 SteveI know your IP addressConsultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5 | reply to MyDogHsFleas
Re: They have my full support said by MyDogHsFleas: This is about, should the Government ever be allowed under any circumstance to search and use as evidence data on a computer or on the network? Get a warrant |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by Steve:Get a warrant Amend the law.
See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) at »www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.html
Mark |
|
|
|
 fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:13 | Here you go, posting a law again you don't understand like it's some trump card. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by fatness:Here you go, posting a law again you don't understand like it's some trump card. There you go again, making one-line assertions without engaging in the discussion.
Did you read the so-called amnesty law? Its reference to 18 U.S.C. 2511?
Mark |
|
| said by amigo_boy:Did you read the so-called amnesty law? Its reference to 18 U.S.C. 2511? Curious. Do you have some sort of legal precedent, court decision or another source from something like a law journal that shows that the law is read that way?
You've post the link to the law three times in this discussion, but without other sources that concur with YOUR interpretation, especially from courts or legal scholars, you interpretation is nothing more than armchair lawyering.
--
---
Eleven years of carrying The Clue Bat... |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by NetAdmin1:Curious. Do you have some sort of legal precedent, court decision or another source from something like a law journal that shows that the law is read that way? How else do you read it? 1) The AG (or others) can certify that no warrant is necessary. 2) The so-called amnesty deal cited this law as the basis for amnesty.
Mark |
|
1 edit | said by amigo_boy:How else do you read it? 1) The AG (or others) can certify that no warrant is necessary. 2) The so-called amnesty deal cited this law as the basis for amnesty. I'm not a lawyer, so I am not qualified to interpret the law, especially since I don't know much about it. That's why I asked for a source showing the interpretation of the law from a qualified legal professional, scholar or member of the judiciary.
Whoops, a source, not an source...
/smacks self for typo
--
---
Eleven years of carrying The Clue Bat... |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
3 edits | said by NetAdmin1:I'm not a lawyer, so I am not qualified to interpret the law, I think you're being intentionally obtuse. It doesn't take a high-school graduate to read 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) or 18 U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c) [1].
And, it doesn't take a handler (or chaperon) to read the so-called immunity deal's reference to 2511. [2]
Beware EFF and it's "customers." They have a vested interest in increasing paid memberships.
[1] »www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.html
»www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.html
[2] See page 88. »www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/F···_xml.pdf
Mark |
|
fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:13 Host:
Bright House Netwo..
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help
| reply to NetAdmin1
said by NetAdmin1:said by amigo_boy:Did you read the so-called amnesty law? Its reference to 18 U.S.C. 2511? Curious. Do you have some sort of legal precedent, court decision or another source from something like a law journal that shows that the law is read that way? You've post the link to the law three times in this discussion, but without other sources that concur with YOUR interpretation, especially from courts or legal scholars, you interpretation is nothing more than armchair lawyering. He has posted it over 100 times, actually: »/nsearch?q=251···ime&cat=
You won't find anything that supports his interpretation. But he'll keep posting it.
--
Female monkeys often utter loud, distinctive calls before, during or after sex.. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:Beware EFF and it's "customers." They have a vested interest in increasing paid memberships. Oh man. So the EFF is just about memberships.... So we should just trust the corporations etc because they are only in it for the Public trust..... Yeah, right.... 
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) |
|
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| said by KrK:said by amigo_boy:Beware EFF and it's "customers." They have a vested interest in increasing paid memberships. Oh man. So the EFF is just about memberships.... So we should just trust the corporations etc because they are only in it for the Public trust..... Yeah, right.... Corporation and Government are just different ways of organizing people together so that they can do more than they could individually, by dividing up duties, specializing, and providing goods and services to each other. Underneath Government you have the Executive branch (which is responsible for defense and national security) and the Judicial branch (which is responsible for administering the legal system). (I'm leaving off Legislative because it doesn't really fit this topic.)
What we are seeing is a power struggle among these. The EFF is squarely in the corner of the Judicial branch -- they think the best way to decide issues like this is via lawsuits and court proceedings. Personally, I think this is by far the least effective way to proceed -- by a long shot. I think the EFF is, in fact, in it for power and influence to their way of thinking, and they have spun this to make them look like they are your only friend. Don't believe it, their way will drag us into a quagmire of class action lawsuits and cripple our ability as a country to make progress. Lawyers want to take us down a very bad path. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to fatness
said by fatness:You won't find anything that supports his interpretation. But he'll keep posting it. How many ways are there to interpret 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B), which says the executive branch (or a number of other people) can certify no warrant is necessary? [1]
How many ways are there to interpret Attorney General Gonzalez's analysis of 2511, saying it is an admission of the executive branch's power? [2]
How many ways are there to interpret the so-called immunity deal's reference to 2511, and the executive branch's power? [3]
How many ways are there to interpret 18 U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c), which allows telcos to release data if they have a "good faith" belief of "danger?" And, that this was weakened in 1996, from "reasonable" belief of "imminent" danger? [4]
How many ways are there to interpret your hit-and-run, one-liner postings? Perhaps the lack of acceptance of reality by self-styled freedom fighters is why I post this information so often?
[1] »www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.html
[2] See page 23. »www.usdoj.gov/opa/whitepaperonns···ties.pdf
[3] See page 88. »www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/F···_xml.pdf
[4] »www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html···00-.html |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to KrK
said by KrK:So the EFF is just about memberships.... I didn't say EFF is "just" about memberships. But, it's obvious they have a conflict of interest. They may inflame their supporters to increase contributions and paid memberships (which translates into mailing lists and solicitations).
This isn't peculiar to EFF. The NRA and Handgun Control, Inc. do the same thing. They use the most outlandish of each other's membership literature to inflame their own membership. I use to see it all the time when I was on their mailing lists (10-15 years ago). It was never clear if their advocacy was for public policy, or to "steer" their membership into a certain, generous "mood."
Mark |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas:The EFF is squarely in the corner of the Judicial branch -- they think the best way to decide issues like this is via lawsuits and court proceedings. Personally, I think this is by far the least effective way to proceed -- by a long shot. [...] their way will drag us into a quagmire of class action lawsuits and cripple our ability as a country to make progress. [...] That the EFF focuses on the judicial system, and the effectiveness of that tactic, is is an interesting perspective. I'll be thinking about that. I agree that courts are a "sledgehammer" approach due to the fact that the judiciary cannot make law, it can only rule it out as unconstitutional or under precedent or make an adjudication of an issue based upon it. The EFF is not known for lobbying. Perhaps they are the ACLU for the telecom sector?
The EFF has been around a long time, how have they crippled our ability to make progress?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:said by NetAdmin1:I'm not a lawyer, so I am not qualified to interpret the law, I think you're being intentionally obtuse. It doesn't take a high-school graduate to read 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) or 18 U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c) [1]. Intentionally obtuse ? Who has been asked for precedent, judicial interpretation and scholarly interpretation of a law and refuses to post it ?
And yeah, I can read it. I can see and understand what the words are saying, but legal interpretation requires more than just reading the text of the law, which is why there are millions of people who specialize in its interpretation. I had to consult a lawyer once to interpret a civil law that looked straight forward in English, but due to precedents in prior cases, required more work on my part to used correctly.
--
---
Eleven years of carrying The Clue Bat... |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by NetAdmin1:Intentionally obtuse ? Who has been asked for precedent, judicial interpretation and scholarly interpretation of a law and refuses to post it ? Intentionally obtuse seems like an appropriate term when it's not my responsibility to research and prove your position. I've already provided:
- Attorney General Gonzalez wrote a lengthy analysis[1] of the power of the executive branch, and referred to 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) as proof of the legislative branch's admission (concession) of that power, and their inability to legislate it away.
- The legislative branch affirmed Gonzalez's analysis when it referred to 18 U.S.C. 2511 as the basis of the executive branch's power, and what would invoke so-called immunity.[2]
If you disagree with those sources, it's your responsibility to provide precedent, judicial and scholarly interpretation, etc. Knock yourself out. But, don't expect me to do it for you when the law's plain words are clear, and have been interpreted by an AG, and both houses of Congress in their literal sense ("telcos are immune from any legal action, civil or criminal, if the AG, or others, certify no warrant is necessary.").
[1] See page 23. »www.usdoj.gov/opa/whitepaperonns···ties.pdf
[2] See page 88. »www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/F···_xml.pdf
Mark |
|
| said by amigo_boy:said by NetAdmin1:Intentionally obtuse ? Who has been asked for precedent, judicial interpretation and scholarly interpretation of a law and refuses to post it ? Intentionally obtuse seems like an appropriate term when it's not my responsibility to research and prove your position. Do you like to revise history much? You were asked to research and prove YOUR position. My position has been for your to provide some justification for your opinion in the form of legal precedent or scholarly legal discussions.
If you disagree with those sources, it's your responsibility to provide precedent, judicial and scholarly interpretation, etc. Knock yourself out. Up until recently, you didn't provide those sources to back your position, so whining about others not doing something that you should have done before you posited your lay opinion of the law falls to deaf ears.
--
---
Eleven years of carrying The Clue Bat... |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
I'm sorry this is the same attorney general that was appointed by who? Oh that's right.... the same guy he was "serving" when he made those "interpretations".
Correct me if I am wrong as it has been a while since i have read up on this.... but didnt the law that allowed them to start it without a warrant also require them to still get one in a reasonable time. Did they do that? To the best of my knowledge this secret recording went on for years and not a single warrant was ever obtained for it. Am I wrong on that?
Regardless not a single entity in the government should ever have the power that this former AG and you claim they have based on your interpretation. If they do, then it needs to be fixed and not broadened and expanded to give immunity. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Skippy25:I'm sorry this is the same attorney general that was appointed by who? Oh that's right.... the same guy he was "serving" when he made those "interpretations". Keep in mind that we're talking about the power of the executive branch. The AG is an extension of that power. The AG serves at the pleasure of the President, not the Senate or the Supreme Court. The AG is a cabinet position who oversees functions that are legislatively activated (the Justice Department, FBI, etc.). But, a member of the Executive's staff, who isn't subject to legislative restriction.
That's just the nature of our divided government, separation of powers, and checks and balances. It's not perfect. It leads to excesses. But, presumably, less excess than concentrating all power in one branch (the legislative).
IMO, that's what was at stake with the 2001-2007 surveillance. It relied upon the Executive branch's powers, which were recognized by 18 U.S.C. 2511. It was further exacerbated by cherry-picking an AG who would be an efficient tool of the Executive branch. All legal. All according to our system of government. Counterbalanced by the Judicial branch (which it never rose to, or at least not yet).
said by Skippy25:Correct me if I am wrong as it has been a while since i have read up on this.... but didnt the law that allowed them to start it without a warrant also require them to still get one in a reasonable time. We're talking about two different things. The basis of so-called immunity was an existing law (18 USC 2511) which said telcos are immune from criminal or civil prosecution for providing customer data under a few different circumstances. One of those was when the Executive branch tells them no warrant is necessary. This law doesn't spell out how the government should conduct surveillance. It only spells out the conditions under which telcos are immune from liability.
Is it a contradiction with FISA? Sure. But, the Administration's argument was that FISA didn't legislate the Executive branch's power into nothing. The legislative branch doesn't have that power. And, that 18 USC 2511 is an admission of that limit of the legislative branch (over the executive).
If you want to learn more, you should read Gonzalez's paper. You may not agree with his position. But, he lays out the reasoning, including legislative history and congressional intent (in the form of comments made by the drafters of 2511 and FISA).
»www.usdoj.gov/opa/whitepaperonns···ties.pdf
Page 23 is the culmination concerning 2511, but he makes a few references to it in prior pages. I recommend reading the entire thing.
Mark |
|
