cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/15271710

Not a good result. The good amendment to add a warrant requirement failed on a tie vote; bad amendments to expand the scope of warrantless wiretapping passed. Next step: a Senate vote.

  • @Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    -4
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    OK. There are no laws against the NSA picking up.foreign communications. In fact, that’s the reason they exist. So they monitor a phone call originating from Moscow, say, of a person they find of interest. All of a sudden, that guy makes a call to someone in the US. Should the NSA simply hang up and not find out what it’s all about due to a lack of warrant? Also, the technology doesn’t make that immediately possible.

    The courts have decided that text messages, as well as mobile tracking, do not need lawful warrants. Usually you don’t apply for a warrant when you don’t need one.

    BTW, phone records are actually operating company business records. You don’t own them.

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod
      link
      fedilink
      English
      66 months ago

      Should the NSA simply hang up and not find out what it’s all about due to a lack of warrant?

      Yes.

      There, that was easy.

      • @Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        -76 months ago

        First of all, it’s a computer take and no hangups can be done. Nobody is listening real time.

        Secondly, what you miss could kill you. But, I guess you know better.

        • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod
          link
          fedilink
          English
          46 months ago

          I’m sure as I type this there are men beating their wives and children, maybe to death.

          Should the government put cameras in every house to prevent this?

          If not, why do you hate women and children and want them to die?

          • @Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            -56 months ago

            What if they never wrote “bin Laden Determined to Strike US” because they didn’t know? Would you still think they were doing their jobs as you sipped your morning coffee atop the WTC?

            • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              The Patriot Act* didn’t exist before 9/11. Your argument is invalid.

              Also, the NSA can get the FBI to get a warrant for the person in the US. We already have mechanisms for monitoring communications in the US.

              * It’s actually called the USA PATRIOT Act, which is an acronym for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.” I prefer the acronym U SAP AT RIOT/

            • @Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              16 months ago

              What if they never wrote “bin Laden Determined to Strike US” because they didn’t know?

              They got that information before section 702 was a thing. You’re supporting GWB’s wiretapping policy.

                • @Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  26 months ago

                  The memo gwb ignored before 9/11 was before section 702 existed. 702 didn’t go into effect until 2008.

                  If you don’t want me to downvote you, don’t lie in support of a gwb policy.

                  • @Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -2
                    edit-2
                    6 months ago

                    That’s it isn’t it. You don’t understand the program, and the result is its bad.

                    Section 702 is only the current iteration of a legal problem that has been brought to congress by FISA users since its inception. It really has nothing to do with the Patriot Act, and more to do with the inability of Congress.