But would it not come somewhat more quickly if a really kickass military application could be found for this ? Maybe they could spray some on the enemy, they all sport giant woodies, and screw themselves to death.
Attack of the F5 bot just another thing on proportionality, This From Canton: http://www.cantonrep.com/
CANTON -- A roundup of "problem parents" whose children are habitually absent or late to school is under way. The crackdown on truancy -- an aggressive effort between Canton City Schools and City Prose...
Story: LAKE TWP. -- Sheriff's investigators would like to find out how a man acquired nitric acid that they say he sprayed on his estranged wife's face, seriously burning her Saturday morning.
Story: CANTON -- A crown adorning a statue of the Virgin Mary was stolen from Sancta Clara Monastery at 4200 Market Ave. N. The nuns who live and serve there want it returned, no questions asked. Mother Supe...
Sorry: I didn't intend to put fire in my words, I did mean to try to put perspective into this very questionable crime. If we build software systems that the user can break, then we will be doing what is sadly too common today.
I tried every key on the keyboard and this text editor still works, guess its ok.
Yes, systems are not designed to handle loads called worst case. Students at a Ivy League engineering school calculated the 25,000lb/in^2 cast sewer pipes installed in the basement of a new 6 story dorm would not withstand a high load condition. They got all their friends to turn on every device in the building at the same time. After the basement wall blew out, there was hell to pay.
Yes this type of thing should be avoided. It happens with the phone system, the highway system, and on the internetwork.
I think my point is that we must make our sandcastles sturdier. I never complain when the wave comes in, I just go into emergency dike repair mode.
On my brainless fix "Reload rate per IP = 5 sec min" I must admit to zero understanding and just a guess. My line is embedded and closed loop systems. In those systems one must always deal with nonsequitor inputs and out of range recovery. Should a modern power plant go into runaway, or back off into a safety condition ?
To make the web servers more robust, tolerant, and self-recovering may be impossible with the present thinking, I wonder if a system like this could gain any market share? Are there any analogue circuit designers left?
I am sorry, what planet did you say you thought you lived on? To support the use of big guns for small fries you distort reality. Did somebody kick over your sandcastle at the beach, what makes you so mad. The place I live uses the law as a sort of guideline, no blood, no foul. You know the game.
Freedom is not given by the law ! Freedom is taken, if you want it, it's yours. You know what to do.
I saw a phrase Sunday, it said. Don't hold on too tight, then it won't hurt so much when he pries it out of your hand.
After all that, this on networking robustness. Reload rate per IP = 5 sec min no more F5 attack, not too hard eh.
There we are, back to the theory that pushing F5, or for that matter, setting foxfire to refresh really often can ever be a crime. Crackers creed "The fact that a site can be broken is the reason it should be broken"
The fault lies with us, the admins, to make the system robust. To involve the law only hurts us all by restricting our freedom. Yes/No/who cares
Second of all, 100 of my friends only tried the door knob, we never pushed on the door. if Ping you = Ack/do again if no reply = quit
Any lawyer worth his salt will easily put to rest the argument that this school system operations were interfered with even slightly.
The big mistake here is, they charged the kid under the wrong law. It should be: A law that speaks to intent,
City of Canton
Codified Ordinances
541.04 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF.
(a) No person shall: 6) Without privilege to do so, and with intent to impair the
functioning of any computer, computer system, computer
network, computer software, or computer program, all as
defined in Ohio R.C. 2909.01, knowingly do any of the
following:
A. In any manner or by any means, including, but not
limited to, computer hacking, alter, damage, destroy,
or modify a computer, computer system, computer
network, computer software, or computer program or
data contained in a computer, computer system, computer
network, computer software, or computer program;
B. Introduce a computer contaminant into a computer,
computer system, computer network, computer software
or computer program. The Ohio state law he is charged with has no intent provisions so the disruption must have actually have happened, which it didn't.
OHIO 2909.04. Disrupting public services (B) No person shall knowingly use any computer, computer system, computer network, telecommunications device, or other electronic device or system or the internet so as to disrupt, interrupt, or impair the functions of any police, fire, educational, commercial, or governmental operations.
Even reading that, and assuming when he introduced the F5 virus into the computer system, that he had no privilege to do so, you know it is a public box. Frequent reloads are so much a part of the net that refresh timers are built into some browsers. After the jury hears from one or two hundred of the staff who don't even know yet that anything happened and they say under oath it was a normal day, This disruption of service will not be shown. The contention that attempting to break the law and failing to do so is against the law is ridiculous. Although being stupid should be illegal.
Yes officer, I have been driving the speed limit all day, I wanted to go faster, but this is the car's top speed. As the stereo plays "I can't drive 55" Here is your ticket son, for wanting to speed and not doing it.
Excuse me, but there is no conspiracy provision in the mentioned law.
I tried to get in your door, the door was locked, there is no B+E, no
attempted B+E. I just tried the knob. Yes I told my friends I was going
in your door, but well it was locked. Nothing happened.
The only thing is under the Ohio law they charged him with:
OHIO 2909.04. Disrupting public services (B) No person shall knowingly use any computer, computer system, computer network, telecommunications device, or other electronic device or system or the internet so as to disrupt, interrupt, or impair the functions of any police, fire, educational, commercial, or governmental operations.
They must show this guy/guys used a computer and disupted or interrupted, of impaired the function of an educational operation.
You did/ I did'nt/ you did/I did'nt/ you did/ er Judge could the online viderconference that started at 2:45 running at 845kb/sec have anything to do with the slowdown ?
I beg to differ. Intent has nothing to do with the law. If he violated the law and they can prove it, then intent can come into the picture during sentencing.
OHIO 2909.04. Disrupting public services (B) No person shall knowingly use any computer, computer system, computer network, telecommunications device, or other electronic device or system or the internet so as to disrupt, interrupt, or impair the functions of any police, fire, educational, commercial, or governmental operations.
If they can prove he personally disrupted a computer system, then this law may apply. Now, if they are saying he formed a conspiracy to cause the disruption, that may be a completely different law than the one they charged him with.
The key here is: Did he use a computer and cause a disruption? was there any disruption at all? Is there proof that the computer he was on caused the problem? What does the keylogger show?
No way they can make these charges stick, asking someone to jump off a bridge is not a crime. Looks like the site is back up Got this from stdent hanbook, but could not get into the building to get the FAP LAKE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT HANDBOOK COMPUTER NETWORK ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY All students must take responsibility for appropriate and lawful use of internet and network access. Please be advised that Lake Local Schools provides network and internet access to students and staff for educational uses only. Misuse or abuse of network policy may result in disciplinary action as described in the Lake Local Schools Computer Network and Internet Acceptable Use Policy and Agreement. The School District may also take other disciplinary action. Please refer to the Lake Local Schools Computer Network and Internet Acceptable Use Policy and Agreement posted throughout the building. By signing for this handbook, you are acknowledging you have read, understand, and agree to abide by the terms of the Lake Local Schools Computer Network and Internet Acceptable Use Policy and Agreement.
Stark County Sheriff's Office JAIL EFFICIENCY INDICATORS Cost per meal for food services This cost is based on competitive bidding every three years and presently our meal cost is $1.01 per meal and the state average is approximately $2.25 per meal
Damn, these guys are really outdoing it with the watch your diet stuff
City of Canton Codified Ordinances 541.04 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF.
(a) No person shall:With purpose to interfere with the use or enjoyment of
property of another employ a stink bomb
Date Docket Entry 01-06-2006 COPIES OF COMPLAINT SERVED ON DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT APPEARRED AND ADVISED OF
CHARGES PRELIMINARY HEARING SET FOR 01-12-2006 @ 3:15 PM 01-06-2006 ON THIS DAY THE DEFENDANT APPEARED WITH 20850-JOHN GIUA ATTORNEY OF RECORD 01-05-2006 BOND POSTED $2,500.00 UNSECURED WITH SUPERVISION OF PTS DUE TO EMERGENCY
RELEASE ON 01-04-2006 01-05-2006 ARRAIGNMENT SET FOR 01-06-2006 @ 9:00 AM 01-05-2006 DEFENDANT ARRESTED ON WARRANT 01-04-2006. TRANSFERRED TO STARK COUNTY JAIL IN
LIEU BOND. FORM 8 FILED 01-04-2006 PROBABLE CAUSE FOUND. REFER TO BOND SCHEDULE FOR BOND INFORMATION BY JUDGE
RICHARD J. KUBILUS 01-04-2006 DEFENDANT'S PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION FORM FILED AND ISSUED 01-04-2006 WARRANT ISSUED ON 01/04/2006; (UNTWN) 01-04-2006 2909.04 (F4) - DISRUPTING PUBLIC SERVICES COMPLAINT FILED
But if there is an infinite number of points in front of me, and an infinite number of points in back of me. Am I not already at the center of the universe because the distance is equal both ways?
On Tuesday, December 27, 2005, Microsoft became aware of public reports of malicious attacks on some customers involving a previously unknown security vulnerability in the Windows Meta File (WMF) code area in the Windows platform.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory /912840.mspx all Microsoft's security updates must pass a series of quality tests, including testing by third parties, to assure customers that they can be deployed effectively in all languages and for all versions of the Windows platform with minimum down time
Microsoft encourages users to exercise caution when they open e-mail and links in e-mail from untrusted sources.
An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could only gain the same user rights as the local user
Advisory Status: Issue Confirmed, Security Update Planned
In cases of international intelligence foreign relations, and conduct of war, the coequal constitutional powers of the executive are not necessarily subject to laws written by congress. The president, as commander in chief, has full authority to intern whole groups of people to camps, nationalize the entire steel industry, drop bombs on people, even declare martial law if necessary. If you look at the constitution-
Article II makes the President Commander in Chief of the armed forces. As such he is preeminent in foreign policy, and especially in military affairs. This was no accident; as Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 74, "Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand." The federal courts have long recognized that when it comes to waging war, the President, not Congress or the courts, is the supreme authority. In Fleming v. Page, 9 How. 603, 615 (1850), the Supreme Court wrote that the President has the Constitutional power to "employ [the Nation's armed forces] in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy."
As for your Fourth Amendment argument that:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The key here is unreasonable.
One of the many situations where warrantless searches have been approved is when the government is seeking foreign intelligence information, such as information relating to potential terrorist threats. Next to the Constitution itself, of course, the highest authority is the United States Supreme Court. At least three Supreme Court cases have discussed this subject.
In 1967, the Court decided Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347. Katz involved the warrantless interception of a conversation held by a criminal defendant in a phone booth.
U Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) nited States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)
This specific question was first addressed by the Fifth Circuit in United States v. [Cassius] Clay, 430 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970). "we do not read the section as forbidding the President, or his representative, from ordering wiretap surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence in the national interest."
In 1974, the Third Circuit decided United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974)
"prior judicial authorization was not required since the district court found that the surveillances of Ivanov were "conducted and maintained solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information."
Three years later, the Ninth Circuit decided United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871 (9th Cir. 1977 "Foreign security wiretaps are a recognized exception to the general warrant requirement...."
1980, the Fourth Circuit decided United States v. Truong For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], "unduly frustrate" the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. "
United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (1984) "Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment."
2002, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review decided Sealed Case No. 02-001 "The Truon
Amen:
You know the definition of a conservative is
a liberal that just got mugged. It is a dangerous world
and sometimes the children cry when they can't run
into the street. It seems the root issue is about echelon
and it's legality. That has been answered by the courts
and by historical precedent. Good legal overview here-->
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012631.php
A little background of the NoSuchAgency program here-->
http://home.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html
Slashdot Mirror
But would it not come somewhat more quickly if a really kickass military application could be found for this ? Maybe they could spray some on the enemy, they all sport giant woodies, and screw themselves to death.
Don't forget the third book in that set
Power Shift Alvin Toffler 1990
Attack of the F5 bot
just another thing on proportionality, This From Canton:
http://www.cantonrep.com/
CANTON -- A roundup of "problem parents" whose children are habitually absent
or late to school is under way. The crackdown on truancy -- an aggressive
effort between Canton City Schools and City Prose...
Story:
LAKE TWP. -- Sheriff's investigators would like to find out how a man acquired nitric acid that they say he sprayed on his estranged wife's face, seriously burning her Saturday morning.
Story:
CANTON -- A crown adorning a statue of the Virgin Mary was stolen from Sancta Clara Monastery at 4200 Market Ave. N. The nuns who live and serve there want it returned, no questions asked. Mother Supe...
Nice town, but don't want to live there.
Sorry:
I didn't intend to put fire in my words, I did mean to try to put
perspective into this very questionable crime. If we build software
systems that the user can break, then we will be doing what is
sadly too common today.
I tried every key on the keyboard and this text editor still works,
guess its ok.
Yes, systems are not designed to handle loads called worst case.
Students at a Ivy League engineering school calculated the 25,000lb/in^2
cast sewer pipes installed in the basement of a new 6 story dorm would
not withstand a high load condition. They got all their friends to turn
on every device in the building at the same time. After the basement
wall blew out, there was hell to pay.
Yes this type of thing should be avoided. It happens with the phone system,
the highway system, and on the internetwork.
I think my point is that we must make our sandcastles sturdier.
I never complain when the wave comes in,
I just go into emergency dike repair mode.
On my brainless fix "Reload rate per IP = 5 sec min"
I must admit to zero understanding and just a guess.
My line is embedded and closed loop systems. In those systems one must
always deal with nonsequitor inputs and out of range recovery. Should a
modern power plant go into runaway, or back off into a safety condition ?
To make the web servers more robust, tolerant, and self-recovering may
be impossible with the present thinking, I wonder if a system like this
could gain any market share? Are there any analogue circuit designers left?
I am sorry, what planet did you say you thought you lived on?
To support the use of big guns for small fries you distort reality.
Did somebody kick over your sandcastle at the beach, what makes you
so mad. The place I live uses the law as a sort of guideline, no
blood, no foul. You know the game.
Freedom is not given by the law !
Freedom is taken, if you want it, it's yours. You know what to do.
I saw a phrase Sunday, it said.
Don't hold on too tight, then it won't hurt so much when
he pries it out of your hand.
After all that, this on networking robustness.
Reload rate per IP = 5 sec min
no more F5 attack, not too hard eh.
There we are, back to the theory that pushing F5, or for that matter,
/do again
setting foxfire to refresh really often can ever be a crime.
Crackers creed
"The fact that a site can be broken is the reason it should be broken"
The fault lies with us, the admins, to make the system robust.
To involve the law only hurts us all by restricting our freedom. Yes/No/who cares
Second of all, 100 of my friends only tried the door knob, we never pushed on the door.
if Ping you = Ack
if no reply = quit
I think you are incorrect.
d =14423765
"The problem is that the law makes it clear that the legality of an action
is also defined by the intent"
The law this guy is charged with has no intent porvision.
If intent is not written as part of the Law, then intent may only be used at sentencing
for more on this see: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=173217&ci
Any lawyer worth his salt will easily put to rest the argument that
this school system operations were interfered with even slightly.
The big mistake here is, they charged the kid under the wrong law.
It should be: A law that speaks to intent,
City of Canton
Codified Ordinances
541.04 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF.
(a) No person shall:
6) Without privilege to do so, and with intent to impair the
functioning of any computer, computer system, computer
network, computer software, or computer program, all as
defined in Ohio R.C. 2909.01, knowingly do any of the
following:
A. In any manner or by any means, including, but not
limited to, computer hacking, alter, damage, destroy,
or modify a computer, computer system, computer
network, computer software, or computer program or
data contained in a computer, computer system, computer
network, computer software, or computer program;
B. Introduce a computer contaminant into a computer,
computer system, computer network, computer software
or computer program.
The Ohio state law he is charged with has no intent provisions
so the disruption must have actually have happened, which it didn't.
OHIO 2909.04. Disrupting public services
(B) No person shall knowingly use any computer, computer system,
computer network, telecommunications device, or other electronic
device or system or the internet so as to disrupt, interrupt, or impair
the functions of any police, fire, educational, commercial, or
governmental operations.
Even reading that, and assuming when he introduced the F5 virus into the
computer system, that he had no privilege to do so, you know it is a public box.
Frequent reloads are so much a part of the net that refresh timers are built into
some browsers.
After the jury hears from one or two hundred of the staff who don't
even know yet that anything happened and they say under oath it was
a normal day, This disruption of service will not be shown.
The contention that attempting to break the law and failing to do so
is against the law is ridiculous. Although being stupid should be illegal.
Yes officer, I have been driving the speed limit all day, I wanted to
go faster, but this is the car's top speed. As the stereo plays "I can't
drive 55" Here is your ticket son, for wanting to speed and not doing it.
Excuse me, but there is no conspiracy provision in the mentioned law. I tried to get in your door, the door was locked, there is no B+E, no attempted B+E. I just tried the knob. Yes I told my friends I was going in your door, but well it was locked. Nothing happened.
The only thing is under the Ohio law they charged him with:
OHIO 2909.04. Disrupting public services
(B) No person shall knowingly use any computer, computer system, computer network, telecommunications device, or other electronic device or system or the internet so as to disrupt, interrupt, or impair the functions of any police, fire, educational, commercial, or governmental operations.
They must show this guy/guys used a computer and disupted or interrupted, of impaired
the function of an educational operation.
You did/ I did'nt/ you did/I did'nt/ you did/ er Judge could the online viderconference
that started at 2:45 running at 845kb/sec have anything to do with the slowdown ?
I beg to differ. Intent has nothing to do with the law.
If he violated the law and they can prove it, then intent
can come into the picture during sentencing.
OHIO 2909.04. Disrupting public services
(B) No person shall knowingly use any computer, computer system, computer network, telecommunications device, or other electronic device or system or the internet so as to disrupt, interrupt, or impair the functions of any police, fire, educational, commercial, or governmental operations.
If they can prove he personally disrupted a computer system, then this law may apply.
Now, if they are saying he formed a conspiracy to cause the disruption, that may be a
completely different law than the one they charged him with.
The key here is:
Did he use a computer and cause a disruption?
was there any disruption at all?
Is there proof that the computer he was on caused the problem?
What does the keylogger show?
That is not correct, this is: and is still upd istrict/district.php?sectionid=1
/. has no legs in the long term
http://lakelocal.oh.schoolwebpages.com/education/
Counter: 377,811
Its a big county, but not that big.
both :
http://lake.stark.k12.oh.us/
http://www.lakelocal.org/
are still down, and it looks like you killed their web conferencing site too:
http://198.234.131.195/
also the library is still working:
http://www.mslake.stark.k12.oh.us/
But I think this
just another ant on the sidewalk
No way they can make these charges stick, asking someone to jump
off a bridge is not a crime. Looks like the site is back up
Got this from stdent hanbook, but could not get into the building to get the FAP
LAKE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT HANDBOOK
COMPUTER NETWORK ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY
All students must take responsibility for appropriate and lawful use of internet
and network access. Please be advised that Lake Local Schools provides network
and internet access to students and staff for educational uses only. Misuse or
abuse of network policy may result in disciplinary action as described in the
Lake Local Schools Computer Network and Internet Acceptable Use Policy and
Agreement. The School District may also take other disciplinary action. Please
refer to the Lake Local Schools Computer Network and Internet Acceptable Use
Policy and Agreement posted throughout the building. By signing for this handbook,
you are acknowledging you have read, understand, and agree to abide by the terms of
the Lake Local Schools Computer Network and Internet Acceptable Use Policy and Agreement.
Stark County Sheriff's Office
JAIL EFFICIENCY INDICATORS
Cost per meal for food services
This cost is based on competitive bidding every three years and presently our meal cost
is $1.01 per meal and the state average is approximately $2.25 per meal
Damn, these guys are really outdoing it with the watch your diet stuff
http://www.sheriff.co.stark.oh.us/jail-facts.htm
City of Canton Codified Ordinances
541.04 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF.
(a) No person shall:With purpose to interfere with the use or enjoyment of
property of another employ a stink bomb
http://www.cantonlaw.org/ordinance/
Yes the good old book thrown at this criminal
Date Docket Entry
01-06-2006 COPIES OF COMPLAINT SERVED ON DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT APPEARRED AND ADVISED OF
CHARGES PRELIMINARY HEARING SET FOR 01-12-2006 @ 3:15 PM
01-06-2006 ON THIS DAY THE DEFENDANT APPEARED WITH 20850-JOHN GIUA ATTORNEY OF RECORD
01-05-2006 BOND POSTED $2,500.00 UNSECURED WITH SUPERVISION OF PTS DUE TO EMERGENCY
RELEASE ON 01-04-2006
01-05-2006 ARRAIGNMENT SET FOR 01-06-2006 @ 9:00 AM
01-05-2006 DEFENDANT ARRESTED ON WARRANT 01-04-2006. TRANSFERRED TO STARK COUNTY JAIL IN
LIEU BOND. FORM 8 FILED
01-04-2006 PROBABLE CAUSE FOUND. REFER TO BOND SCHEDULE FOR BOND INFORMATION BY JUDGE
RICHARD J. KUBILUS
01-04-2006 DEFENDANT'S PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION FORM FILED AND ISSUED
01-04-2006 WARRANT ISSUED ON 01/04/2006; (UNTWN)
01-04-2006 2909.04 (F4) - DISRUPTING PUBLIC SERVICES COMPLAINT FILED
"Anything Goes" performs for the Lake Local School District staff during the
c omponents/whatsnew/5 3097598d339ea439d208a09
Friday, April 15th inservice
could hardly get it to load, had to refresh several times
http://lakelocal.oh.schoolwebpages.com/education/
default.php?sectiondetailid=11&PHPSESSID=b35cd6d3
Been running Einstein@home for long time now, have like 71,000 credits.
Millions of us are running it. We have not found a single magnetic wave
in the place. I wonder if we are looking in the wrong direction ?
http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/
If I find one, I can convert these credits to frequent flyer parsecs.
But if there is an infinite number of points in front of me, and
an infinite number of points in back of me. Am I not already at
the center of the universe because the distance is equal both ways?
Does anyone think the $40 is going to get me back up when they turn off the VHF.
I really should get a life, maybe later, my show is on.
On Tuesday, December 27, 2005, Microsoft became aware of public reports of malicious attacks on some customers involving a previously unknown security vulnerability in the Windows Meta File (WMF) code area in the Windows platform. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisor
all Microsoft's security updates must pass a series of quality tests, including testing by third parties, to assure customers that they can be deployed effectively in all languages and for all versions of the Windows platform with minimum down time
Microsoft encourages users to exercise caution when they open e-mail and links in e-mail from untrusted sources.
An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could only gain the same user rights as the local user
Advisory Status: Issue Confirmed, Security Update Planned
You only need to brush your teeth every day to be religious.
In cases of international intelligence foreign relations, and conduct of war, the coequal constitutional powers of the executive are not necessarily subject to laws written by congress. The president, as commander in chief, has full authority to intern whole groups of people to camps, nationalize the entire steel industry, drop bombs on people, even declare martial law if necessary. If you look at the constitution-
Article II makes the President Commander in Chief of the armed forces. As such he is preeminent in foreign policy, and especially in military affairs. This was no accident; as Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 74, "Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand." The federal courts have long recognized that when it comes to waging war, the President, not Congress or the courts, is the supreme authority. In Fleming v. Page, 9 How. 603, 615 (1850), the Supreme Court wrote that the President has the Constitutional power to "employ [the Nation's armed forces] in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy."
As for your Fourth Amendment argument that: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The key here is unreasonable. One of the many situations where warrantless searches have been approved is when the government is seeking foreign intelligence information, such as information relating to potential terrorist threats. Next to the Constitution itself, of course, the highest authority is the United States Supreme Court. At least three Supreme Court cases have discussed this subject.
In 1967, the Court decided Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347. Katz involved the warrantless interception of a conversation held by a criminal defendant in a phone booth.
U Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) nited States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)
This specific question was first addressed by the Fifth Circuit in United States v. [Cassius] Clay, 430 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970). "we do not read the section as forbidding the President, or his representative, from ordering wiretap surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence in the national interest."
In 1974, the Third Circuit decided United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974) "prior judicial authorization was not required since the district court found that the surveillances of Ivanov were "conducted and maintained solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information."
Three years later, the Ninth Circuit decided United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871 (9th Cir. 1977 "Foreign security wiretaps are a recognized exception to the general warrant requirement...."
1980, the Fourth Circuit decided United States v. Truong For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], "unduly frustrate" the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. "
United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (1984) "Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment."
2002, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review decided Sealed Case No. 02-001 "The Truon
Amen: You know the definition of a conservative is a liberal that just got mugged. It is a dangerous world and sometimes the children cry when they can't run into the street. It seems the root issue is about echelon and it's legality. That has been answered by the courts and by historical precedent. Good legal overview here--> http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012631.php A little background of the NoSuchAgency program here--> http://home.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html