It appears to be neither secret (Congress knew) or illegal. Go read the facts and references, at least one person in this thread understood the logic and agreed.
Disclaimer: All that assumes that the Congressional Probe won't find anything more than what they say happened, happened.
But considering that they (the Democrats and Press) initially claimed that there were hundreds of taps, and documents released disproved that, and that they claimed that it was Citizen to Citizen taps (Domestic Wiretapping, remember that headline?) and they are not according to the documents, I am not particularly convinced they will find any violations of the laws I quoted and pointed out revelavent parts of to show how they were legal wiretaps without warrent.
( you may flog me for the previous para-sentence structure, but not the content)
Read that again. Your post sounds a little paranoid. (your post, not you)
How can you know the unknown?
Well, we sorta do, as they have said there were 12 or 14, can't remember, (can't find a link, so I might be totally wrong) wiretaps that were authorized by the President.
Those are the previously secret ones, now made semi-public. If it was widespread and massive, don't you think we would find more? Maybe we will, I don't know.
Here is another question: If they are whining about an increase of 300 taps in 4 years just how many secret ones could they handle?
You are a man of honor, sir, and a gentleman for seeing the facts for what they are.
Just a clarification, Al-Q falls under the War Powers Act authority granted to the President by Congress in a resolution, which I quoted in my response of RFTA. You appeared rejected that (and a lot of people do), so I pointed out the other way it can be done if you don't accept the WPAct argument.
Now... my capitulation... if what the wiretaps are are out of the bounds we just aggreed to, then it is a whole nother ball of wax.
The person aggrieved gets to file for reparations (qouted below for easy of reading) and wiether or not it is impeachable is up to Congress to try and persue. I think it would fail because the patriot act says there are civil liabilities, but does not identify criminal ones. So long as they don't pujure or obsruct justice they are in the clear it appears. Certianly some people's time in office is over and the GOP will likely get voted out. But it appears criminal charges are right out.
Section 223: Civil liability for certain unauthorized disclosures
18 U.S.C. 2520(a) allows any person who has had their rights violated due to the illegal interception of communications to take civil action against the offending party. Section 223 (Civil liability for certain unauthorized disclosures) excluded the United States from such civil action.
If a court or appropriate department or agency determines that the United States or any of its departments or agencies has violated any provision of chapter 119 of the U.S. Code they may request an internal review from that agency or department. If necessary, an employee may then have administrative action taken against them. If the department or agency do not take action, then they must inform the notify the Inspector General who has jurisdiction over the agency or department, and they must give reasons to them why they did not take action.[26]
A citizen's rights will also be found to have been violated if an investigative, law enforcement officer or governmental entity discloses information beyond that allowed in 18 U.S.C. 2517(a).[27] [edit]
U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2712 added
A totally new section was appended to Title 18, Chapter 121 of the US Code: Section 2712, "Civil actions against the United States". It allows people to take action against the US Government if they feel that they had their rights violated, as defined in chapter 121, chapter 119, or sections 106(a), 305(a), or 405(a) of FISA. The court may assess damages no less than $US10,000 and litigation costs that are reasonably incurred. Those seeking damages must present them to the relevant department or agency as specified in the procedures of the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Actions taken against the United States must be initiated within two years of when the claimant has had a reasonable chance to discover the violation. All cases are presented before a judge, not a jury. However, the court will order a stay of proceedings if they determine that if during the court case civil discovery will adversely affect the ability of the Government to conduct a related investigation or the prosecution of a related criminal case. If the court orders the stay of proceedings they will extend the time period that a claimant has to take action on a reported violation. However, the government may respond to any action against it by submitting evidence ex parte in order to avoid disclosing any matter that may adversely affect a related investigation or a related criminal case. The plaintiff is then given an opportunity to make a submission to the court, not ex parte, and the court may request further information from either party.[28]
If a person wishes to discover or obtain applications or orders or other materials relating to electronic surveillance or to discover, obtain, or suppress evidence or information obtained or derived from electronic surveillance under FISA, then the Attorney General may file an affidavit under oath that disclosure or an
Terrorist that were involved in 9/11 are covered under the use of force authorizaton I quoted, which supercedes FISA.
Check the verbage in the orginal quote of FISA, "Notwithstanding any other law". Which in this case would be the resolution granting power under the War Powers Act.
Patriot Act II (it and its precessor were in effect at the time, thus fullfilling the "Notwithstanding" clause) covers terrorist groups that are not covered under the use of force:
Section 201 is titled Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism. This section amended 18 U.S.C. 2516 (Authorization for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications) of the United States Code. This section allows (under certain specific conditions) the United States Attorney General (or some of his subordinates) to authorize a Federal judge to make an order authorizing or approving the interception of wire or oral communications by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), or another relevant U.S. Federal agency.
Generally, the statute permits electronic surveillance in two scenarios. [edit]
Without a court order
The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information [2a]; targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. 1801(a)(1),(2),(3) [4] or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.[5]
The Attorney General is required to make a certification of these conditions under seal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court[6], and report on their compliance to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. [7]
Since 50 U.S.C 1802 (a)(1)(A) of this act specifically limits warrantless surveillance to foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. 1801(a) (1),(2), (3) and omits the definitions contained in 50 U.S.C. 1801(a) (4),(5),(6) the act does not authorize the use of warrantless surveillance on: groups engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor; foreign-based political organizations, not substantially composed of United States persons; or entities that are directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments. [8] Under the FISA act, anyone who engages in electronic surveillance except as authorized by statute is subject to both criminal penalties [10a] and civil liabilities. [11a]
Second, yes we are at war:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization
for Use of Military Force".
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) In General.--That the President is authorized to use
all necessary and appropriate force against those nations,
organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or
persons, in order to prevent any further acts of
international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.
The key bits:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization
for Use of Military Force".
and
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory
Tapping incoming international calls from combatants in a war is not illegal without a warrent. It is the normal course of war, go read some history. ITT ran Nazi Germany's internation phone lines during WWII and recorded/intercepted all the traffic with no warrent.
You will also find that any conversation between a non resident alien and another non resident alien can be tapped without a warrent, international or not.
Any international conversation between a citizen and not-a-citizen also does not require a warrent for national security information gathering.
Lastly, any such communications tapps are no good in criminal courts, they can only be used for national security, i.e. intercepting a shipment of arms or stopping a bomb plot.
If you are wondering why, our rights stop at our boarders and our persons. We go to Canada/Peru/Sweden/where ever and we don't retain our rights, so neither do our conversations.
The reason they don't get warrents, however easy or hard it is, is because they are not needed. Do you go waste time and money getting permits/licenses you don't need for any legal reason? I thought not.
The known ones, listed in the links I gave, show how many wiretaps there are and for what reason. All but a few had criminal investigation as the reason. Less than 100 were "other" by which I presume the bulk or all of are national security.
I am not being partisan, unless you automatically assume Democrat == Leftist. THat is your perrogiative, but it shows YOUR partisanship, not mine.
I was referring more to the ACLU (an organization founded by Communists to defend Communists. Read their history) and their ilk.
But you hit it ON THE HEAD!
But you are so blind you don't know it. The increase came from fighting drugs, not fighting terrorism. I.E, if there was no war on terror the numbers would be substantially the same.
Just goes to show how chicken little the left really is on this subject.
Let me get this straight, wiretaps have not EVEN DOUBLED since 911, despite the war, despite so called invastions of privacy, and you want to cry more about it?
Personally, sounds like they have not done enough wiretapping, I would have expected a doubling or tripling of wiretaps.
Instead I find they are very restrained in their requests.
FYI: here is the baseline for 1999 and why they were tapping. 890 were for narcotics, and only 45 landed in the "other" catagory that was not a criminal investigation.
64 people in a population of 250 million. THAT is restraint, not taking peoples liberty.
Yes I know that does not include the so called "illegal wiretaps" by the President. I am not too worried unless the taps were not on inbound international calls from known terrorists calling people here in the US. If that is what they are, then there is no crime in doing that.
Really? My sprint phone is 3G and I get 110Kbs download rates anywhere the network exists.
Yeah nothing to write home about on speed, but enough for me to get email and surf websites like this one.
I should note that using the data service the way I am is a violation of the TOS. Sprint has an unspoken policy of saying nothing if you don't abuse it, where abuse seems to be over 500MB in a month.
They do have data plans, and they do have voice plans. but for some odd reason they dont have a voice AND data plan...
"Just to set the record straight: I wasn't the one who said C and C++ are inherently unsafe. I said that programming in them is bound to lead to problems like buffer overflows, format string vulnerabilities, and memory leaks. Which, looking at various security advisories, seems correct."
Yes, yes you did:
"That's what inherently unsafe means. A programming language that is inherently safe doesn't let you write unsafe code. Take a look at Ada one day, grasshopper."
I said it WAS NOT inherently unsafe, you said it was.
"Which I would see as a kind of a format string vulnerability. What's happening is that you compose code using strings, which is fundamentally flawed. Strings don't have any structure, which means a string could contain any number of commands. This is what you are probably hinting at, and it's also how SQL injection attacks work. "
Which you can in fact do in ADA, thus ADA is dangerous in the hands of a bad programmer in the same manner as C. In other words, it fails your ideal of an "Inherently safe" language. But then you moved on to LISP from ADA, so who knows what you are on about.
NO program language is "inherently safe", because a no programmer is a "inherently safe" programmer.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey! Being decentralized is a serious hindrence to learning!
Hard to learn when you are gibbed or fragged.
2/3 of all the people? eh?
The pop is about 1.3 and world pop is 6.4
That does'nt even push 1/3, it is 1/4
Click... Click... Click!
Aw crap.
You are in luck, I am out of mod bullets.
It appears to be neither secret (Congress knew) or illegal. Go read the facts and references, at least one person in this thread understood the logic and agreed.
Disclaimer: All that assumes that the Congressional Probe won't find anything more than what they say happened, happened.
But considering that they (the Democrats and Press) initially claimed that there were hundreds of taps, and documents released disproved that, and that they claimed that it was Citizen to Citizen taps (Domestic Wiretapping, remember that headline?) and they are not according to the documents, I am not particularly convinced they will find any violations of the laws I quoted and pointed out revelavent parts of to show how they were legal wiretaps without warrent.
( you may flog me for the previous para-sentence structure, but not the content)
The quote is: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.
1984 did not happen because we sitll have Mac's.
BTW, average sea level increase over the 20th century is 1.5mm per year. Average sea depth is about 3000m.
.001 percent over 4 years
So it is just a bit less than a 44% increase. Like 5 orders of magnatude off. Like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
315lbs? I am so impressed, it just drives home your superior intellect. What is that in kilos btw?
No, I will be telling the story of how I got pwned by you while crying in my latte.
I was symantically unclear.
But as you can see, they still try...
Read that again. Your post sounds a little paranoid. (your post, not you)
How can you know the unknown?
Well, we sorta do, as they have said there were 12 or 14, can't remember, (can't find a link, so I might be totally wrong) wiretaps that were authorized by the President.
Those are the previously secret ones, now made semi-public. If it was widespread and massive, don't you think we would find more? Maybe we will, I don't know.
Here is another question: If they are whining about an increase of 300 taps in 4 years just how many secret ones could they handle?
Not many I would guess.
Wow. Just wow.
How's that for false comparison? I am impressed, I am sure that will make a great story over lattes tonight.
You are a man of honor, sir, and a gentleman for seeing the facts for what they are.
Just a clarification, Al-Q falls under the War Powers Act authority granted to the President by Congress in a resolution, which I quoted in my response of RFTA.
You appeared rejected that (and a lot of people do), so I pointed out the other way it can be done if you don't accept the WPAct argument.
Now... my capitulation... if what the wiretaps are are out of the bounds we just aggreed to, then it is a whole nother ball of wax.
The person aggrieved gets to file for reparations (qouted below for easy of reading) and wiether or not it is impeachable is up to Congress to try and persue. I think it would fail because the patriot act says there are civil liabilities, but does not identify criminal ones. So long as they don't pujure or obsruct justice they are in the clear it appears. Certianly some people's time in office is over and the GOP will likely get voted out. But it appears criminal charges are right out.
Section 223: Civil liability for certain unauthorized disclosures
18 U.S.C. 2520(a) allows any person who has had their rights violated due to the illegal interception of communications to take civil action against the offending party. Section 223 (Civil liability for certain unauthorized disclosures) excluded the United States from such civil action.
If a court or appropriate department or agency determines that the United States or any of its departments or agencies has violated any provision of chapter 119 of the U.S. Code they may request an internal review from that agency or department. If necessary, an employee may then have administrative action taken against them. If the department or agency do not take action, then they must inform the notify the Inspector General who has jurisdiction over the agency or department, and they must give reasons to them why they did not take action.[26]
A citizen's rights will also be found to have been violated if an investigative, law enforcement officer or governmental entity discloses information beyond that allowed in 18 U.S.C. 2517(a).[27]
[edit]
U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2712 added
A totally new section was appended to Title 18, Chapter 121 of the US Code: Section 2712, "Civil actions against the United States". It allows people to take action against the US Government if they feel that they had their rights violated, as defined in chapter 121, chapter 119, or sections 106(a), 305(a), or 405(a) of FISA. The court may assess damages no less than $US10,000 and litigation costs that are reasonably incurred. Those seeking damages must present them to the relevant department or agency as specified in the procedures of the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Actions taken against the United States must be initiated within two years of when the claimant has had a reasonable chance to discover the violation. All cases are presented before a judge, not a jury. However, the court will order a stay of proceedings if they determine that if during the court case civil discovery will adversely affect the ability of the Government to conduct a related investigation or the prosecution of a related criminal case. If the court orders the stay of proceedings they will extend the time period that a claimant has to take action on a reported violation. However, the government may respond to any action against it by submitting evidence ex parte in order to avoid disclosing any matter that may adversely affect a related investigation or a related criminal case. The plaintiff is then given an opportunity to make a submission to the court, not ex parte, and the court may request further information from either party.[28]
If a person wishes to discover or obtain applications or orders or other materials relating to electronic surveillance or to discover, obtain, or suppress evidence or information obtained or derived from electronic surveillance under FISA, then the Attorney General may file an affidavit under oath that disclosure or an
Terrorist that were involved in 9/11 are covered under the use of force authorizaton I quoted, which supercedes FISA.
f _USA_PATRIOT_Act%2C_Title_II#Section_216:_Authorit y_to_issue_pen_registers_and_trap_and_trace_device s
Check the verbage in the orginal quote of FISA, "Notwithstanding any other law". Which in this case would be the resolution granting power under the War Powers Act.
Patriot Act II (it and its precessor were in effect at the time, thus fullfilling the "Notwithstanding" clause) covers terrorist groups that are not covered under the use of force:
Section 201 is titled Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism. This section amended 18 U.S.C. 2516 (Authorization for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications) of the United States Code. This section allows (under certain specific conditions) the United States Attorney General (or some of his subordinates) to authorize a Federal judge to make an order authorizing or approving the interception of wire or oral communications by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), or another relevant U.S. Federal agency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detailed_breakdown_o
keep trying, and use logic rather than calling me a troll when I am pointing out facts.
( I suppose next is calling me some other name or picking apart a mispelled word)
Eloquent defense of your position through name calling. I must be wrong.
Second, yes we are at war:
The key bits:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization
for Use of Military Force".
and
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory
You seem confused.
Tapping incoming international calls from combatants in a war is not illegal without a warrent. It is the normal course of war, go read some history. ITT ran Nazi Germany's internation phone lines during WWII and recorded/intercepted all the traffic with no warrent.
You will also find that any conversation between a non resident alien and another non resident alien can be tapped without a warrent, international or not.
Any international conversation between a citizen and not-a-citizen also does not require a warrent for national security information gathering.
Lastly, any such communications tapps are no good in criminal courts, they can only be used for national security, i.e. intercepting a shipment of arms or stopping a bomb plot.
If you are wondering why, our rights stop at our boarders and our persons. We go to Canada/Peru/Sweden/where ever and we don't retain our rights, so neither do our conversations.
The reason they don't get warrents, however easy or hard it is, is because they are not needed. Do you go waste time and money getting permits/licenses you don't need for any legal reason? I thought not.
The known ones, listed in the links I gave, show how many wiretaps there are and for what reason. All but a few had criminal investigation as the reason. Less than 100 were "other" by which I presume the bulk or all of are national security.
I am not being partisan, unless you automatically assume Democrat == Leftist. THat is your perrogiative, but it shows YOUR partisanship, not mine.
I was referring more to the ACLU (an organization founded by Communists to defend Communists. Read their history) and their ilk.
But you hit it ON THE HEAD!
But you are so blind you don't know it. The increase came from fighting drugs, not fighting terrorism. I.E, if there was no war on terror the numbers would be substantially the same.
Just goes to show how chicken little the left really is on this subject.
p ort/table300.pdf
Let me get this straight, wiretaps have not EVEN DOUBLED since 911, despite the war, despite so called invastions of privacy, and you want to cry more about it?
Personally, sounds like they have not done enough wiretapping, I would have expected a doubling or tripling of wiretaps.
Instead I find they are very restrained in their requests.
FYI: here is the baseline for 1999 and why they were tapping. 890 were for narcotics, and only 45 landed in the "other" catagory that was not a criminal investigation.
http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/2000_re
in 2004, 1308 were for narcotics, so there is the growth of 44 percent. Other grew to 64, also an approximately 44% increase.
http://www.uscourts.gov/wiretap04/Table3-04.pdf
64 people in a population of 250 million. THAT is restraint, not taking peoples liberty.
Yes I know that does not include the so called "illegal wiretaps" by the President. I am not too worried unless the taps were not on inbound international calls from known terrorists calling people here in the US. If that is what they are, then there is no crime in doing that.
Anything else and they have to explain it.
And going to Intel means that AMD chips are in the offing. If my dual core AMD rocks XP, imagine what it could do with a real operating system?
(Actually, I know, because it runs Ubutu when I am not gaming)
Bruce Willis NEVER dies in his movies... unless he is costaring with Brad Pitt, in which case it was a mercy killing.
Vae Victus.
We did. They are called patents and the manufacturers got to charge money for it.
Well, except for the whole gunpowder thing, but europe has to pay first.
Pfft.
The easy answer is to set up solar collectors in the field to produce the energy to heat things up.
More likely they burn the natural gas that comes out, which is hard to transport, and keep the oil.
Really? My sprint phone is 3G and I get 110Kbs download rates anywhere the network exists.
Yeah nothing to write home about on speed, but enough for me to get email and surf websites like this one.
I should note that using the data service the way I am is a violation of the TOS. Sprint has an unspoken policy of saying nothing if you don't abuse it, where abuse seems to be over 500MB in a month.
They do have data plans, and they do have voice plans. but for some odd reason they dont have a voice AND data plan...
"Just to set the record straight: I wasn't the one who said C and C++ are inherently unsafe. I said that programming in them is bound to lead to problems like buffer overflows, format string vulnerabilities, and memory leaks. Which, looking at various security advisories, seems correct."
Yes, yes you did:
"That's what inherently unsafe means. A programming language that is inherently safe doesn't let you write unsafe code. Take a look at Ada one day, grasshopper."
I said it WAS NOT inherently unsafe, you said it was.
"Which I would see as a kind of a format string vulnerability. What's happening is that you compose code using strings, which is fundamentally flawed. Strings don't have any structure, which means a string could contain any number of commands. This is what you are probably hinting at, and it's also how SQL injection attacks work.
"
Which you can in fact do in ADA, thus ADA is dangerous in the hands of a bad programmer in the same manner as C. In other words, it fails your ideal of an "Inherently safe" language. But then you moved on to LISP from ADA, so who knows what you are on about.
NO program language is "inherently safe", because a no programmer is a "inherently safe" programmer.