1

Email Print posted by beelzibub 07/09/2008 04:39:54 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
1

< Love Shack? Anna, you're such a child. | McCain misspeaking AGAIN >
 Display:
1 | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)
I assume you're talking about me (none / 0)
"Democratic troll"?  So now if someone disagrees with you, they're a troll?  Grow up.  Maybe I'm misguided or too trusting, but I am not a troll.

Now, based on what you say and based on the text of the House Bill, where exactly does it say that it will datamine everything for everybody?  I see provisions for:
 - Targeting persons outside the US that are not US persons
 - Targeting inside the US for US persons outside the US
 - Targeting outside the US for US persons outside the US

In ALL cases, there are rules to engage as written in 703 where the first statement is
"The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court shall have jurisdiction to review an application and to enter an order approving the targeting of a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information, if the acquisition constitutes electronic surveillance or the acquisition of stored electronic communications or stored electronic data that requires an order under this Act, and such acquisition is conducted within the United States."

If you read further, there are specific criteria in section703b that I'm not going to copy because it's too big.

I don't get it.  How does EVERYTHING get in there for EVERYONE?

Unless you can provide specific verbiage that makes it possible for the government to record everythibg for everyone in this bill, i still say you and your ilk are off base.  I could not find verbiage that backed up your claim.  Maybe I overlooked it, but since you are putting a stake in the ground, show me where you got the stake.

Looking forward to learning from you...

"Like lipstick on a pig"

by TJD on 07/09/2008 06:00:42 PM EST

TJ is a Dallas Cowboy Troll (none / 0)
Not a Democrat Troll.

by KenTX on 07/09/2008 06:13:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
True (none / 0)
Cowboys Rule!

"Like lipstick on a pig"

by TJD on 07/09/2008 06:21:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Mhm. You know who rule more? (none / 0)
My New York Football Giants.

:D

by jarett on 07/10/2008 03:58:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Alas, poor Cowboys (none / 0)
I knew them, Kenneth.

by jarett on 07/10/2008 04:00:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
minimization and basket warrents (none / 0)
It doesn't say we authorize data mining.
It's what they don't say and what they won't submit to oversite.

Look at the mimimization and basket warrent provisions.

Minimization is the word for the procedures the government uses to remove and (eventually) delete any data from US persons collected "incidentally" in the course of surveilling someone overseas.

There are no minimization procedures, they don't have to follow
any that might be imposed, there is no oversite to show they are deleting anything, and there is no deadline
for any deletion if they do get caught out.

Basket warrents are left in place from the protect america act.
They are blank checks. Thats where the everyone and anything for no reason at all comes in.

Google datamining and Total Information Awareness if you want more schooling


by beelzibub on 07/10/2008 09:19:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Let me clarify (none / 0)
The whole point of my original post about "Fisa's done.  Move on.." was to find out more information.  So, let me put it another way...

I am for LEGALLY obtained wiretaps and data mining.  Yes, I'm a liberal and I'm for it.  If local law enforcement can do it to catch a perpetrator, then so should the government have that tool.  Do I think this should be a dragnet?  Absolutely not.  It should targeted specifically to a person who the government already has sufficient probable cause to meet the standards of FISA.

Do I believe there should be sufficient oversight of this process.  Absolutely.

Do I think GW's admin broke the law by authorizing illegal wiretaps?  Yuppers.  And they should be tried for the crime and/or impeached for it.

Do I think the telcos should be tried, in civil court or criminal court for fulfilling the AG's request to launch these activities?  Not sure.  If they were following the letter of the law, then no.  As I posted before, one Congressman said that telco immunity was provisioned in the original FISA law, so this bill is just continuing it.  I am concerned that this bill is quashing civil suits, because that fact probably would have come out during the trials, but again, I have not been able to verify this.

Did minimization rules appear in the 1978 law? Dunno.

What I'm trying to do here is put aside my feelings for wiretapping and data mining in general, as well as the illegality of Bush's program, and stick to the law.  If this bill is providing nothing really that new to current FISA legislation that has been around for 30 years, then I'm not sure I want to join the ranks of the reactionaries that are bleeding through their ears about this bill in particular.

Not sure if I clarified well enough, but I am open to a productive dialogue on the matter.  Just keep a semi-open mind.

Where's Tim when I need him?  He has a knack for straightening me out!

"Like lipstick on a pig"

by TJD on 07/10/2008 12:16:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
But I do agree... (none / 0)
...that Cenk and some experts should deconstruct the bill - compared to what's already in place from 1978.

"Like lipstick on a pig"

by TJD on 07/09/2008 06:08:05 PM EST

what about dclawyer? (none / 0)
All this legal verbage I've been studying today gives me a headache.  No wonder why I dropped that Federal Indian Law class back in college.

by rev24 on 07/09/2008 06:18:18 PM EST

Going a different route (none / 0)
I'm going to pose the question on LinkedIn.  Hopefully a lawyer will step up and answer this basic question -
How does today's bill differ from the 1978 laws?

"Like lipstick on a pig"

by TJD on 07/09/2008 06:22:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What happened to this post? (none / 0)

by Spencer on 07/14/2008 03:43:58 PM EST

1 | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: