Sources on warrantless wiretapping?

DiscussãoPolitical Conservatives

Entre no LibraryThing para poder publicar.

Sources on warrantless wiretapping?

Este tópico está presentemente marcado como "inativo" —a última mensagem tem mais de 90 dias. Reative o tópico publicando uma resposta.

Jan 3, 2009, 12:08pm

Can anyone suggest some?
This is something I haven't been paying much attention to. I was just cleaning out my newspaper stack and came across a WSJ editorial piece in which they said that the gov't tracked numbers you made overseas phone calls to/received overseas calls from. But if they actually tapped you they got a warrant.

However, it's not clear if this is just one of several surveillance programs; also the piece is from May 2006 so there may have been other develpments since then.

Jan 3, 2009, 3:17pm

Well, here is a link to the text of public law 110-260, which is what H.R. 6304, FISA Amendments Act of 2008, became:

Is that what you are looking for?

Jan 3, 2009, 3:20pm

Ah, yes. I haven't read it yet but it looks like sections 102 and 103 might have what I'm looking for. Thanks E!

Set 9, 2012, 10:51pm

Wired is stretching the court's decision here when it says that the court ok'd warrantless wiretapping.

What the 9th Circuit actually held is that the civil liabilities provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not apply to the federal government because Congress did not expressly waive the government's sovereign immunity from suit. In other words, if the government has placed an illegal wiretap on your communications, you can sue the individuals who did it, but not the government itself.

Anything that was obtained by the government from those illegal wiretaps would still be inadmissible against the person in a criminal proceeding.

Set 10, 2012, 9:05pm

you can sue the individuals who did it

I hope you're right about that.

Even so, I wonder how easy it would be, though, to find out who the particular individuals were.

Editado: Set 11, 2012, 1:34am

I am curious what you guys mean by "wiretapping." Obviously, most written and oral communications over a distance these days don't travel over a wire. Emails, most forms of cell phone communication, etc. are, of course, not secure and there is no expectation of privacy.

Further, you presumably know that these are prohibitions only on the use of such evidence in criminal proceedings. Most employers, for instance, have you explicitly waive any expectation of privacy in use of their facilities or even in use of your own facilities while "on the job."

An unrelated third party is, of course, not bound by such prohibitions (but may be separately charged with a crime if they "go too far" and a prosecutor feels like charging them - which no prosecutor will).

I can't find the references right now, but as I recall major ISP hub suppliers were found not liable to civil suit by court decision, although they allowed Bush II to monitor communications across their hubs. The rationale, as I recall, was that the plaintiffs had to show specific damage as a part of their pleadings (which is, frankly, a ridiculous standard). If that is not right, I'd like your sources so I can correct my recollection.