>From - Sat Mar 02 00:57:18 2024
Received: by 10.220.46.133 with SMTP id j5mr318320vcf.9.1247904864469;
Sat, 18 Jul 2009 01:14:24 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <areda..._at_msn.com>
Received: from blu0-omc1-s7.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc1-s7.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.18])
by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 23si150424vwj.9.2009.07.18.01.14.24;
Sat, 18 Jul 2009 01:14:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of areda..._at_msn.com designates 65.55.116.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=65.55.116.18;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of areda..._at_msn.com designates 65.55.116.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=areda..._at_msn.com
Received: from BLU149-DS12 ([65.55.116.8]) by blu0-omc1-s7.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
Sat, 18 Jul 2009 01:14:24 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [24.158.238.87]
X-Originating-Email: [areda..._at_msn.com]
Message-ID: <BLU149-DS12C6B5445061C3C071EAB0BC1F0_at_phx.gbl>
Return-Path: areda..._at_msn.com
From: "Its from Onion" <areda..._at_msn.com>
Subject: Wiretapping and Other Eavesdropping Devices and Methods
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 03:14:22 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_15FE_01CA0755.D8FF6030"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: MSN 9
X-MimeOLE: Produced By MSN MimeOLE V9.60.0053.2200
Seal-Send-Time: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 03:14:22 -0500
Bcc:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jul 2009 08:14:24.0303 (UTC) FILETIME=[C2BF2BF0:01CA077F]
------=_NextPart_000_15FE_01CA0755.D8FF6030
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping are virtually as old as the teleph=
one. But the debates over wiretapping have intensified in recent years, as =
the pressure to fight terrorism after the Sept. 11th attacks and rapid tech=
nological change led to an unprecedent expansion of electronic surveillance=
.
After the attacks in 2001, members of the Bush administration were highly c=
ritical of restrictions on surveillance imposed by laws like FISA, the Fore=
ign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was passed in 1978 after Congressi=
onal hearings revealed widespread abuse of government wiretaps.
Portions of the Patriot Act expanded the law's reach to cover terrorism sus=
pects as well as agents of foreign countries. But when President Bush order=
ed an expanded program of surveillance by the National Security Agency, he =
decided to bypass the FISA process entirely. When news of these warrantless=
wiretaps was revealed by The New York Times in 2005, administration offici=
als argued that working within FISA would have been too cumbersome.
What followed was three years of wrangling, both between Republicans and De=
mocrats in Congress and within the administration. The bill passed in late =
June 2008 provided what amounted to legal immunity to the phone companies t=
hat took part in Mr. Bush's eavesdropping program. The new bill expanded th=
e government's powers to spy on terrorism suspects in some major respects, =
and strengthened the ability of intelligence officials to eavesdrop on fore=
ign targets. It also allowed them to conduct emergency wiretaps without cou=
rt orders on American targets for a week if it is determined that important=
national security information would otherwise be lost.
The deal was criticized by many Democrats and advocates for civil liberties=
. But its supporters, including then-Senator Barack Obama, called it a reas=
onable compromise and the best available.
On Jan. 15, 2009, a federal intelligence court issued a rare public ruling =
upholding the 2007 law, validating the power of the president and Congress =
to wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without =
a specific court order, even when Americans' private communications may be =
involved.
In April 2009, officials revealed that a Justice Department review found th=
at since the passage of the Protecting America Act the NSA intercepted priv=
ate e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans on a scale that went beyon=
d the broad legal limits established by Congress.
The overcollection problems appear to have been uncovered as part of a twic=
e-annual certification that the Justice Department and the director of nati=
onal intelligence are required to give to the Foreign Intelligence Surveill=
ance Court on the protocols that the N.S.A. is using in wiretapping. New de=
tails also emerged about earlier domestic-surveillance activities, includin=
g the agency's attempt to wiretap a member of Congress, without court appro=
val, on an overseas trip.
In July, a report produced by five inspectors-general questioned the progra=
m's value<
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/us/11nsa.html>, saying that its=
revelations played a limited role in the F.B.I.'s counterintelligence work=
and that other methods had produced more timely information. The report al=
so hinted at political pressure in preparing the so-called threat assessmen=
ts that helped form the legal basis for continuing the classified program
------=_NextPart_000_15FE_01CA0755.D8FF6030
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-125=
2">
<STYLE></STYLE>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16850" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=3DMailContainerBody=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #=
000000; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; PADDING-TOP: 15px; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT=
-FAMILY: Times New Roman; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none=
; TEXT-DECORATION: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"=20
leftMargin=3D0 topMargin=3D0 acc_role=3D"text" CanvasTabStop=3D"true"=20
name=3D"Compose message area"><!--[gte IE 5]><?xml:namespace prefix=3D"v" /=
><?xml:namespace prefix=3D"o" /><![endif]-->
<DIV>
<P>Wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping are virtually as old as the=20
telephone. But the debates over wiretapping have intensified in recent year=
s, as=20
the pressure to fight terrorism after the Sept. 11th attacks and rapid=20
technological change led to an unprecedent expansion of electronic=20
surveillance.</P>
<P>After the attacks in 2001, members of the Bush administration were highl=
y=20
critical of restrictions on surveillance imposed by laws like FISA, the For=
eign=20
Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was passed in 1978 after Congressional=
=20
hearings revealed widespread abuse of government wiretaps.</P>
<P>Portions of the Patriot Act expanded the law's reach to cover terrorism=
=20
suspects as well as agents of foreign countries. But when President Bush or=
dered=20
an expanded program of surveillance by the National Security Agency, he dec=
ided=20
to bypass the FISA process entirely. When news of these warrantless wiretap=
s was=20
revealed by The New York Times in 2005, administration officials argued tha=
t=20
working within FISA would have been too cumbersome.</P>
<P>What followed was three years of wrangling, both between Republicans and=
=20
Democrats in Congress and within the administration. The bill passed in lat=
e=20
June 2008 provided what amounted to legal immunity to the phone companies t=
hat=20
took part in Mr. Bush's eavesdropping program. The new bill expanded the=20
government's powers to spy on terrorism suspects in some major respects, an=
d=20
strengthened the ability of intelligence officials to eavesdrop on foreign=
=20
targets. It also allowed them to conduct emergency wiretaps without court o=
rders=20
on American targets for a week if it is determined that important national=
=20
security information would otherwise be lost.</P>
<DIV id=3Dmoretxt style=3D"DISPLAY: block">
<P>The deal was criticized by many Democrats and advocates for civil libert=
ies.=20
But its supporters, including then-Senator Barack Obama, called it a reason=
able=20
compromise and the best available.</P>
<P>On Jan. 15, 2009, a federal intelligence court issued a rare public ruli=
ng=20
upholding the 2007 law, validating the power of the president and Congress =
to=20
wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without a=
=20
specific court order, even when Americans' private communications may be=20
involved.</P>
<P>In April 2009, officials revealed that a Justice Department review found=
that=20
since the passage of the Protecting America Act the NSA intercepted private=
=20
e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans on a scale that went beyond th=
e=20
broad legal limits established by Congress.</P>
<P>The overcollection problems appear to have been uncovered as part of a=
=20
twice-annual certification that the Justice Department and the director of=
=20
national intelligence are required to give to the Foreign Intelligence=20
Surveillance Court on the protocols that the N.S.A. is using in wiretapping=
. New=20
details also emerged about earlier domestic-surveillance activities, includ=
ing=20
the agency's attempt to wiretap a member of Congress, without court approva=
l, on=20
an overseas trip.</P>
<P>In July, a report produced by five inspectors-general <A=20
title=3D
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/us/11nsa.html=20
href=3D"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/us/11nsa.html"><FONT=20
title=3D"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/us/11nsa.html CTRL + Click t=
o follow link"=20
color=3D#004276>questioned the program's value</FONT></A>, saying that its=
=20
revelations played a limited role in the F.B.I.'s counterintelligence work =
and=20
that other methods had produced more timely information. The report also hi=
nted=20
at political pressure in preparing the so-called threat assessments that he=
lped=20
form the legal basis for continuing the classified=20
program</P></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_15FE_01CA0755.D8FF6030--
Received on Sat Mar 02 2024 - 00:57:18 CST