Court Order? Warrant? Who Needs Them?

Very quietly, all Internet Service Providers are being equipped for comprehensive undetectable surveillance of both Internet and voice traffic under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) with a deadline for compliance of May 15, 2007, and were required to file a confidential System Security and Integrity Plan with the FBI detailing the implementation by March 15, 2007 pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 1004 and 47 U.S.C. 229(b).

While the contents of these documents are secret, and it is illegal to disclose them to the public, our researchers have perused the legal requirements for these documents, and have discovered information with profound implications for freedom.

The most important information we discovered is that this electronic surveillance can be applied routinely without a court order signed by a judge.

www.wvwnews.net...

Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page): MEMBERS: Do not simply post news articles in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events, please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item.



[edit on 4/4/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Do you happen to have a source for this information. I would greatly enjoy looking into this.

From what I can gather so far (simple Google searches) I've found many discussions of this "law" from the FCC's website, but I seem to have a hard time finding any "law" that is written the way you laid it out. Here is the current law that actually pertains to "CALEA"

From Cornell Law's listing of US Code:

47 U.S.C. 1004

A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization and with the affirmative intervention of an individual officer or employee of the carrier acting in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Commission.
source

1004 simply ensures that the Government would be able to intercept communications (means: facilitate for surveillance)

47 U.S.C. 229(b)

(b) Systems security and integrity
The rules prescribed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall include rules to implement section 105 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act [47 U.S.C. 1004] that require common carriers—
(1) to establish appropriate policies and procedures for the supervision and control of its officers and employees—
(A) to require appropriate authorization to activate interception of communications or access to call-identifying information; and
(B) to prevent any such interception or access without such authorization;
(2) to maintain secure and accurate records of any interception or access with or without such authorization; and
(3) to submit to the Commission the policies and procedures adopted to comply with the requirements established under paragraphs (1) and (2).
source

229(b) still maintains that the court order system is still in place, and in fact the ISP/VoIP providers must keep a record of such surveillance taking place whether with or without a court order.

Now, on the other hand...

47 U.S.C. 1007(a) - states that a court order is required for such surveillance.

Those are the current laws, of which what you are describing is of the bill that Congress passed from back in 1994. If that particular bill was passed 13 years ago, wouldn't you agree that the information would have been updated by now?

Thanks for fixing that post, Mirthful Me.

After visiting the source website, verifying the information given, and searching for repeals/amendments/etc. for the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, I still can find nothing to indicate a change.

Even according to the CALEA website, things are just as they were, as signed into law back in 1994.

Visiting the Government Printing Office (gpo) website, their information says the same.

I'm confused.

I'm going to have to call "BS" on this website's credibility.

[edit on 4/4/2007 by Infoholic]