vc318

New topic for this week:

Wiretapping rules win House approval - 06/21/2008 - MiamiHerald.com

NATIONAL SECURITY
Wiretapping rules win House approval
Posted on Sat, Jun. 21, 2008

WASHINGTON --
(AP) -- The House on Friday easily approved a compromise bill setting new electronic surveillance rules that effectively shield telecommunications companies from lawsuits arising from the government's terrorism-era warrantless eavesdropping on phone and computer lines in this country.

The bill, which was passed on a 293-129 vote, does more than just protect the telecoms. The update to the 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is an attempt to balance privacy rights with the government's responsibility to protect the country against attack, taking into account changes in telecommunications technologies.

''This bill, though imperfect, protects both,'' said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., a former member of the intelligence committee.

President Bush praised the bill Friday. 'It will help our intelligence professionals learn enemies' plans for new attacks,'' he said in a statement before television cameras a few hours before the vote.

The House's passage of the FISA Amendment bill marks the beginning of the end to a monthslong standoff between Democrats and Republicans about the rules for government wiretapping inside the United States. The Senate was expected to pass the bill with a large margin, perhaps as soon as next week, before Congress takes a break during the week of the Fourth of July.

The government eavesdropped on American phone and computer lines for almost six years after the Sept. 11 attacks without permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the special panel established for that purpose under the 1978 law. Some 40 lawsuits have been filed against the telecommunications companies by groups and individuals who think the Bush administration illegally monitored their phone calls or e-mails.

The White House had threatened to veto any surveillance bill that did not also shield the companies.

The movie Enemy of the State comes to mind and what the consequences can be when government is "invited" into our homes and allowed to tap our calls, place video cameras around, and so forth.

My question is:

Should government be allowed to tap into our phone calls? Is our right to privacy being violated here or is this new bill an absolute necessity for our safety?

4N6 DNA

I think this is such a great debate

I sort of have my foot on both sides of this issue. I think that wiretapping can keep us safe from attackers, but it will not make our country better.

Wiretapping keeps us safe from attackers.
I do not condone violating civil rights, but I think the reason why I am not opposed to wiretapping is because it seems to have been beneficial in the past. I am supportive of the wiretapping of Martin Luther King Jr by the Kennedy Administration. And did anyone read about the Major Terror Plot Against U.S that was prevented thanks to wiretapping? If little things like this could make us safer, I am willing to give up a few of my liberties pending they aren't outrageous.

Wiretapping does not make our country better.
The Constitution is so important in limiting the power of the federal gov and our rights are protected by it. Wiretapping might protect us from an attack, but our country as a whole will fall slightly apart I think. Makes us feel unsafe in our own homes sometimes knowing the government doesn't need to keep its promises. Or that it doesn't have to follow its own rules.

Those being said, I can't really find a side to support. I've been on the fence for a while. People who do us harm seem to be hiding behind our civil structures and we nagged our government saying they weren't doing enough to make us safe. And now, atleast they are doing something about it. Lets see how safe we feel after this. Seems sort of like back during WWI when Americans gave up a few civil liberties voluntarily, gave up things like sugar, gasoline and other things during the war. It made us feel like we are in the same boat. I've got nothing to hide, so the concern is not too great for me. They are the ones who will get bored to death with the gossip that travels through my phone line

I do however feel that the telecommunications companies should be prosecuted. I feel that they should be made an example of. That doing something illegal is not to be tolerated, even if it is on behalf of the US government.

iheartjustinchambers

I'm torn on this issue. I agree under certain circumstances, but it will not make the United States any safer. Just as it was proven to be benefical in the past that doesn't mean it will be so now. We live in a diiferent world now. Wiretapping make protect us, or maybe not. How can we feel safe in our OWN homes, when we have such a corrupt government??

sunnykerr

I think they should have that right, absolutely. The same way that investigators do.

But, you know, when you're actually under active investigation for something. And following some sort of court order to start wire-tapping. So that, you know, they could actually process what they get and, thus, not compound the violation of civil rights with having it all be for nothing in the end.

It's not the wire-tapping that is so abbhorent. It's that they get to do it to whomever they want, whenever they want, and without giving notice to anyone.

4N6 DNA

I think the reason we are so torn iheartjustinchambers, is because the wiretapping issue involves two conflicts. Whether it is illegal and whether it is unconstitutional. They are both very different and sometimes when people talk about it, they do not address this important distinction.

This is how I interpret this section of our Constitution. The constitution does not say anything about wiretapping. It regulates searches instead. That is where what sunnykerr said comes into play about the government doing whatever they want whenever they want. Courts in the past have considered wiretaps as searches and because of that, have required warrants. Therefore, warrantless wiretaps are unconstitutional, but wiretapping itself is not illegal.

Another thing to think about is what the search should cover with regards to wiretapping. If John and Robert are exchanging possibly criminal emails and I have evidence against John I can get a search warrant to go though his house. If I find the emails to Robert, I am searching and getting evidence on Robert without a search warrant for Roberts emails. can I use that against Robert? It is information about him gathered without a search warrant for him.

sunnykerr

I think that's where the "plain sight" doctrine might come in. If evidence of a crime is in plain sight, there is no need for a warrant or, perhaps more to the point, it isn't automatically inadmissible.

Like, if cops do those spot checks where they stop every third car and check for possible DUIs... Well, if they stop your car and you've got three kilos of cocaine in your backseat (assuming it's not covered by anything), they can still arrest you for trafficking. It doesn't matter that they were looking for something else.

I'm not sure, but I think the same would apply to e-mails on someone else's account. If they've got a warrant to search A's e-mail and find incriminating information on B while doing so, I think that might be considered plain sight.

4N6 DNA

Is it still considered plain sight if you needed a warrant to get to where you could see the evidence?

Good point. A more common example is you never pulled over for not wearing your seatbelt. You always get caught for something else, and then they check your seatbelt an fine you if you aren't wearing it.