It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by zenlover28
but they aren't doing anything that can't already be done by me or you with a few clicks on the internet.
it doesn't bother you that someone can buy your information off of the internet
your government is using the information to help prevent a terrorist attack. Why else would they be doing it?
Originally posted by Shadowflux
Wasting money and resources is what the government is best at. They don't have to worry about money though, they have the American people and everything on our land as collatoral. Plus, there are plenty of places to get a loan from.
Originally posted by Violent
.... Give me one example of this system bringing down a terrorist plot or stopping a cell. I can give you 4x as many examples of it being used to track American citizen groups doing nothing to endanger the public.
[edit on 12-5-2006 by Violent]
A recently intercepted phone call involving members of an alleged al-Qaeda cell in Buffalo and Bahrain led authorities to believe that attacks on U.S. interests could be coming,
Yasein Taher, 25, appeared in federal court before Judge William M. Skretny, where he pleaded guilty to providing material support to Osama bin Laden and the terrorist group. In recent weeks, Skretny also has accepted guilty pleas from four of the other five defendants.
The officials, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the effort to follow the phone call trail has involved numerous federal agencies and is the result of improved post-Sept. 11 coordination between the traditional law enforcement of the FBI and the intelligence gathering of the National Security Agency, America's premier overseas electronic intercept agency.
The law already makes a distinction between content-what we say on a phone call or in an e-mail-and ''routing and addressing information"-the phone numbers and e-mail addresses of people we communicate with. Content normally gets lots of constitutional protection. Routing information, on the other hand, does not-you don't see detectives on ''Law & Order" waiting around for a judge before they pull a perp's phone records. That's because in a 1979 case, Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that type of information merits no Fourth Amendment protection.
If the government wants to review massive amounts of routing information-for example by tapping a fiber-optic cable that carries a billion messages a day-such trawling would be perfectly constitutional. As currently written, however, FISA isn't exactly set up to allow for such broad collection of information. The statute, enacted long before the days of e-mail, anticipates that the government will identify a particular target when it applies for a warrant from the FISA court, and certify that the wiretap is relevant to an intelligence investigation. If Congress eliminated the certification requirement, Heymann says, ''I don't think anyone would lose any privacy."
The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner's home. Prior to his robbery trial, petitioner moved to suppress "all fruits derived from" the pen register. The Maryland trial court denied this motion, holding that the warrant less installation of the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner was convicted, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed.
The installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required. Pp. 739-746.
Smith v. Maryland
The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.
A slightly larger majority--66 percent--said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found.
Underlying those views is the belief that the need to investigate terrorism outweighs privacy concerns. According to the poll, 65 percent of those interviewed said it was more important to investigate potential terrorist threats "even if it intrudes on privacy." Three in 10--31 percent--said it was more important for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats.
Originally posted by truthseeka
Try turning off Fox News or any of the other propaganda, er, news networks.
PART A: Surveillance of Wire Communication, Oral Communication, and Electronic Communications
The Act also expands the government’s power to conduct surveillance pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Security Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-511, 92 Stat. 1783 (codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §§1801-1811 (2000))[FISA] . To use FISA surveillance, no predicate crime is required; nor does the FISA require a “probable cause” showing. Instead “the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this title to acquire foreign intelligence information” with the proper minimization procedures. FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1802.
Through the USA PATRIOT Act, Congress enlarged the scope of law enforcement surveillance situations to which FISA authority would apply. Section 218 enlarges the scope of the FISA authority by authorizing applications for wiretaps or physical searches so long as the gathering of foreign intelligence information is “a significant purpose” of the application. Prior to this change, the FISA authority had been interpreted as only available when the gathering of foreign intelligence information was “the primary purpose.” Contra United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2004) (contending that the pre-PATRIOT Act standard was not a clear-cut primary purpose test as is often alleged); In re Sealed Case No. 02-001, 310 F.3d 717 (FISCR 2002) (determining that section 218 was not a sharp break from prior law, because the “wall’ between intelligence agents and law enforcement officials that had been developed by the Justice Department went beyond the requirements of prior law).
While some have argued this change was necessary to enhance national security protection, see Nathan C. Henderson, The PATRIOT Act’s Impact on the Government’s Ability to Conduct Electronic Surveillance of Ongoing Domestic Communications, 52 Duke L.J. 179 (2002) (justifying section 218 due to the extreme threat the nation faced after the September 11th attacks), others worry about its consequences for civil liberties. See Vijay Sekhon, The Civil Rights of "Others": Antiterrorism, The Patriot Act, and Arab and South Asian American Rights in Post-9/11 American Society, 8 Tex. F. on C.L. & C.R. 117 (2003) (concluding that the section 218 change softened the requirements for surveillance and therefore subjected many Americans to arbitrary invasions of privacy).
Surveillance Power: Expanding the Scope of the Government’s Surveillance Power
FISA authorized surveillance against a "United States person" if the purpose of such surveillance was to collect foreign intelligence information. A United States person was defined as "a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power." 50 U.S.C. § 1801(i). "Agents of a foreign power" can thus be U.S. nationals, but the requirements for surveillance of them are more demanding than are those governing surveillance of foreigners. FISA contains "minimization procedures" to reduce the chance that persons not covered by the Act will be subjected to surveillance under it.
In contrast, law enforcement surveillance unrelated to foreign intelligence gathering is governed by Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1968) [hereinafter Title III]. In Title III, Congress codified a general prohibition on eavesdropping (in wire, oral, or electronic communications) in recognition of the importance of certain civil liberty protections in the context of domestic law enforcement. It did however carve out an exception to this protection by giving authorities processes for obtaining a court order authorizing electronic surveillance when approved by a senior Department of Justice official.
The USA PATRIOT Act alters the landscape of authorization for surveillance. It alters the statutory language defining the purpose requirement of FISA, changing it from foreign intelligence gathering as "the purpose" to foreign intelligence gathering as "a significant purpose." In doing so, it expands the situations under which the FISA authority can be used to conduct surveillance. Potentially, situations previously authorized only under the more restrictive Title III powers might now be reachable under the FISA power. In addition, the Act also increases the tools available to the government to conduct surveillance under this FISA authority, further broadening the potential reach of the government's surveillance activities.
PART C: Access to Business Records Held in Third Party Storage
According to settled law, telephone company records of calls made to and from an individual’s home are not protected by the Fourth Amendment, because there is no justifiable expectation of privacy regarding these records. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). Accordingly, such records can be obtained in the absence of the level of probable cause necessary for a warrant. Instead a showing of reasonable grounds to believe that the information sought is relevant to a criminal investigation will entitle officers to a court order mandating access to electronic communications in remote storage for more than 180 days or to communications records. 18 U.S.C. § 2703(a)(d) (1986). Officers can also obtain a designated amount of records information (subscriber names and addresses, telephone numbers, billing records, and the like) using an administrative, grand jury, or trial court subpoena. 18 U.S.C. § 2703(c)(2).
USA PATRIOT expands these authorities. Section 210 of the Act streamlines the investigative process by adding credit card and bank account numbers to the information law enforcement officials may subpoena from a communications service provider’s customer records. Furthermore, section 212 permits communication service providers to disclose either customer records or the content of their customer’s communication in any emergency situation that involves and immediate danger of physical injury. Courts have used their discretion to determine what constitutes an emergency situation. See In re United States, 352 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D. Mass., 2005) (holding that a kidnapping situation involving ransom was an emergency situation); but see Freedman v. Am. Online, Inc. 303 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D. Conn. 2004) (finding that since the ISP delayed their response to the information request, the situation was not an emergency one).
Another important change for communications providers is that section 209 of the Act makes access to voice mail information subject to the same procedures as those for access to stored e-mail. Prior to the PATRIOT Act, some courts granted access to voice mail only with a wiretap order rather than with the less-demanding application for a warrant. See United States v. Smith, 155 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 1998) (finding that the FBI’s voicemail evidence was inadmissible since it was obtained without a wiretap order). Pursuant to section 209, voicemail messages are now subject to a warrant. See Konop v. Hawaiin Airlines, Inc., 302 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing the effects that section 209 has on voicemail message information).
Originally posted by ceci2006
True. But is the Patriot Act morally right when protecting the civil liberties of American citizens? And when does it morally become a problem?
Originally posted by ceci2006
And does that mean the POTUS has the power to do anything he wants--with or without a court? Or, with or without Congress?
Originally posted by cici2006
Did the POTUS even have a reason for what he was doing? Does NSA even have a reason?