Because I agreed to the AUP terms as part of my service agreement, and I have enough maturity and integrity to either abide by agreements I make or accept the consequences for breaking them.
They (probably) have a monopoly.
In my case, they really don't. I could choose between 3 different broadband access carriers: muni wireless, a national cable chain, or DSL through my LEC. In fact, I had the wireless, but ditched it for the cable because of service issues. Interestingly, when I signed up for cable, I then had my choice of three ISPs that had access agreements with the cable company.
Do you really think it's right for regional monopolies to rape their customers?
What a hyberbolic way to frame this question. Do I believe monopolies are good for consumers? Not really, no.
Do you actually think that's what a "free market" is?
Telecom access is a very, very regulated market. I would never argue that it's free.
What does that have to do with me violating an agreement and then complaining about the consequences again?
Okay, in the first case, it's a "pay as you use" billing model. I pay $50 per megabit measured as "the number of megabits below which my monthly usage falls 95% of the time." So if 95% of the time my utilization is 500M or less, I pay 500M x $50/M or $25,000/month.
The consumer broadband billing model is a flat $50 per month for up to 2Mbps/256Kbps of no matter how much I use. So I pay $50/month--or roughly 250 to 500 times less than my bandwidth costs my provider. They make up the difference by oversubscribing their network and hoping that many customers are idle at any given time.
Well, I'm an end-user at home on the cheap, but at work we operate a regional IP network that does about 800Mbps peak internet transit each day. Not really an end-user scenario.
The networks themselves, however, are NOT as expensive as all that; note Google buying up (cheap!) dark fiber that nobody bothers to operate 'cause there's no money in it.
Google's buying power affects their ability to _buy_ existing fiber routes. Our dark fiber _leases_ in our primary metro area just went up 40x from $20 to $800 a month for some routes due to a federal ruling regarding CLEC access to ILEC last-mile cables. Kudos on the lobbying effort Ma Bell!
Moving on from the access links, upgrading and expanding our router and switch network will cost an estimated $700K to $1.1M in the next 36 months, and we have a relatively small MPLS core of less than 10 large boxes. Moving on from there, we plan to spend an additional $1.2M on upgrades for our already-deployed $1.6M VoIP network with a few thousand business-class lines of class 4 and class 5 voice-over-IP services. Now let's talk IPTV & videoconferencing...then managed firewall services...then a couple of smallish hosting centers...oh yeah, our DSL aggregation box is almost end-of-support and will need replacing, as will the dialup pools.
Let's not forget that margins are razor-thin to stay competitive with Tier I's that go through bankruptcy and come out debt-free yet still fully built out. Yep. Networks are a bargain.
Also recall all those Skype users geting VERY cheap long distance with VOIP and threatening the telco business models 'cause bandwidth over IP is so much cheaper than bandwidth over telco phone networks.
Skype rocks. I love to play with it at home, as well as my "real" home broadband LD provider Broadvoice. But you're wrong about IP bandwidth costing much less than telco bandwidth. An OC192 SONET ring carrying TDM costs as much as an OC192 SONET ring carrying IP. It's the services that consume the bandwidth that vary in cost and billing model, and right now, IP services over an existing internet backbone are cheap for consumers, but as I pointed out, cost millions for even a rinky-dink regional provider like us. With slim margins, we run red more often than not.
Yes, the flat-fee monthly all-you-can-eat LD billing model is threatening telco transactional billing models. But, the box that lets your provider do the shiny new internet thing comes from a vendor that wants their check too.
I work at an ISP. We pay $50 per meg per month measured at the 95th-percentile of our monthly usage. We can use our bandwidth in essentially any legal way, and we get a pretty rock-solid SLA for our money.On the flipside, our providers should not go bankrupt supporting the service we buy.
I buy cable broadband at home. I pay $40/month flat rate and I agreed to a pretty restrictive AUP that allows no servers or P2P applications on my end of the connection. I could violate the AUP, like I'm sure many do. But if I did, I would not whine and complain when my ISP addresses the issue. Oh yeah, if I paid at home what I pay at work, I would be paying about $120/month for internet access. But then I could use P2P...whoop-dee-do!
Networks are very, very expensive. If my broadband provider doesn't stay in business, I won't be able to use P2P--or any other 'net application.
You pay every month for a service that comes with an AUP. If your application violates the AUP, then your ISP is actually being nice if they only limit your ability to use it. They could chose to block it entirely, or terminate your service contract.
If your application lies within AUP boundries and other contract terms, then you should get full use. Bear in mind, though, that your payload transfer rates are limited to something less than you may expect, due to header and frame overhead.
The post mentioning cisco classes is sort of goofy, especially that crapola about distance affecting bandwidth, but you get the idea.
The other post about relative pricing for a wide-open robust but expensive connection vs. a very restricted but cheap broadband connection is spot on from the provider's perspective.
Well, it assumably cost $1.9B to originally compile and analyze, but I suppose the true value of data once it already exists depends on its usefulness to interested parties. Whether or not it's available to the public free-of-charge is a different question, and you are free to inquire with NASA, I suppose. I can't guess why you'd care to, though.
Since it was produced by the U.S. government, after all, it is public domain.
I suppose that depends on its level of secret classification and terms of release, but you or whomever could give the Freedom of Information Act a shot. That's why the FoIA exists, in any case.
So, in reality, someone copied some public domain data.
What's your point? I don't think that establishing the availability of the data to the public was the reason for the dollar figure in the article.
I guess I can see why it was "sexed-up" for the press release.
Mm, okay. I guess I don't understand why the article's valuation of the data is such a "thing" for you. Not everything is about screwing Joe Public with intellectual property laws. This isn't, I'm sure.
I think this is more about Joe Taxpayer getting screwed with corrupt oversight of an expensive program, with the data "theft" cover-up being a minute example compared to say, the loss of life on a failed mission due to safety shortcuts.
I don't know why this has been such a hot button quote for/.'ers. It's not an "IP" thing. It's a "we spent $1.9 billion in man hours and research facilities (labs & equipment) to compile and analyze that data and someone walked away with a copy of it" thing.
As another poster pointed out, it's probably measured by how much was spent to gather that data in man hours and research facilities (labs + equipment), not on any "market valuation" of such data.
There are many, many ways to classify traffic by type that don't need to go up to layer seven to get the job done. You're assuming that tiered service would be "per application" and not "per customer".
If I wanted to sell you class A, B, or C internet service, I could mark every packet with a src or dst IP addr matching you--with a normal layer three header inspection--and queue those packets for egress priorities defined by each of my service classes.
Encryption at higher layers would be a nonissue.
Several factors have combined to bring us to this frustrating position. First, ISPs and telcos started merging, so telcos could profit from internet popularity and ISPs could benefit from CLEC wholesale access circuit pricing. At the same time, with those pricing advantages these larger ISP/Telcos absorbed or killed smaller ISPs that weren't financially attractive enough for purchase or merger.
This drove bandwidth and access prices way, way down to commodity levels, especially with broadband, and reduced margins to nil on internet services.
Now, all sorts of providers are trying to figure out how to "add value" to their network so they can increase margins by charging for that added value. Many have moved towards offering premium IP applications--VoIP, IPTV--with QoS network grooming. Apparently now some are moving towards traffic prioritization based not on application, but on who will pay more.
This new move is putting customers in a pretty untennable position, if you ask me, but I don't see any magic bullet solution...
It's probably mistaken or stolen identity. Someone of the same name with a computer is doing some music trading, or someone grabbed her name off a bill or ccard and is using it to open an account with an ISP. Much more likely the former than the latter.
Either way, it'll likely get sorted out okay, especially with publicity. It does highlight a systemic pothole in the legal process the RIAA uses.
FISA's warrant requirements and the 4th amendment only apply when the person being tapped is legally in the country
Actually, in past cases, the SCOTUS has held that aliens are also afforded Constitutional protections in domestic jurisdictions. No, I won't google this for you either.
I know the guy's name already, I don't need to google it. You're supposedly the truth-seeker. Go forth and seek it, then...or quit lying about your goal.
I'd like to point out that they have not yet done so
You could, but it would be redundant, as I pointed that out in my last comment. Look up "abdicate" if you're confused.
I'm not looking for a "win" I'm looking for...the truth
No, you've advocated for not discussing the matter at all due to an alledged "lack of evidence". Just how does one actively seek truth through inaction?
If these "anonymous NSA sources" decide to step up to the plate then we can actually judge the merits of their charges...yada, yada
The NSA source who helped the NYT break this story is not anonymous. Google is your friend.
I don't want to have to judge the merits of these charges. Congress and the courts must oversee executive branch activities. It's one of the reasons we send them to DC. That they've abdicated this responsability deeply shames both parties--or at least it should.
Until then, I give this hysteria no more credence than any other conspiracy theory.
Way to "look for the truth". "You're doing a helluva job, clowny."
And since no one has any evidence that any kind of crime has been committed, why are we spending so much time discussing unsubstantiated rumors as if they are established fact?
Because if the corroborated rumors are true, then there has been a major violation of the Constitutional rights of many, many US Citizens--the thought of which, surpisingly, bothers many, many US citizens. In the forefront of concerns is that the elected branch chartered, by oath, with enforcing laws, specifically Constitutional law, is the alleged violator. In fact the alleged violator has admitted that the program exists and made claims regarding the nature of the program that do not align with previous public claims. Many consider that worth discussing. Odd, huh?
This cat isn't squeezing its narrow behind back in the bag. You'll have to do better than arguing that we can't discuss the legality of a program classified as top secret because of its classification. That's simply not realistic, and it's quite a dangerous idea for our system of representative government.
I disagree with you on every point, but only have time for the following question right now. Perhaps more later.
The only question of illegality is whether or not Bush has been wiretapping Americans and legal U.S. residents without a warrant. And, to that question, we have lots of people making claims but no one has shown evidence of a single case where he has.
Without oversight of any kind of a classified project, what is the evidentiary source someone could point towards?
Read your 4th Amendment. A warrant is for a known individual. You can't get a warrant to listen to "whoever".
You've got no idea what you're talking about. Really. No idea.
The Fourth Amendment does not say any such thing. And, yes, you can get a warrant to tap a communications line or search a property, neither of which are "individuals" and both of which can lead to incriminating evidence in court cases.
When terrorist calls whoever in the USA, you can't listen to that side of the conversation without a warrant.
True. Note however, that the required warrant, per the FISA, may be acquired after the actual listening, and recording, takes place. This is to ensure that there was, at the time, probable cause to suspect the tapped communications could be material evidence in an intelligence investigation.
But you already listened to the conversation. What's the purpose of getting a warrant after you listened to the conversation again?
To provide some necessary oversight to executive actions, that without such review, could be abused by dishonest or negligent government agents.
You can't get a warrant after the fact for something you couldn't get a warrant for beforehand.
That's simply not true. The FISA court has been used 19,000 times since 1978.
It's a ridiculous situation, and you know it (because it's obvious).
Five warrants rejected from 19,000 applications and you claim the law is obviously unworkable? Get a grip.
We have a de-facto declaration of war. We're at war. Signals intelligence is part of fighting a war. The president is in charge of warmaking, and he's therefore empowered to conduct signals intelligence by Article 2.
Congress declares war. They've done no such thing. Therefore, legally we are not at war. Even if the Constitution granted a President specific wartime power, it wouldn't apply now. Giving up all of our essential liberties because you are afraid of terrorism is not acceptable to many, many citizens, including me. Period.
Ah, I see. At times of hardship, it's best to abandon your entire system of government and create an opaque dictatorship. Got it. Good luck with that then.
No. There's a responsibility to prevent terrorist attacks...
The executive branch is explicitly responsible, actually under oath, to uphold the Constitution. Which is more critical to the survival of our way of life?
They concluded that their actions were within the law.
So their conclusions should not be reviewed by other branches of government and oversight is unnecessary and inappropriate? If they say it's okay, then it's okay? There is a "balance of power" for a reason, or is there?
We have a terrorist group, Al-Qaeda...I'd like for our government to know what the f they're discussing.
Sure. *EVERYONE* wants to know what the f Al-Qaeda is discussing. Of course! That's *exactly* why the FISA exists; to allow the executive branch to *instantly* start tapping communications between suspected foreign threats and US citizens.
Tap now, get warrant 72 hours later. All legal. Nice, eh?
So, the question becomes, why not obey that law?
This is not about Domestic->Domestic calls. Those will not be tapped (according to whats being discussed here anyways). This is about international calls (though that is barely discussed in the summary, likely for partisan reasons).
Without court--or any--oversight, how do you or I know this is true? "We're the government. Trust us?" Mm'k.
meh...I obviously don't think it should be considering where the world is at to day, but as always, ymmv
You don't think the President, who swore an oath of office to protect the Constitution--should obey the Bill of Rights? Why not? Terrorists are threatening us because "they hate our freedom?" Ironic.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not?
Because I agreed to the AUP terms as part of my service agreement, and I have enough maturity and integrity to either abide by agreements I make or accept the consequences for breaking them.
They (probably) have a monopoly.
In my case, they really don't. I could choose between 3 different broadband access carriers: muni wireless, a national cable chain, or DSL through my LEC. In fact, I had the wireless, but ditched it for the cable because of service issues. Interestingly, when I signed up for cable, I then had my choice of three ISPs that had access agreements with the cable company.
Do you really think it's right for regional monopolies to rape their customers?
What a hyberbolic way to frame this question. Do I believe monopolies are good for consumers? Not really, no.
Do you actually think that's what a "free market" is?
Telecom access is a very, very regulated market. I would never argue that it's free.
What does that have to do with me violating an agreement and then complaining about the consequences again?
Okay, in the first case, it's a "pay as you use" billing model. I pay $50 per megabit measured as "the number of megabits below which my monthly usage falls 95% of the time." So if 95% of the time my utilization is 500M or less, I pay 500M x $50/M or $25,000/month.
The consumer broadband billing model is a flat $50 per month for up to 2Mbps/256Kbps of no matter how much I use. So I pay $50/month--or roughly 250 to 500 times less than my bandwidth costs my provider. They make up the difference by oversubscribing their network and hoping that many customers are idle at any given time.
Yes, I know, the end users pay up the snoot.
Well, I'm an end-user at home on the cheap, but at work we operate a regional IP network that does about 800Mbps peak internet transit each day. Not really an end-user scenario.
The networks themselves, however, are NOT as expensive as all that; note Google buying up (cheap!) dark fiber that nobody bothers to operate 'cause there's no money in it.
Google's buying power affects their ability to _buy_ existing fiber routes. Our dark fiber _leases_ in our primary metro area just went up 40x from $20 to $800 a month for some routes due to a federal ruling regarding CLEC access to ILEC last-mile cables. Kudos on the lobbying effort Ma Bell!
Moving on from the access links, upgrading and expanding our router and switch network will cost an estimated $700K to $1.1M in the next 36 months, and we have a relatively small MPLS core of less than 10 large boxes. Moving on from there, we plan to spend an additional $1.2M on upgrades for our already-deployed $1.6M VoIP network with a few thousand business-class lines of class 4 and class 5 voice-over-IP services. Now let's talk IPTV & videoconferencing...then managed firewall services...then a couple of smallish hosting centers...oh yeah, our DSL aggregation box is almost end-of-support and will need replacing, as will the dialup pools.
Let's not forget that margins are razor-thin to stay competitive with Tier I's that go through bankruptcy and come out debt-free yet still fully built out. Yep. Networks are a bargain.
Also recall all those Skype users geting VERY cheap long distance with VOIP and threatening the telco business models 'cause bandwidth over IP is so much cheaper than bandwidth over telco phone networks.
Skype rocks. I love to play with it at home, as well as my "real" home broadband LD provider Broadvoice. But you're wrong about IP bandwidth costing much less than telco bandwidth. An OC192 SONET ring carrying TDM costs as much as an OC192 SONET ring carrying IP. It's the services that consume the bandwidth that vary in cost and billing model, and right now, IP services over an existing internet backbone are cheap for consumers, but as I pointed out, cost millions for even a rinky-dink regional provider like us. With slim margins, we run red more often than not.
Yes, the flat-fee monthly all-you-can-eat LD billing model is threatening telco transactional billing models. But, the box that lets your provider do the shiny new internet thing comes from a vendor that wants their check too.
You forgot "No $40/month broadband".
I work at an ISP. We pay $50 per meg per month measured at the 95th-percentile of our monthly usage. We can use our bandwidth in essentially any legal way, and we get a pretty rock-solid SLA for our money.On the flipside, our providers should not go bankrupt supporting the service we buy.
I buy cable broadband at home. I pay $40/month flat rate and I agreed to a pretty restrictive AUP that allows no servers or P2P applications on my end of the connection. I could violate the AUP, like I'm sure many do. But if I did, I would not whine and complain when my ISP addresses the issue. Oh yeah, if I paid at home what I pay at work, I would be paying about $120/month for internet access. But then I could use P2P...whoop-dee-do!
Networks are very, very expensive. If my broadband provider doesn't stay in business, I won't be able to use P2P--or any other 'net application.
You pay every month for a service that comes with an AUP. If your application violates the AUP, then your ISP is actually being nice if they only limit your ability to use it. They could chose to block it entirely, or terminate your service contract.
If your application lies within AUP boundries and other contract terms, then you should get full use. Bear in mind, though, that your payload transfer rates are limited to something less than you may expect, due to header and frame overhead.
The post mentioning cisco classes is sort of goofy, especially that crapola about distance affecting bandwidth, but you get the idea.
The other post about relative pricing for a wide-open robust but expensive connection vs. a very restricted but cheap broadband connection is spot on from the provider's perspective.
So, actually, it was free data.
Well, it assumably cost $1.9B to originally compile and analyze, but I suppose the true value of data once it already exists depends on its usefulness to interested parties. Whether or not it's available to the public free-of-charge is a different question, and you are free to inquire with NASA, I suppose. I can't guess why you'd care to, though.
Since it was produced by the U.S. government, after all, it is public domain.
I suppose that depends on its level of secret classification and terms of release, but you or whomever could give the Freedom of Information Act a shot. That's why the FoIA exists, in any case.
So, in reality, someone copied some public domain data.
What's your point? I don't think that establishing the availability of the data to the public was the reason for the dollar figure in the article.
I guess I can see why it was "sexed-up" for the press release.
Mm, okay. I guess I don't understand why the article's valuation of the data is such a "thing" for you. Not everything is about screwing Joe Public with intellectual property laws. This isn't, I'm sure.
I think this is more about Joe Taxpayer getting screwed with corrupt oversight of an expensive program, with the data "theft" cover-up being a minute example compared to say, the loss of life on a failed mission due to safety shortcuts.
I don't know why this has been such a hot button quote for /.'ers. It's not an "IP" thing. It's a "we spent $1.9 billion in man hours and research facilities (labs & equipment) to compile and analyze that data and someone walked away with a copy of it" thing.
As another poster pointed out, it's probably measured by how much was spent to gather that data in man hours and research facilities (labs + equipment), not on any "market valuation" of such data.
Apparently, the 2005 MS operating budget was about $15B on revenues of about $39B.
Thanks to th'interweb:
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/050826/msft10-k.html
The complaints are being reviewed by the Integrity Committee of the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency.
Some news is just too hard to swallow.
There are many, many ways to classify traffic by type that don't need to go up to layer seven to get the job done. You're assuming that tiered service would be "per application" and not "per customer".
If I wanted to sell you class A, B, or C internet service, I could mark every packet with a src or dst IP addr matching you--with a normal layer three header inspection--and queue those packets for egress priorities defined by each of my service classes.
Encryption at higher layers would be a nonissue.
Several factors have combined to bring us to this frustrating position. First, ISPs and telcos started merging, so telcos could profit from internet popularity and ISPs could benefit from CLEC wholesale access circuit pricing. At the same time, with those pricing advantages these larger ISP/Telcos absorbed or killed smaller ISPs that weren't financially attractive enough for purchase or merger.
This drove bandwidth and access prices way, way down to commodity levels, especially with broadband, and reduced margins to nil on internet services.
Now, all sorts of providers are trying to figure out how to "add value" to their network so they can increase margins by charging for that added value. Many have moved towards offering premium IP applications--VoIP, IPTV--with QoS network grooming. Apparently now some are moving towards traffic prioritization based not on application, but on who will pay more.
This new move is putting customers in a pretty untennable position, if you ask me, but I don't see any magic bullet solution...
It's probably mistaken or stolen identity. Someone of the same name with a computer is doing some music trading, or someone grabbed her name off a bill or ccard and is using it to open an account with an ISP. Much more likely the former than the latter.
Either way, it'll likely get sorted out okay, especially with publicity. It does highlight a systemic pothole in the legal process the RIAA uses.
FISA's warrant requirements and the 4th amendment only apply when the person being tapped is legally in the country
Actually, in past cases, the SCOTUS has held that aliens are also afforded Constitutional protections in domestic jurisdictions. No, I won't google this for you either.
Lazy? Maybe. Relevant? No.
I know the guy's name already, I don't need to google it. You're supposedly the truth-seeker. Go forth and seek it, then...or quit lying about your goal.
I'd like to point out that they have not yet done so
You could, but it would be redundant, as I pointed that out in my last comment. Look up "abdicate" if you're confused.
I'm not looking for a "win" I'm looking for...the truth
No, you've advocated for not discussing the matter at all due to an alledged "lack of evidence". Just how does one actively seek truth through inaction?
If these "anonymous NSA sources" decide to step up to the plate then we can actually judge the merits of their charges...yada, yada
The NSA source who helped the NYT break this story is not anonymous. Google is your friend.
I don't want to have to judge the merits of these charges. Congress and the courts must oversee executive branch activities. It's one of the reasons we send them to DC. That they've abdicated this responsability deeply shames both parties--or at least it should.
Until then, I give this hysteria no more credence than any other conspiracy theory.
Way to "look for the truth". "You're doing a helluva job, clowny."
RTFAQFCS: http://slashdot.org/faq/editorial.shtml#ed850
And since no one has any evidence that any kind of crime has been committed, why are we spending so much time discussing unsubstantiated rumors as if they are established fact?
Because if the corroborated rumors are true, then there has been a major violation of the Constitutional rights of many, many US Citizens--the thought of which, surpisingly, bothers many, many US citizens. In the forefront of concerns is that the elected branch chartered, by oath, with enforcing laws, specifically Constitutional law, is the alleged violator. In fact the alleged violator has admitted that the program exists and made claims regarding the nature of the program that do not align with previous public claims. Many consider that worth discussing. Odd, huh?
This cat isn't squeezing its narrow behind back in the bag. You'll have to do better than arguing that we can't discuss the legality of a program classified as top secret because of its classification. That's simply not realistic, and it's quite a dangerous idea for our system of representative government.
I disagree with you on every point, but only have time for the following question right now. Perhaps more later.
The only question of illegality is whether or not Bush has been wiretapping Americans and legal U.S. residents without a warrant. And, to that question, we have lots of people making claims but no one has shown evidence of a single case where he has.
Without oversight of any kind of a classified project, what is the evidentiary source someone could point towards?
I think this link is better than Kohath's. IMHO. :)
A better link
Read your 4th Amendment. A warrant is for a known individual. You can't get a warrant to listen to "whoever".
You've got no idea what you're talking about. Really. No idea.
The Fourth Amendment does not say any such thing. And, yes, you can get a warrant to tap a communications line or search a property, neither of which are "individuals" and both of which can lead to incriminating evidence in court cases.
When terrorist calls whoever in the USA, you can't listen to that side of the conversation without a warrant.
True. Note however, that the required warrant, per the FISA, may be acquired after the actual listening, and recording, takes place. This is to ensure that there was, at the time, probable cause to suspect the tapped communications could be material evidence in an intelligence investigation.
But you already listened to the conversation. What's the purpose of getting a warrant after you listened to the conversation again?
To provide some necessary oversight to executive actions, that without such review, could be abused by dishonest or negligent government agents.
You can't get a warrant after the fact for something you couldn't get a warrant for beforehand.
That's simply not true. The FISA court has been used 19,000 times since 1978.
It's a ridiculous situation, and you know it (because it's obvious).
Five warrants rejected from 19,000 applications and you claim the law is obviously unworkable? Get a grip.
We have a de-facto declaration of war. We're at war. Signals intelligence is part of fighting a war. The president is in charge of warmaking, and he's therefore empowered to conduct signals intelligence by Article 2.
Congress declares war. They've done no such thing. Therefore, legally we are not at war. Even if the Constitution granted a President specific wartime power, it wouldn't apply now. Giving up all of our essential liberties because you are afraid of terrorism is not acceptable to many, many citizens, including me. Period.
Ah, I see. At times of hardship, it's best to abandon your entire system of government and create an opaque dictatorship. Got it. Good luck with that then.
we have the safety benefit of hearing the content terrorist phone calls.
And, for the third f'ing time, the FISA doesn't allow this in what particular way(s)?
Yes.
Mm'k. How?
No. There's a responsibility to prevent terrorist attacks...
The executive branch is explicitly responsible, actually under oath, to uphold the Constitution. Which is more critical to the survival of our way of life?
They concluded that their actions were within the law.
So their conclusions should not be reviewed by other branches of government and oversight is unnecessary and inappropriate? If they say it's okay, then it's okay? There is a "balance of power" for a reason, or is there?
I don't really understand what the big deal is.
[sigh] Let me join the pigpile then.
We have a terrorist group, Al-Qaeda...I'd like for our government to know what the f they're discussing.
Sure. *EVERYONE* wants to know what the f Al-Qaeda is discussing. Of course! That's *exactly* why the FISA exists; to allow the executive branch to *instantly* start tapping communications between suspected foreign threats and US citizens.
Tap now, get warrant 72 hours later. All legal. Nice, eh?
So, the question becomes, why not obey that law?
This is not about Domestic->Domestic calls. Those will not be tapped (according to whats being discussed here anyways). This is about international calls (though that is barely discussed in the summary, likely for partisan reasons).
Without court--or any--oversight, how do you or I know this is true? "We're the government. Trust us?" Mm'k.
meh...I obviously don't think it should be considering where the world is at to day, but as always, ymmv
You don't think the President, who swore an oath of office to protect the Constitution--should obey the Bill of Rights? Why not? Terrorists are threatening us because "they hate our freedom?" Ironic.