Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: FISA & EPCA the facts & nothing more [View all]Monkie
(1,301 posts)46. i did not realise i had to back up commonly accepted facts but sure.
my 3 points backed up with facts then.
you said earlier in this discussion that jarla was wrong, jarla then posted this link, and you went quiet
http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/email-content-foia/FBI%20docs/June%202012%20FBI%20DIOG.pdf
18.7.1.3.4.4 (U) COMPELLED DISCLOSURE OF THE CONTENTS OF STORED WIRE OR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS
(U) Contents in "electronic storage" (e.g., unopened e-maillvoice mail) require a search
warrant. See 18 U.S.c. § 2703(a). A distinction is made between the contents of
communications that are in electronic storage (e.g., unopened e-mail) for less than 180
days and those in "electronic storage" for longer than 180 days, or those that are no
longer in "electronic storage" (e.g., opened e-mail). In enacting the ECPA, Congress
concluded that customers may not retain a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in
information sent to network providers. However, the contents of an e-mail message that
is unopened should Nonetheless be protected by Fourth Amendment standards, similar to
the contents of a regularly mailed letter. On the other hand, if the contents of an unopened
message are kept beyond six months or stored on behalf of the customer after the e-mail
has been received or opened, it should he treated the same as a business record in the
hands of a third party, such as an accountant or attorney. In that case, the government
may subpoena the records from the third party without running afoul of either the Fourth
or Fifth Amendment. If a search warrant is used, it may be served on the provider without
notice to the customer or subscriber
you said "a warrant is only good for a year" without acknowledging that warrants can be renewed, it is difficult to prove this considering that we have no actual data from fisa courts, which you may think makes you pretty clever with that assertion.
but i countered by saying that in other examples relating to the NSA it has been shown that what was initially portrayed as a 3 month warrant and nothing sinister, was actually a 3 month recurring warrant, rubberstamped if you wish, for years.
since i cant actually quote from case law i will have to make do with the senators engaged in the oversight of these programs.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2960140
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/06/06/senators-verizon-warrant-a-renewal-from-2006/
As far as I know this is the exact three month renewal of what has been the case for the past seven years. This renewal is carried out by the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] court under the business records section of the Patriot Act, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who chairs the intelligence committee, told reporters in the Senate gallery.
so i think that proves my claim that it is disingenuous to suggest a warrant is only good for a year as it leaves out part of the picture.
that leaves just my point that the wording of the FISA act is ambiguous, on this you challenge all the lawyers in original article without offering anything but the law is the law, and you want me to prove something that nobody else is arguing, on this one i expect YOU to come up with some legal opinion other than your own that the wording is not ambiguous, because everyone i have seen comment on this, lawyer or not has said the wording is ambiguous.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
56 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Nope, certain things apply to US Persons & Non US Persons everyone within the US is considered a US
giftedgirl77
Jun 2013
#32
as the other poster has shown, claiming something is misinformation does not make it so
Monkie
Jun 2013
#36
i put up, miss anonymous expert, and all you did was cry and cry "the law the law"
Monkie
Jun 2013
#51
so why wont you answer the real question, the lawyers questions?straw men and "facts"
Monkie
Jun 2013
#20
again, if i had seen you had also responded to me after attacking the other person
Monkie
Jun 2013
#24
Yeah, where were all of you complainers back in 1979? I didn't see you make a PEEP back then!
MNBrewer
Jun 2013
#6
Thanks giftedgirl. We need more info and less hype around here. From the posts i've read you
okaawhatever
Jun 2013
#16