Look, you know as well as I do that Nader stands no chance of taking the White House, and that most of the people planning to vote for him would probably prefer Kerry to Bush.
Actualy, most of the people I know who are voting for Nader would rather vote Bush over Kerry but find Nader to be a better alternative. But now we see your bias. You actualy don't care about promoting or forwarding a new party and changing the system, you want Kerry to win. That is your bias here. It's not that you don't want bush, it's that you want Kerry. And that's OK, just don't pretend you're doing anyone any favors.
I repeat: it's sad that people would rather make a political statement than stand up for the issues that matter (again, think of MS sufferers, soldiers' families, the elderly and retired, and Africans who need help fighting AIDS, malaria and TB). That's why they seem selfish and out of touch.
You of course are assuming that stem cell research matters to these people. How do you know that changing the political system to get it out of the rut of shit that it's in doesn't matter more? Again, your internal bias is showing. You want people to vote on stemcell issues, not on who best serves the country.
And I think most unselfish people will vote not according to which candidate they would like to see in office ideally, but rather, they will vote the way they believe best serves the nation. Whether you believe this purpose is served by a Republican or a Democratic vote is inconsequential. A third-party vote, on the other hand, is tantamount to masturbation, especially in an election as close as this one promises to be.
On what plane of logic do you exist where doing the best thing for this country means not doing the best thing for it? If the best thing for this country is to get someone that isn't a Republicrat, then you should vote for a third party, regardless of their chances of winning. If everyone voted for who they thought would be the best leader and not who had a chance of winning, you might see more 3rd party votes.
Thanks for takign to time to look more indepth at this, I'll have to read the in depth a bit mroe carefuly when I have more time, for the moment I'd like ot adress what you said:
In regards to section 217, I suppose that does create and instance, but it's a unique instance in that the user of a computer is not it's owner. In the cases of business computers (like in an office building) I don't see this as a problem as for all intents and purposes any business you conduct using company equipment is the business of the company.
The ISPs do pose an interesting problem, but as you noted:
This is when a computer owner and operator "authorizes" surveillance and a law enforcement agent "has reasonable grounds to believe contents of communication will be relevant" to investigating computer trespass and does not acquire anyone else's communications.
Now, if they weren't investigating a user specificaly, I would think any of a user's data gathered would be inadmissable anywhere. It would be a question to ask a lawer though.
In regards to section 216, while ceritfied needs a definition (another question for a lawer) I feel that the second part of that is a bit misleading or unclear. To start I quote the rest of the section:
on a packet-switched data network of a provider of electronic communication service to the public, the agency shall ensure that a record will be maintained which will identify--
`(i) any officer or officers who installed the device and any officer or officers who accessed the device to obtain information from the network;
`(ii) the date and time the device was installed, the date and time the device was uninstalled, and the date, time, and duration of each time the device is accessed to obtain information;
`(iii) the configuration of the device at the time of its installation and any subsequent modification thereof; and
`(iv) any information which has been collected by the device.
To the extent that the pen register or trap and trace device can be set automatically to record this information electronically, the record shall be maintained electronically throughout the installation and use of such device.
`(B) The record maintained under subparagraph (A) shall be provided ex parte and under seal to the court which entered the ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of the device within 30 days after termination of the order (including any extensions thereof).'.
it seems to me that while certian things do not have to be documented, a court order is still required in the first place to initiate a tap. So I suppose the concern about non accountability is there, but that's certianly a seperate issue from not having a warrent in the first place.
As for 219, from what I read, it's very specific in the cases it's limited to, but more importantly (and this determines a majro part of my opinion of this section) it seems to be a very specific limitation of what can be searched for outside. Namely those items named in the warrant
For 220, I think we need a better look at it, i don't see anything about ISPs at all in that section, and it still seems to me like that while they can apply nation wide, that have to have been issued by a court with such jurisdiction
209 doesn't in particular bother me. Stored electronic information is no different (or should be no different) than a fileing cabinet or mail box, and as such should be applicable to a search warrant.
As for 213, I think some peoplle are reading it as an or statement and not and. All 3 sections have to be met for the authorization. As such, the law enforcement has to prove that notification would have adverse affects on the investigation
As for 206, I have to look at it much more closely
Of course. But there's no reason for people to suffer needlessly. Bush's ban on most stem cell research makes people suffer needlessly. A lot of his policies make people suffer needlessly.
Irellevant. You said:
hile you're busy theorizing, people are suffering out there in the Real World.
implying that if I fell in line with your view, people would stop suffering. That isnt' true.
hope you realize that voting for Nader, or whoever, isn't going to break the two-party "cycle" that is the natural, indeed mathematically inevitable, outcome of the Constitution. (You did read that thing about Duverger's Law, yeah?)
Falicy: Just because something is natural does not imply that it is the only possible outcome.
Likewise, you're assuming that just because we will inevitably have a 2 party system, that it will always be republicans and democrats. A quick look at US history says you're wrong.
Assuming your vote for Nader or whoever is cast in lieu of a vote for Kerry, the only difference it makes is to help GWB wreak havoc for another four years on people who can ill afford it.
You of course are assuming I would vote for Kerry in teh first place. Perhaps a single vote for nader helps keep the 2 party system in it's current state, but many votes for nader changes the system. That is how the system is set up.
Voting for a third-party candidate, I assure you, won't do a damn thing to change it.
Our last election showed that a matter of a few hundred votes really can change an election. So, while my one vote might not change anything, my one vote cast with others will.
As a voter you have a responsibility to vote for the person who you feel will be best fit to lead our country, NOT who you feel has a better chance of winning.
If you're used to a two button mouse, you already own one. ANd if you're used to a two button mouse, you probably prefer the one you own. In otherwords, your problem is solved because you already have the mouse. Plug it the fuck in and shut up
There's a new driver called SideTrack which allows you to program a soft button into your trackpad. That is, you can set the physical button to either a click or right click and set a tap on teh trackpad to the opposite. It also adds scroll zones to the sides.
oookay. While you're busy theorizing, people are suffering out there in the Real World.
People will always suffer, and neither bush nor kerry, nor nader, nor the illuminati will ever change that.
I can't speak for you, but there's no way I could cast a vote for a third party with a clear conscience knowing that I could have voted for someone who has a chance of making a difference.
If voting for bush or kerry is a matter of comprimise, and you acknowledge that neither one is really worht voting for, how does voting for them change anything except to further the image that they are the only viable choices even though they won't change anything?
Tell me, if nobody is ever supposed to compromise, why shouldn't everyone just go out to the polls and vote for him or herself? That way, after all, you're voting for a candidate who's guaranteed to agree with you on everything.
Not everyone wants to be president.
Tell me under what logic does voting for the condidate who would break the cycle not make a difference?
Bush and Kerry are the only two with a chance of wining because of people like you. If you refused to vote for them and voted 3rd party, that would be one less vote for either. And if someone else did the same, that's 2 less. And if 2 of his friends did the same, that's 4 less, 8 less, 16 less etc etc etc etc.
Well then perhaps you need to go back through american history and note that parties have changed considerably since the early days.
Look, it's quite simple, we may not be able to sustain a multi party system, however, if A and B are neither worthy choices, and C is, then it is the responsibility of everyone to vote for C (assuming they feel C is the best choice). The end result may be A and C for the next 50 years, or B and C for the next 50 years, but the fact is we've created a situation where the old choices are no longer acceptable, and that is what we want. So vote for a 3rd party if you feel they are the best. TAKE VOTES AWAY FROM THE BAD CHOICES
Indeed, the EFFs anaylisis is going to paint things in a shaded light, which is why I've been trying for a long time to find a fairly unbiased analysis of it. But it seems to me that going to the ACLU or the EFF for an analysis of it is like going to ChristiansRUs for an anaylisis of Roe V Wade.
In reference to the proximate taps, that wording actualy doesn't appear and from what I've read, if the police want to tap people not on the original warrent but persuent to the investigation, they have to submit certification to the courts that they are indeed relevant.
You are indeed right that this is a painstaking thing to assemble, and I've tried hard, and so far from my trying I haven't found anything, which is why I ask.
As for why the patriot act is nessesary, it's mostly a modifying bill. That is, it updates some definitions (i.e. wiretap becomes wiretap and pen register) and basicaly updates the laws to conform with chanign technology. It likewise changes some definitions (the old definition of terrorism did not include WMDs)
A good portion of it is also sun setted which indicates it isnt nessesary in the sense that we want it forever, but it was nessesary to expediate investigation after sept 11
So if a law has potential to be misused, it should be struck down? Good then I'll be starting my campaign to strike down most of the constitution. And for that matter, all investigative laws.
Again, I ask to show me where in the patriot act it grants police the power to wire tap without a warrent. Whether it changes what courts they can go to for that warrent is irrelevant, that's another issue.
Regardless, that still doesn't show where the police can get a wire tap without going to the courts first.
These were the courts before that could issue:
(2)
the term ''court of competent jurisdiction'' means -
(A)
any district court of the United States (including a magistrate judge of such a court) or any United States court of appeals having jurisdiction over the offense being investigated; or
(B)
a court of general criminal jurisdiction of a State authorized by the law of that State to enter orders authorizing the use of a pen register or a trap and trace device;
and this is what it is in the patriot act (bold mine)
(3) the term `court of competent jurisdiction' has the meaning assigned by section 3127(quoted above), and includes any Federal court within that definition, without geographic limitation.
So even courts without geographical limitation have to still fall under the definitions of section 3127.
But again, as I said, there is nothing which gives them permission to tap without court order.
So then I take it all of the amendments to the constitution are BAD LAWs since they can be interpreted differently right? A law is bad if that law infringes or promotes the infringement of rights without due process. It's not a bad law if it can be abused. It's a bad law if it promotes abuse.
It's not biased at all, and it's all what I feel is relevant because it is ALL the sections of the patriot act which I could find that pertain to electronic survielence, and none of them mention anything about being able to tap without court permission.
Well let's take a look at 216 (which by the way was in the original link)
(1) ATTORNEY FOR THE GOVERNMENT- Upon an application made under section 3122(a)(1), the court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device anywhere within the United States, if the court finds that the attorney for the Government has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.
So far so good, we're still asking for court permission
`(2) STATE INVESTIGATIVE OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER- Upon an application made under section 3122(a)(2), the court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device within the jurisdiction of the court, if the court finds that the State law enforcement or investigative officer has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.
Still need court permission
(A) Where the law enforcement agency implementing an ex parte order under this subsection seeks to do so by installing and using its own pen register or trap and trace device on a packet-switched data network of a provider of electronic communication service to the public, the agency shall ensure that a record will be maintained which will identify--
`(i) any officer or officers who installed the device and any officer or officers who accessed the device to obtain information from the network;
`(ii) the date and time the device was installed, the date and time the device was uninstalled, and the date, time, and duration of each time the device is accessed to obtain information;
`(iii) the configuration of the device at the time of its installation and any subsequent modification thereof; and
`(iv) any information which has been collected by the device.
Accountability
(B) The record maintained under subparagraph (A) shall be provided ex parte and under seal to the court which entered the ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of the device within 30 days after termination of the order (including any extensions thereof).'.
Bush can appoint judges all he wants, but the senate still has to approve them. Isn't the US grand?
Besides, what makkes you think that a vote for a 3rd party is throwing your vote away? Was every vote that went towards Gore last election thrown away because he lost? If enough people vote 3rd party, they might just win. And even if they don't, what do you think might happen if every election, the number of people voting 3rd party goes up 10%?
Where? The page I linked to is the relevant sections of the patriot act as it refers to electronic surveilence and wiretaps. If there are other sections, please find them for me.
That was the final version of the patriot act, it was merely all the relevant sections in the act relating to wiretaps stripped out from the unrelated portions of the bill.
Ok would someone please please please point out the relevant sections which indicate that any wiretaps can be obtained without a court permission? I haven't found it yet.
Well that's something that needs to be adressed that the law isn't being implimented properly. But anyone who reads the patriot act will note that all wiretaps still require court authority AND any taps under the PATRIOT act have to be part of an already ongoing investigation. Here are the relevant sections:
Slashdot Mirror
Look, you know as well as I do that Nader stands no chance of taking the White House, and that most of the people planning to vote for him would probably prefer Kerry to Bush.
Actualy, most of the people I know who are voting for Nader would rather vote Bush over Kerry but find Nader to be a better alternative. But now we see your bias. You actualy don't care about promoting or forwarding a new party and changing the system, you want Kerry to win. That is your bias here. It's not that you don't want bush, it's that you want Kerry. And that's OK, just don't pretend you're doing anyone any favors.
I repeat: it's sad that people would rather make a political statement than stand up for the issues that matter (again, think of MS sufferers, soldiers' families, the elderly and retired, and Africans who need help fighting AIDS, malaria and TB). That's why they seem selfish and out of touch.
You of course are assuming that stem cell research matters to these people. How do you know that changing the political system to get it out of the rut of shit that it's in doesn't matter more? Again, your internal bias is showing. You want people to vote on stemcell issues, not on who best serves the country.
And I think most unselfish people will vote not according to which candidate they would like to see in office ideally, but rather, they will vote the way they believe best serves the nation. Whether you believe this purpose is served by a Republican or a Democratic vote is inconsequential. A third-party vote, on the other hand, is tantamount to masturbation, especially in an election as close as this one promises to be.
On what plane of logic do you exist where doing the best thing for this country means not doing the best thing for it? If the best thing for this country is to get someone that isn't a Republicrat, then you should vote for a third party, regardless of their chances of winning. If everyone voted for who they thought would be the best leader and not who had a chance of winning, you might see more 3rd party votes.
Thanks for takign to time to look more indepth at this, I'll have to read the in depth a bit mroe carefuly when I have more time, for the moment I'd like ot adress what you said:
In regards to section 217, I suppose that does create and instance, but it's a unique instance in that the user of a computer is not it's owner. In the cases of business computers (like in an office building) I don't see this as a problem as for all intents and purposes any business you conduct using company equipment is the business of the company.
The ISPs do pose an interesting problem, but as you noted:
This is when a computer owner and operator "authorizes" surveillance and a law enforcement agent "has reasonable grounds to believe contents of communication will be relevant" to investigating computer trespass and does not acquire anyone else's communications.
Now, if they weren't investigating a user specificaly, I would think any of a user's data gathered would be inadmissable anywhere. It would be a question to ask a lawer though.
In regards to section 216, while ceritfied needs a definition (another question for a lawer) I feel that the second part of that is a bit misleading or unclear. To start I quote the rest of the section:
on a packet-switched data network of a provider of electronic communication service to the public, the agency shall ensure that a record will be maintained which will identify--
`(i) any officer or officers who installed the device and any officer or officers who accessed the device to obtain information from the network;
`(ii) the date and time the device was installed, the date and time the device was uninstalled, and the date, time, and duration of each time the device is accessed to obtain information;
`(iii) the configuration of the device at the time of its installation and any subsequent modification thereof; and
`(iv) any information which has been collected by the device.
To the extent that the pen register or trap and trace device can be set automatically to record this information electronically, the record shall be maintained electronically throughout the installation and use of such device.
`(B) The record maintained under subparagraph (A) shall be provided ex parte and under seal to the court which entered the ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of the device within 30 days after termination of the order (including any extensions thereof).'.
it seems to me that while certian things do not have to be documented, a court order is still required in the first place to initiate a tap. So I suppose the concern about non accountability is there, but that's certianly a seperate issue from not having a warrent in the first place.
As for 219, from what I read, it's very specific in the cases it's limited to, but more importantly (and this determines a majro part of my opinion of this section) it seems to be a very specific limitation of what can be searched for outside. Namely those items named in the warrant
For 220, I think we need a better look at it, i don't see anything about ISPs at all in that section, and it still seems to me like that while they can apply nation wide, that have to have been issued by a court with such jurisdiction
209 doesn't in particular bother me. Stored electronic information is no different (or should be no different) than a fileing cabinet or mail box, and as such should be applicable to a search warrant.
As for 213, I think some peoplle are reading it as an or statement and not and. All 3 sections have to be met for the authorization. As such, the law enforcement has to prove that notification would have adverse affects on the investigation
As for 206, I have to look at it much more closely
Again thanks for the help
Of course. But there's no reason for people to suffer needlessly. Bush's ban on most stem cell research makes people suffer needlessly. A lot of his policies make people suffer needlessly.
Irellevant. You said:
hile you're busy theorizing, people are suffering out there in the Real World.
implying that if I fell in line with your view, people would stop suffering. That isnt' true.
hope you realize that voting for Nader, or whoever, isn't going to break the two-party "cycle" that is the natural, indeed mathematically inevitable, outcome of the Constitution. (You did read that thing about Duverger's Law, yeah?)
Falicy: Just because something is natural does not imply that it is the only possible outcome.
Likewise, you're assuming that just because we will inevitably have a 2 party system, that it will always be republicans and democrats. A quick look at US history says you're wrong.
Assuming your vote for Nader or whoever is cast in lieu of a vote for Kerry, the only difference it makes is to help GWB wreak havoc for another four years on people who can ill afford it.
You of course are assuming I would vote for Kerry in teh first place. Perhaps a single vote for nader helps keep the 2 party system in it's current state, but many votes for nader changes the system. That is how the system is set up.
Voting for a third-party candidate, I assure you, won't do a damn thing to change it.
Our last election showed that a matter of a few hundred votes really can change an election. So, while my one vote might not change anything, my one vote cast with others will.
As a voter you have a responsibility to vote for the person who you feel will be best fit to lead our country, NOT who you feel has a better chance of winning.
If you're used to a two button mouse, you already own one. ANd if you're used to a two button mouse, you probably prefer the one you own. In otherwords, your problem is solved because you already have the mouse. Plug it the fuck in and shut up
Years of human interface design and study that far surpass the knowledge of any AC on slashdot.
There's a new driver called SideTrack which allows you to program a soft button into your trackpad. That is, you can set the physical button to either a click or right click and set a tap on teh trackpad to the opposite. It also adds scroll zones to the sides.
oookay. While you're busy theorizing, people are suffering out there in the Real World.
People will always suffer, and neither bush nor kerry, nor nader, nor the illuminati will ever change that.
I can't speak for you, but there's no way I could cast a vote for a third party with a clear conscience knowing that I could have voted for someone who has a chance of making a difference.
If voting for bush or kerry is a matter of comprimise, and you acknowledge that neither one is really worht voting for, how does voting for them change anything except to further the image that they are the only viable choices even though they won't change anything?
Tell me, if nobody is ever supposed to compromise, why shouldn't everyone just go out to the polls and vote for him or herself? That way, after all, you're voting for a candidate who's guaranteed to agree with you on everything.
Not everyone wants to be president.
Tell me under what logic does voting for the condidate who would break the cycle not make a difference?
Bush and Kerry are the only two with a chance of wining because of people like you. If you refused to vote for them and voted 3rd party, that would be one less vote for either. And if someone else did the same, that's 2 less. And if 2 of his friends did the same, that's 4 less, 8 less, 16 less etc etc etc etc.
Well then perhaps you need to go back through american history and note that parties have changed considerably since the early days.
Look, it's quite simple, we may not be able to sustain a multi party system, however, if A and B are neither worthy choices, and C is, then it is the responsibility of everyone to vote for C (assuming they feel C is the best choice). The end result may be A and C for the next 50 years, or B and C for the next 50 years, but the fact is we've created a situation where the old choices are no longer acceptable, and that is what we want. So vote for a 3rd party if you feel they are the best. TAKE VOTES AWAY FROM THE BAD CHOICES
And I'm telling you that from what I read, the EFF is wrong, or twisting the wording to promote their view of the law.
I don't want a synopsis, I want the actual sections of the law.
Indeed, the EFFs anaylisis is going to paint things in a shaded light, which is why I've been trying for a long time to find a fairly unbiased analysis of it. But it seems to me that going to the ACLU or the EFF for an analysis of it is like going to ChristiansRUs for an anaylisis of Roe V Wade.
In reference to the proximate taps, that wording actualy doesn't appear and from what I've read, if the police want to tap people not on the original warrent but persuent to the investigation, they have to submit certification to the courts that they are indeed relevant.
You are indeed right that this is a painstaking thing to assemble, and I've tried hard, and so far from my trying I haven't found anything, which is why I ask.
As for why the patriot act is nessesary, it's mostly a modifying bill. That is, it updates some definitions (i.e. wiretap becomes wiretap and pen register) and basicaly updates the laws to conform with chanign technology. It likewise changes some definitions (the old definition of terrorism did not include WMDs)
A good portion of it is also sun setted which indicates it isnt nessesary in the sense that we want it forever, but it was nessesary to expediate investigation after sept 11
So if a law has potential to be misused, it should be struck down? Good then I'll be starting my campaign to strike down most of the constitution. And for that matter, all investigative laws.
Again, I ask to show me where in the patriot act it grants police the power to wire tap without a warrent. Whether it changes what courts they can go to for that warrent is irrelevant, that's another issue.
Regardless, that still doesn't show where the police can get a wire tap without going to the courts first.
These were the courts before that could issue:
(2)
the term ''court of competent jurisdiction'' means -
(A)
any district court of the United States (including a magistrate judge of such a court) or any United States court of appeals having jurisdiction over the offense being investigated; or
(B)
a court of general criminal jurisdiction of a State authorized by the law of that State to enter orders authorizing the use of a pen register or a trap and trace device;
and this is what it is in the patriot act (bold mine)
(3) the term `court of competent jurisdiction' has the meaning assigned by section 3127(quoted above), and includes any Federal court within that definition, without geographic limitation.
So even courts without geographical limitation have to still fall under the definitions of section 3127.
But again, as I said, there is nothing which gives them permission to tap without court order.
Negative. You have to show connection, and the courts have ruled time and again that 3 degrees of seperation is not a connection.
So then I take it all of the amendments to the constitution are BAD LAWs since they can be interpreted differently right? A law is bad if that law infringes or promotes the infringement of rights without due process. It's not a bad law if it can be abused. It's a bad law if it promotes abuse.
It's not biased at all, and it's all what I feel is relevant because it is ALL the sections of the patriot act which I could find that pertain to electronic survielence, and none of them mention anything about being able to tap without court permission.
Try again
Well let's take a look at 216 (which by the way was in the original link)
(1) ATTORNEY FOR THE GOVERNMENT- Upon an application made under section 3122(a)(1), the court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device anywhere within the United States, if the court finds that the attorney for the Government has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.
So far so good, we're still asking for court permission
`(2) STATE INVESTIGATIVE OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER- Upon an application made under section 3122(a)(2), the court shall enter an ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device within the jurisdiction of the court, if the court finds that the State law enforcement or investigative officer has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.
Still need court permission
(A) Where the law enforcement agency implementing an ex parte order under this subsection seeks to do so by installing and using its own pen register or trap and trace device on a packet-switched data network of a provider of electronic communication service to the public, the agency shall ensure that a record will be maintained which will identify--
`(i) any officer or officers who installed the device and any officer or officers who accessed the device to obtain information from the network;
`(ii) the date and time the device was installed, the date and time the device was uninstalled, and the date, time, and duration of each time the device is accessed to obtain information;
`(iii) the configuration of the device at the time of its installation and any subsequent modification thereof; and
`(iv) any information which has been collected by the device.
Accountability
(B) The record maintained under subparagraph (A) shall be provided ex parte and under seal to the court which entered the ex parte order authorizing the installation and use of the device within 30 days after termination of the order (including any extensions thereof).'.
Accountability to the court
Try again please
FUCK NO I DON'T HAVE AN "OBLIGATION" TO COMPRIMISE
I have an obligation to vote for the person whom I feel will be the best leader for this country.
You sir are everything that is wrong with the political world today.
Bush can appoint judges all he wants, but the senate still has to approve them. Isn't the US grand?
Besides, what makkes you think that a vote for a 3rd party is throwing your vote away? Was every vote that went towards Gore last election thrown away because he lost? If enough people vote 3rd party, they might just win. And even if they don't, what do you think might happen if every election, the number of people voting 3rd party goes up 10%?
Where? The page I linked to is the relevant sections of the patriot act as it refers to electronic surveilence and wiretaps. If there are other sections, please find them for me.
That was the final version of the patriot act, it was merely all the relevant sections in the act relating to wiretaps stripped out from the unrelated portions of the bill.
Because getting bush out will certainly chance the effects of a 1994 law right?
Ok would someone please please please point out the relevant sections which indicate that any wiretaps can be obtained without a court permission? I haven't found it yet.
Well that's something that needs to be adressed that the law isn't being implimented properly. But anyone who reads the patriot act will note that all wiretaps still require court authority AND any taps under the PATRIOT act have to be part of an already ongoing investigation. Here are the relevant sections:
www.thebaka.com/rants/patriot
They'll call it rabit, and only geeks will get the reference.