN I DO!"

And you are a braggart.

and you are a fag. but we accept you anyway

[JRockTTU]

and you are a fag. but we accept you anyway

First rule of the internet: Don't call someone else a fag when you represent yourself with a fruity as emo picture such as this:





And I know you've been clean for a while Zetec, but I was here when we had to hear about it every time you rolled a joint.

[zetec]

First rule of the internet: Don't call someone else a fag when you represent yourself with a fruity as emo picture such as this:





And I know you've been clean for a while Zetec, but I was here when we had to hear about it every time you rolled a joint.

i never rolled joints. Always used pipes or bongs. more efficient.

and if you honestly think that someone doesn't change when they stop doing drugs, well, that would kinda negate the whole point of stopping, wouldn't it?

[pebkac]

Just out of curiosity, what does zetec smoking marijuana have to do with wiretappings?

[Spectatrix]

Just out of curiosity, what does zetec smoking marijuana have to do with wiretappings?

Apparently because he has partaken in illegal activities, he has no business protesting government activities that are in a "legally gray area".

[pebkac]

Apparently because he has partaken in illegal activities, he has no business protesting government activities that are in a "legally gray area".

Yeah, that's what I thought I read, but wanted to make sure. I guess that whole "hope for mankind" thing must have made me not think right.

[zetec]

Yeah, that's what I thought I read, but wanted to make sure. I guess that whole "hope for mankind" thing must have made me not think right.

this is techsans. you've got, on average, maybe a 35% chance of getting a logical argument out of someone when they know that they've already lost the argument.

(impala would be the prime example, but he's not the only one.)

[JRockTTU]

this is techsans. you've got, on average, maybe a 35% chance of getting a logical argument out of someone when they know that they've already lost the argument.

(impala would be the prime example, but he's not the only one.)

Everybody on the internet thinks they are the smartest mother fucker alive and are never wrong. I swear, every post I read has nothing but ego behind it. And every person thinks that when they read a statement like that, it means everybody BUT them. We are all dumbasses and wrong more times than not.


And my point about the weed smoking/hacking/illegal downloading related to wiretaps is that it's ironic whenever you have people who openly disregard the law criticize the government for breaking the law. The government is a bunch of people, and they are human afterall, so they are going to have the same tendencies to stretch the legality of their actions. If you (not zetec, people in general) aren't willing to adhere to federal laws, then why should you expect that of your government officials?

And I see the whole 1984-like society that some of you think this will lead to, and I know that if you give an inch in liberties then the government will take a mile, but why would we want to handcuff our government's ability to catch potential mass murderers? I bet half of you wouldn't care if Bill Clinton was the one who did this.

[Spectatrix]

but why would we want to handcuff our government's ability to catch potential mass murderers?

So... we should allow the government to freely wiretap everyone? Because if they don't have enough evidence to get a warrant from the FISA court, then they might as well just be wiretapping citizens at random.

I bet half of you wouldn't care if Bill Clinton was the one who did this.

I can't speak for zetec and pebkac, but Zach and I are both fairly Libertarian. I think that most Republicans AND most Democrats are full of shit.

[woody]

Everybody on the internet thinks they are the smartest mother fucker alive and are never wrong.  I swear, every post I read has nothing but ego behind it.  And every person thinks that when they read a statement like that, it means everybody BUT them.  We are all dumbasses and wrong more times than not.


And my point about the weed smoking/hacking/illegal downloading related to wiretaps is that it's ironic whenever you have people who openly disregard the law criticize the government for breaking the law.  The government is a bunch of people, and they are human afterall, so they are going to have the same tendencies to stretch the legality of their actions.  If you (not zetec, people in general) aren't willing to adhere to federal laws, then why should you expect that of your government officials?

And I see the whole 1984-like society that some of you think this will lead to, and I know that if you give an inch in liberties then the government will take a mile, but why would we want to handcuff our government's ability to catch potential mass murderers?  I bet half of you wouldn't care if Bill Clinton was the one who did this.

your post still has it

This post has been edited by woody: May 4 2006, 09:19 AM

[impala454]

no, we're upset about the ILLEGAL wiretappings. There's already a secret court for them to go to to make this legal, there's absolutely no reason they should need to circumvent it unless they're having to cover other shady activities.

ok... but how does the "secret court" prevent the illegal wiretapping from happening in the first place if it doesn't deem the tap illegal until after the fact?

and as far as "govt scare tactic" not being legitimate... I wouldn't exactly call it that, but like I said before melodrama isn't something lacking on these boards.

Personally, I'd rather have a small group of people wrongfully have their regular boring conversations tapped than have a possible 911 style terrorist attack go off without a hitch because of some pointless legal red tape.

I guess my question to you guys upset about it should be, How would you have it work that would satisfy you?

[impala454]

So... we should allow the government to freely wiretap everyone? Because if they don't have enough evidence to get a warrant from the FISA court, then they might as well just be wiretapping citizens at random.

not only would this be physically impossible, it would also be impractical.

[Spectatrix]

ok... but how does the "secret court" prevent the illegal wiretapping from happening in the first place if it doesn't deem the tap illegal until after the fact?

It prevents it in that the NSA (or other government agency) will need to make sure that they have enough evidence to support wiretapping. Yeah, they might occasionally wiretap and not be granted a retroactive warrant, but don't you think there would be some repurcusions if they made a habit of wiretapping w/o sufficient evidence?

I guess my question to you guys upset about it should be, How would you have it work that would satisfy you?

How about the way its legally set up? With the retroactive warrants, time isn't an issue. As somebody else pointed out, there's always a FISA court judge on-call, so again, time really isn't an issue. There is no reason for them to not get a warrant, unless they're choosing to wiretap based on REALLY flimsy evidence, in which case I'd rather they gather more evidence and try getting a warrant again. Terrorist attacks aren't planned overnight, you know...

[JRockTTU]

your post still has it

Hence the "we" in my statement.

[pebkac]

Everybody on the internet thinks they are the smartest mother fucker alive and are never wrong. I swear, every post I read has nothing but ego behind it. And every person thinks that when they read a statement like that, it means everybody BUT them. We are all dumbasses and wrong more times than not.


And my point about the weed smoking/hacking/illegal downloading related to wiretaps is that it's ironic whenever you have people who openly disregard the law criticize the government for breaking the law. The government is a bunch of people, and they are human afterall, so they are going to have the same tendencies to stretch the legality of their actions. If you (not zetec, people in general) aren't willing to adhere to federal laws, then why should you expect that of your government officials?

And I see the whole 1984-like society that some of you think this will lead to, and I know that if you give an inch in liberties then the government will take a mile, but why would we want to handcuff our government's ability to catch potential mass murderers? I bet half of you wouldn't care if Bill Clinton was the one who did this.

You know, I would probably agree with the first part of your post if what you're saying wasn't so fucking stupid. Not only are you making pointless ad hominems against the people you disagree with, but you're making overbroad generalizations too. Regardless, none of what you've said is a valid argument for or against anything, so I don't see any reason to argue against it. But just for your information, I voted for Nader.

ok... but how does the "secret court" prevent the illegal wiretapping from happening in the first place if it doesn't deem the tap illegal until after the fact?

and as far as "govt scare tactic" not being legitimate... I wouldn't exactly call it that, but like I said before melodrama isn't something lacking on these boards.

Personally, I'd rather have a small group of people wrongfully have their regular boring conversations tapped than have a possible 911 style terrorist attack go off without a hitch because of some pointless legal red tape.

I guess my question to you guys upset about it should be, How would you have it work that would satisfy you?

Personally, I think the status quo works. I'm not saying that it's wrong for the government to listen to people; I'm saying it's wrong for the government to have absolute power to listen to people whenever they want to. While I would grant you that the current system isn't perfect, it's still better than the government being able to listen to whoever they want whenever they want.

[JRockTTU]

You know, I would probably agree with the first part of your post if what you're saying wasn't so fucking stupid. Not only are you making pointless ad hominems against the people you disagree with, but you're making overbroad generalizations too. Regardless, none of what you've said is a valid argument for or against anything, so I don't see any reason to argue against it. But just for your information, I voted for Nader.



Personally, I think the status quo works. I'm not saying that it's wrong for the government to listen to people; I'm saying it's wrong for the government to have absolute power to listen to people whenever they want to. While I would grant you that the current system isn't perfect, it's still better than the government being able to listen to whoever they want whenever they want.

How did this post disprove the first part of mine? It didn't, but it helped support it.

[chook]

1) If the court doesn't grant them a warrant, they can't use the evidence in court. That means that even if they're going to get a retroactive warrant, they have to make sure that they have sufficient evidence to justify a wiretap.

2) Just because the FISA court doesn't reject many warrant requests doesn't necessarily mean its lenient. How do statistics for that court compare to other courts? Are federal officers just more careful about gathering evidence for the FISA court?

3) It does make me feel better, because judicial oversight is one of the important checks & balances on the federal government that makes sure that none of the branches get too big for their britches.

The idea that anything threatening the country would receive a retroactive warrent, probable cause and everything like that. Keeps information that is not of national security from being horded. A person of power could use it to coherce compliance in an unlawful way.

I think it's funny when someone who brags about breaking the law all of the time gives the government so much shit about doing something that is in a legal gray area.

But that = entertainment, on a higher order of nobility than law

[impala454]

It prevents it in that the NSA (or other government agency) will need to make sure that they have enough evidence to support wiretapping. Yeah, they might occasionally wiretap and not be granted a retroactive warrant, but don't you think there would be some repurcusions if they made a habit of wiretapping w/o sufficient evidence?

repurcusions like what? what happened to them this time? (other than a bunch of people bitching) anybody lose their job? get pay cuts? jail time? I honestly don't know, but I doubt it.

[zetec]

repurcusions like what? what happened to them this time? (other than a bunch of people bitching) anybody lose their job? get pay cuts? jail time? I honestly don't know, but I doubt it.

how many times do i have to keep saying this:

google "German Secret Police" or "Stazi"

this shit has been done before, and it was definately with less-than-spectacular results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi

it won't be any better if our government starts spying illegally on all it's citizens.

granted, the USA probably has a better means of hiding the whole operation

but it'll still go on. And it won't be pretty.

(insert black helicopters in whisper mode joke here)

[zetec]

lol writing paper on how the NSA and impala are gay for my final