Wow, you've really been snookered. Contrary to political spin, this is not a domestic wiretapping program although some of its activities occur on US soil. Its not even argued to be a 4th amendment issue. The debate revolves around whether or not the wiretaps are governed by statute--specifically by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA is not a codification of constitutional law.
The 4th amendment protects you only against the issuance by a court of an order compelling you or a third-party (like the phone company) to participate. The privacy of your communications is governed by the Stored Communications Act, the Pen Register Statute, and the Wiretap Act--all of which contain various statutory injunctions against the phone company from participating in wiretapping when a warrant does not pertain.
These statutes all contain exceptions and qualifiers which leave room to debate the legality of a program whose details are at best fuzzy.
The problem with this disclosure is that it involves release of "communications intelligence activities", and that is covered by 18 U.S.C. 798(a)(3). And to make matters more interesting, it is quite easy to make the statute apply to the newspapers that first broke the story:
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information--
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
"illicit program" uh, how about just "program". There hasn't been enough evidence to say conclusively that there is or was anything "illicit" about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, you've really been snookered. Contrary to political spin, this is not a domestic wiretapping program although some of its activities occur on US soil. Its not even argued to be a 4th amendment issue. The debate revolves around whether or not the wiretaps are governed by statute--specifically by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA is not a codification of constitutional law.
The 4th amendment protects you only against the issuance by a court of an order compelling you or a third-party (like the phone company) to participate. The privacy of your communications is governed by the Stored Communications Act, the Pen Register Statute, and the Wiretap Act--all of which contain various statutory injunctions against the phone company from participating in wiretapping when a warrant does not pertain.
These statutes all contain exceptions and qualifiers which leave room to debate the legality of a program whose details are at best fuzzy.
The problem with this disclosure is that it involves release of "communications intelligence activities", and that is covered by 18 U.S.C. 798(a)(3). And to make matters more interesting, it is quite easy to make the statute apply to the newspapers that first broke the story:
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information--
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
"illicit program" uh, how about just "program". There hasn't been enough evidence to say conclusively that there is or was anything "illicit" about it.