Appeals Court Backs Bush on Wiretaps

[Frodo]

Appeals court backs Bush on wiretaps

By PETE YOST
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court sided with the Bush administration Friday on an electronic surveillance issue, making it easier to tap into Internet phone calls and broadband transmissions.

The court ruled 2-1 in favor of the Federal Communications Commission, which says equipment using the new technologies must be able to accommodate police wiretaps under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, known as CALEA.

Judge David Sentelle called the agency's reading of the law a reasonable interpretation. In dissent, Judge Harry Edwards said the FCC gutted an exemption for information services that he said covered the Internet and broadband.

The FCC "apparently forgot to read the words of the statute," Edwards wrote.

FCC chairman Kevin Martin said the decision ensures that law enforcement's ability to conduct court-ordered electronic surveillance will keep pace with new technology.

[MODU]

A good ruling.

[Frodo]

A good ruling.

Let's hope the Supreme Court follows suit. 

[MasterJedi]

A good ruling.

Let's hope the Supreme Court follows suit. 

^^^^^^

[J. J.]

A very good ruling.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Is this the fascist orgy thread?

[J. J.]

Is this the fascist orgy thread?

No it the common sense threat that says that says that sometimes, law enforcement does have to wiretap communications devices.

Do you now oppose court ordered wiretaps?

[Democratic Hawk]

Is this the fascist orgy thread?

No it the common sense threat that says that says that sometimes, law enforcement does have to wiretap communications devices.

Yep

Dave

[J. J.]

Is this the fascist orgy thread?

No it the common sense threat that says that says that sometimes, law enforcement does have to wiretap communications devices.

Yep

Dave

I'll remember that the next time a terrorist sets of a bomb in your block.

[Democratic Hawk]

Is this the fascist orgy thread?

No it the common sense threat that says that says that sometimes, law enforcement does have to wiretap communications devices.

Yep

Dave

I'll remember that the next time a terrorist sets of a bomb in your block.

I agree with the point you made rather about this being a common sense thread (hence the smiley)

Dave

[J. J.]

Is this the fascist orgy thread?

No it the common sense threat that says that says that sometimes, law enforcement does have to wiretap communications devices.

Yep

Dave

I'll remember that the next time a terrorist sets of a bomb in your block.

I agree with the point you made rather about this being a common sense thread (hence the smiley)

Dave

Sorry, I keep foorgetting that unlike the other red avatar on this thread, you're normal. 

[Frodo]

Is this the fascist orgy thread?

No it the common sense threat that says that says that sometimes, law enforcement does have to wiretap communications devices.

Yep

Dave

I'll remember that the next time a terrorist sets of a bomb in your block.

I agree with the point you made rather about this being a common sense thread (hence the smiley)

Dave

Sorry, I keep foorgetting that unlike the other red avatar on this thread, you're normal. 

You're also forgetting me. 

[dazzleman]

I am absolutely appalled that a court would put the protection of American lives over the rights of terrorists to plot deadly attacks without surveillance or discovery by the government.

The Bush administration should be excoriated for trying to protect American lives.  IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!!!!

I love the way it's the same people who say Bush is fully responsible for failing to prevent the Sept. 11th attacks who now attack him for putting in place some surveillance measures that will hopefully prevent future attacks.  I wonder if these people have ever actually been successful at a difficult and far-flung task, as opposed to just sitting around in an ivory tower criticizing others.  I think I know the answer to that question.

[Nym90]

I generally support a broad right to wiretap when a warrant has been obtained, though obviously it can easily go too far. I think I would support this ruling, though.

[agcatter]

Seems like a good ruling.  A rough balance has to be maintained and the courts need maintain that balance.  In this particular instance, I think the court got it right IMHO.

[Richard]

Is this the fascist orgy thread?

I don't know, but am I the only one thinking there's no reason for the government to spy on its own people?

[J. J.]

Is this the fascist orgy thread?

No it the common sense threat that says that says that sometimes, law enforcement does have to wiretap communications devices.

Yep

Dave

I'll remember that the next time a terrorist sets of a bomb in your block.

I agree with the point you made rather about this being a common sense thread (hence the smiley)

Dave

Sorry, I keep foorgetting that unlike the other red avatar on this thread, you're normal. 

You're also forgetting me. 

You not normal either, but it's a good abnormality.

[Emsworth]

This case has nothing to do with the Constitution, and everything to do with a particular statute--the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (see text).

The act provides that, in general, its requirements do not apply to "persons or entities insofar as they are engaged in providing information services," Sec. 102, ((C)(i). The term "information services" is defined as including: "(i) a service that permits a customer to retrieve                       stored information from, or file information for storage in, information storage facilities;  (ii) electronic publishing; and (iii) electronic messaging services," Sec. 102 (6)(B).

Surely, the Internet and broadband qualify as "information services" under these definitions. The Internet obviously "permits a customer to retrieve stored information..." Thus, it would appear that the Internet is exempt from the act.

I might be wrong, as I have not read the whole statute. But at the very least, I do not see how others can be so confident that this is a good ruling.

[J. J.]

Is this the fascist orgy thread?

I don't know, but am I the only one thinking there's no reason for the government to spy on its own people?

If I was suspected of plotting an armed robbery, and the police had probable cause, that would be a good reason.

[Richard]

Um, no.  All that is required is some fake considerations and you get a blank check for spying.  No thanks.  The government can screw off.

[Inverted Things]

Um, no.  All that is required is some fake considerations and you get a blank check for spying.  No thanks.  The government can screw off.

Amazingly, Richius and I agree on something.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The fact is the Bush adminstration has ignored the laws that you are required to have permission from a judge to perform a wiretap.

[J. J.]

The fact is the Bush adminstration has ignored the laws that you are required to have permission from a judge to perform a wiretap.

Actually, that is not the "fact" in this case.  The case deals if the FCC can require manufactures to make it technically possible to wiretap a new device.

It a commonsense approach that has nothing to with authorizing wiretaps.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The fact is the Bush adminstration has ignored the laws that you are required to have permission from a judge to perform a wiretap.

Actually, that is not the "fact" in this case.  The case deals if the FCC can require manufactures to make it technically possible to wiretap a new device.

It a commonsense approach that has nothing to with authorizing wiretaps.

Well, you might be right, but I don't support anything that gives the adminstration more power until they start following the damn law.

[J. J.]

The fact is the Bush adminstration has ignored the laws that you are required to have permission from a judge to perform a wiretap.

Actually, that is not the "fact" in this case.  The case deals if the FCC can require manufactures to make it technically possible to wiretap a new device.

It a commonsense approach that has nothing to with authorizing wiretaps.

Well, you might be right, but I don't support anything that gives the adminstration more power until they start following the damn law.

It doesn't even give them more power.  It's about requirements for the hardware.  This is basically saying that I can't buy a telephone that cannot physically be tapped.