The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Myths and Facts

[bonito]

Helpful information ACLU site.http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/31144res20070731.html

[L. Coyote]

1. That article and about 100 more in this compilation thread:

Please add any other articles you find.

SO, how many secret domestic spy programs are there anyway, and are they legal?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1481897That art

[Igel]

2. I would have agreed with this point last week.

"MYTH: We need warrants to wiretap foreigners abroad.
"FACT: Current law allows foreign-to-foreign communications to be intercepted without a warrant. What this proposal is really about is the right to wiretap Americans - without a warrant - who are speaking with people overseas."

But I think I was wrong. The administration--with concurrence from the dem majority in Congress--says a FISA judge decided the law did not permit foreign-to-foreign communication intercepts if they are routed through the US. This struck me as an insane interpretation; I have to assume it was appealed (I think the FISA court has an appeals mechanism), but then again, what do I know? But both assertions are covered in the bill in some way: The first, allegedly erroneous one, that foreign-to-foreign intercepts are legal, and the second that Americans can be wiretapped, allegedly with the Americans as the primary target.

That's how I take the primary provision of the bill that passed the Senate and House in the last couple of days:

"Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under section 101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States."

101(f):
"Electronic surveillance" means -
(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other
surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio
communication sent by or intended to be received by a
particular, known United States person who is in the United
States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting
that United States person, under circumstances in which a
person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant
would be required for law enforcement purposes;
(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other
surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication
to or from a person in the United States, without the consent
of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United
States, but does not include the acquisition of those
communications of computer trespassers that would be
permissible under section 2511(2)(i) of title 18;
(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical,
or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio
communication, under circumstances in which a person has a
reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be
required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender
and all intended recipients are located within the United
States; or
(4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or
other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring
to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio
communication, under circumstances in which a person has a
reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be
required for law enforcement purposes.
(my bolding)

I think the bolded sections are the ones that are most obviously affected.

On edit: After thinking about it, I think the judge's interpretation might be the only correct one given 101(f)(4)--it rather depends on how "wire communication" is currently defined and interpreted--so I changed "strikes" in my second paragraph to "struck".