Crosshair: I hide all my communications in large amounts of porn.


That won't work. Trust me.

OK, here is my explanation of why this shouldn't be called 'warrantless wiretapping' again:

First, we've all been mightily disserved by the media on this one. They have no clue how FISA works, or how signals intelligence works, so they fundamentally misunderstand this program, and hence the reporting on it is completely flawed.

Based on my reading of open Congressional testimony and the aforementioned flawed media coverage, I think I have a decent handle on what this program does.

This program monitors the electronic communications of people suspected to be terrorists. All well and good, as long as both sides of the conversation are not what FISA calls 'US Persons' (defined in FISA as citizens, legal permanent resident aliens, US corporations, or organizations composed mainly of 'US Persons'). That is straight foreign intelligence of the type that has been going on since telecommunications were invented.

What becomes tricky is when one terminus of the conversation is within the physical boundaries of the United States. Before the advent of things like prepaid cellphones and anonymous e-mails, it was a pretty good assumption that if one terminus of a conversation was within the United States, it was a 'US Person', and thus you needed a FISA warrant to monitor them. Monitoring a 'US Person' without a FISA warrant was, and remains, *VERY* bad ju-ju.

So, for decades the assumption was that if one entity was in the United States, they were a 'US Person' and you couldn't monitor them without a FISA warrant. Then after 9/11 it became apparent that a significant amount of communications that might give us warning of an impending attack might be missed because of that assumption.

From what I can surmise of the program via open sources, it appears that this program merely says that if the entity that is in the US is using some form of anonymous communication (like prepaid wireless phone, or anonymous e-mail), then you can monitor it without a warrant until you develop information that the entity is a 'US Person', at which time you will have to get a FISA warrant if you wish to keep monitoring.

If you can determine that the entity within the US is *NOT* a 'US Person', then you can continue to monitor them without a warrant, because it falls under foreign intelligence, not domestic law enforcement. It's the same reason it is legal for us to monitor the communications of spies and embassies within the physical boundaries of the United States without a warrant.

That is my understanding of the program, based on *EXTREMELY* flawed news coverage. We all laugh at the media for fundamentally misunderstanding things like science and physics (remember 'Shuttle traveling at 17 times the speed of light'?). What makes you think their coverage of this issue is any better or less misleading?

cryptozoophiliac: Dittybopper: Then after 9/11 it became apparent that a significant amount of communications that might give us warning of an impending attack might be was missed because of that assumption lack of attention/adequate translation at the FBI.

FTFY, and without even resorting to tinfoil hats!


Fail.

I wasn't talking specifically about communications by the 9/11 conspirators, just about potential terrorist communications.

Secondly, the FBI is not in the signals intelligence business, the NSA is. The FBI is in the domestic law enforcement business, and as such is singularly ill-prepared, and always will be, to handle things like this.

Ouch I just sat on my balls: the big difference is that republicans wire tap to protect America and fight terrorism and the democrats wiretap to listen on republicans and to hurt Americans.

The democrats are the enemy within.


Fundamental misunderstanding of the program, and a cheap shot at democrats (Watergate?).

Ouch I just sat on my balls: dittybopper: Ouch I just sat on my balls: the big difference is that republicans wire tap to protect America and fight terrorism and the democrats wiretap to listen on republicans and to hurt Americans.

The democrats are the enemy within.


Fundamental misunderstanding of the program, and a cheap shot at democrats (Watergate?).

It's fark where cheap shots come with the terroritory. Besides, it's a f0u0c0king internet board...get over it!


Yes, I know.

I do find it ironic that a person who has been on Fark for a grand total of less than 2 months is lecturing someone who has been here for almost three years.

TofuTheAlmighty: I suspect a majority or a substantial minority of Democrats will vote against this awful, shameful bill whereas not a single Republican will vote against it. This vote would be a perfect microcosm of the political equilibrium in D.C. - Republicans are fascist to the core while a sizeable fraction of Democrats are spineless cretins.

More and better Democrats, please.


Strip the rhetoric, and please tell me, given the program as I understand it (see my post above), what is so shameful and awful about this?