Comments on: EFF, ACLU Vows to Appeal Dismissal of Warrantless Wiretapping Case

By: mountain_rage

mountain_rage — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 03:54:26 +0000

You are a noble individual, when most people are worrying about their pocket books you are stepping up to defend your rights.

By: Gamer8585

Gamer8585 — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:22:31 +0000

Even if the other end of a communication ends in a foreign country, the person on the US side is still protected by the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments to the US Constitution. Any violation of those rights is illegal.

If the government wants to wiretap legally it has to go to a judge and get a warrant.

By: DrewWilson

DrewWilson — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 06:52:01 +0000

We’ve actually had a similar discussion before when the issue first came up: http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9580/us_congress_approves_warrantless_wiretapping__293_to_129/

I responded to the claim that this only tracks foreign communications with tthe following:

“Sorry for disagreeing with you but for one the retroactive immunity actually affects domestic communications as well. Source: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/06/three-media-mistakes

For another the law is already designed in such a way to track such phone calls without a warrant in the first place. Source: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04/mukaseys-missed-call ”

In any event though, it’s no problem that we can’t agree on everything. In fact, I’d say it’s great that we, as writers, can look at things with different perspectives which shows, at least, we have diverse knowledge in similar fields.

From what I’ve seen on this issue is that, while the law was originally touted to be merely surveillance of foreign communications, the actual practice has been that all communications, domestic or foreign, is subject to a warrantless wiretap.

Since the wiretaps are subject to a domestic wiretap, I personally think that the constitution should not allow domestic warrantless wiretapping.

As for foreign communications, I personally have a problem with having my communications monitored without a warrant, but I also know that I’m not really subject to US law, so I can’t use the constitution in my defense.

By: soulxtc

soulxtc — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 05:16:59 +0000

It is my understanding they only monitored international calls, ones of “interest” between a user in the US and overseas. Monitoring domestic without a warrant is unquestionably illegal.

From wiki:
Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the “terrorist surveillance program”,[1] the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor, without warrants, phone calls, e-mails, Internet activity, and text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S

I dont think the call should be protected by the Constitution’s 14th amendment once it leaves the US, especially if you’re talking to “people of interest.”

By: DrewWilson

DrewWilson — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 03:24:28 +0000

The United States can have an easier time arguing about traffic going in and out of the borders, but since this case also involves traffic going on within the country, it’s much more difficult to argue that it doesn’t violate the constitution. Since both is in question all this time, it’s probably going to be much more difficult to separate the two issues even though it would have saved a few headaches for the US government.

By: soulxtc

soulxtc — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 03:14:14 +0000

It only concerns international correspondence, which I dont have a problem with. If they think its important to listen to what Abdul in Pakistan and Joe in San Fran are talking about so be it.

By: Cody

Cody — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 02:45:02 +0000

The EFF is the only organization that is protecting our digital rights. After reading about this case, I sent them $750. My privacy is worth atleast that much.