In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review noted:
The court's decision from which the government appeals imposed certain requirements and limitations accompanying an order authorizing electronic surveillance of an "agent of a foreign power" as defined in FISA. There is no disagreement between the government and the FISA court as to the propriety of the electronic surveillance; the court found that the government had shown probable cause to believe that the target is an agent of a foreign power and otherwise met the basic requirements of FISA. The government's application for a surveillance order contains detailed information to support its contention that the target, who is a United States person, is aiding, abetting, or conspiring with others in international terrorism. The FISA court authorized the surveillance, but imposed certain restrictions, which the government contends are neither mandated nor authorized by FISA.
"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power.
Even without taking into account the President's inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance, we think the procedures and government showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant standards, certainly come close. We, therefore, believe firmly, applying the balancing test drawn from Keith, that FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are reasonable."
The part about Truong, refers to the case United States v. Truong. It was decided by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1980.
In which it states
"The executive branch, containing the State Department, the intelligence agencies, and the military, is constantly aware of the nation's security needs and the magnitude of external threats posed by a panoply of foreign nations and organizations. On the other hand, while the courts possess expertise in making the probable cause determination involved in surveillance of suspected criminals, the courts are unschooled in diplomacy and military affairs, a mastery of which would be essential to passing upon an executive branch request that a foreign intelligence wiretap be authorized.
The defendants raise a substantial challenge to their convictions by urging that the surveillance conducted by the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment and that all the evidence uncovered through that surveillance must consequently be suppressed. As has been stated, the government did not seek a warrant for the eavesdropping on Truong's phone conversations or the bugging of his apartment. Instead, it relied upon a "foreign intelligence" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. In the area of foreign intelligence, the government contends, the President may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs.
In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review noted:
The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power.
i'm going to assume that you never played any of th FF series then. the older ones were incredible. I personally loved the older ones. Although the one considered the best of the series never got an american release, The real FF III, the Japanese one. Play that one and you'll understand.
actually those terms of agreement came about AFTER the argument came up. It was in response to several of the issues a few of us raised. So up until about a week ago there was no agreement of any sort when submitting data to the site.
it simply appeared as if you were submitting data to be used in a public manner. so the new question is because that agreement didnt exist for the couple thousand co-ordinate points before, can that agreement be used to protect that older data?
this was actually brought to his attention several times in various threads on his message board. but was conviently ingored by the the site admin over there.
you check those threads here and here.
well almost but not quite. what you are referring to is a "sweat of the brow" doctrine that they used to use to try and attempt to protect compilations of data.
It was shot down by the Supreme Court and "effort" alone is not enough to copyright.
It was in response to the Rurual Telephone Co. vs. Feist Publications.
Slashdot Mirror
Woops, the last section was supposed to read:
In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review noted:
The court's decision from which the government appeals imposed certain requirements and limitations accompanying an order authorizing electronic surveillance of an "agent of a foreign power" as defined in FISA. There is no disagreement between the government and the FISA court as to the propriety of the electronic surveillance; the court found that the government had shown probable cause to believe that the target is an agent of a foreign power and otherwise met the basic requirements of FISA. The government's application for a surveillance order contains detailed information to support its contention that the target, who is a United States person, is aiding, abetting, or conspiring with others in international terrorism. The FISA court authorized the surveillance, but imposed certain restrictions, which the government contends are neither mandated nor authorized by FISA.
I believe this is what you are looking for.
The relevant part being...
"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power.
Even without taking into account the President's inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance, we think the procedures and government showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant standards, certainly come close. We, therefore, believe firmly, applying the balancing test drawn from Keith, that FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are reasonable."
The part about Truong, refers to the case United States v. Truong. It was decided by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1980.
In which it states
"The executive branch, containing the State Department, the intelligence agencies, and the military, is constantly aware of the nation's security needs and the magnitude of external threats posed by a panoply of foreign nations and organizations. On the other hand, while the courts possess expertise in making the probable cause determination involved in surveillance of suspected criminals, the courts are unschooled in diplomacy and military affairs, a mastery of which would be essential to passing upon an executive branch request that a foreign intelligence wiretap be authorized.
The defendants raise a substantial challenge to their convictions by urging that the surveillance conducted by the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment and that all the evidence uncovered through that surveillance must consequently be suppressed. As has been stated, the government did not seek a warrant for the eavesdropping on Truong's phone conversations or the bugging of his apartment. Instead, it relied upon a "foreign intelligence" exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. In the area of foreign intelligence, the government contends, the President may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs.
In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review noted:
The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power.
I think that documentary was called "X-files".
i'm going to assume that you never played any of th FF series then. the older ones were incredible. I personally loved the older ones. Although the one considered the best of the series never got an american release, The real FF III, the Japanese one. Play that one and you'll understand.
actually those terms of agreement came about AFTER the argument came up. It was in response to several of the issues a few of us raised. So up until about a week ago there was no agreement of any sort when submitting data to the site. it simply appeared as if you were submitting data to be used in a public manner. so the new question is because that agreement didnt exist for the couple thousand co-ordinate points before, can that agreement be used to protect that older data?
this was actually brought to his attention several times in various threads on his message board. but was conviently ingored by the the site admin over there. you check those threads here and here.
well almost but not quite. what you are referring to is a "sweat of the brow" doctrine that they used to use to try and attempt to protect compilations of data. It was shot down by the Supreme Court and "effort" alone is not enough to copyright. It was in response to the Rurual Telephone Co. vs. Feist Publications.