?

Log in

Not Quite Blind's Journal

> recent entries
> calendar
> friends
> profile
> previous 20 entries

Sunday, June 12th, 2016
7:04 am - Бесплатная сеть знакомств
nofliui6
бесплатная сеть знакомствбесплатная сеть знакомств













снять азиатку в владивостоке - приват сервис
podolove
знакомство навсегда. чтобы составить mind map вашего идеального знакомства и потенциального принца на белом коне, нужно хорошенько поработать над собой.
популярный сайт знакомств loveplanet запустил мобильное приложение для iphone, ipad и приложение loveplanet можно скачать абсолютно бесплатно, имея в своем
знакомства для секса одинцово
сонник: к чему снится морковь, видеть морковь во сне


знакомства отношений без регистрации бесплатно знакомство ru бесплатный сайт
Saturday, June 11th, 2016
6:20 am - Камера знакомства
olixyul
камера знакомствакамера знакомства













лучший сайт знакомств - pickup.14 декабря 2005
суд признал мужчину виновным по п."б" ч.4 ст.132 ук рф, ему назначено наказание в виде лишения свободы сроком на 15 лет с отбыванием в знакомства.
знакомства и общение [красноярск] ^ рейтинг сайтов
интим услуги: массаж расслабляющий, карина - хабаровск. телефон: +7 (962) 220-99-50. возраст: 21, рост: 163, грудь: 1, просмотров: 372. интим услуги: массаж расслабляющий, минет с презервативом, секс классический, милена - хабаровск.
онлайн сайт знакомств, где папа сайт знакомства, самые популярные сайты знакомств, сайт знакомств екатеринбург, рустем богданов сайт знакомств
впередсмотрящий секс знакомства без регистрации тюмень будет осведомляться. налетевшее дутье телетранспортирует.
знакомства для общения. для серьезных отношений. знакомства для серьезных отношений. к обложке. loveplanet.
на нашей доске бесплатных объявлений авито вы можете продать или купить самые секс знакомства с мусульманками авито - проститутки москвы доска объявлений.
ника белоцерковская - кантуччи. самые-самые-самые!
секс знакомства в городе серпухов . серпухов - интим знакомства для секса и тайных встреч без регистрация за??мет не больше минуты!
мастерство общения (1 уровень) - президентская школа
знакомства екатеринбург секс знакомства рсо алания знакомства интм гей знакомства екатеринбурга секс знакомства прямо сечас знакомства.
дмитрий, 32 года москва. знакомства на davaypozhenimsya. здесь легко находят любовь и знакомства с новыми друзьями.
кстати, регистрация не через почту, а с помощью телефона. значит, на табор.ру нет клонов одних и тех же страниц. рекомендую всем друзья этот сайт знакомств!
четки "крест" ручная работа православные купить в
в г ессентуки. разыскиваете сайт интим секс знакомств в г ессентуки? - секс в моем городе. для:гей секс · минет · секс-вертолет. о себе: очень


флирчи сайт знакомств общение бесплатный знакомства отношений москва бесплатно
Friday, August 24th, 2012
3:38 am - Полный фильм Жизнь Пи
papileauz

полный фильм Жизнь Пи | Жизнь Пи скачать фильмы бесплатно


Thursday, August 23rd, 2012
2:04 pm - Знакомства липецк интим vbulletin
nikoky

знакомства липецк интим vbulletin
интим знакомства знакомства с парнями
знакомства в казани для интима
бесплатные интим знакомства владивостока
интим знакомства воронеж форум
интим знакомства петропавловске




Чат знакомств без регистрации пермь Эро знакомства знакомства для девственников Чат знакомств без регистрации краснодар Яндекс развлечения знакомства Нетрадиционные секс знакомства киев нескромные знакомства
Monday, March 7th, 2011
6:33 pm - Узнай тайну фамилии
juncconbarta
 
 
Saturday, May 31st, 2003
3:55 am - weve done it again

bccghettoprep
we are going to go to war with seria soon.. we have accused them of haveing weapons of mass destrution, and harboring sadom.. and if memory serves me right, that is what we said about iraq.. and were wrong.. here the fuck we go again..

(3 comments | comment on this)

Tuesday, May 20th, 2003
1:28 pm - WHY

faintdistance
why we do the things that we do?
the power of choses
the power to pick your path
so if we know the out come of things
why do we do them?

(2 comments | comment on this)

Wednesday, April 30th, 2003
12:45 pm

faintdistance
Subject: gay marriages


There is a Constitutional Amendment being proposed that will ultimately ban homosexual marriages/civil unions and possibly domestic partner benefits in the future. It is being pushed through Congre ss quickly so as to make as little noise as possible. If you think that this issue does not belong in the constitution, then please go to this site and sign the petition in order to
make your opinion known:

http://www.petitiononline.com/0712t001/petition.html

This petition is being organized (it's not an "add your name to the bottom and forward" kind of thing). Go to the site itself in order to sign the petition.

And please pass this along to your friends and family (gay & straight allies) so that we can all, together, convey the message that the Constitution is about human rights, not just religious rights. If you have problems getting to the petition with the link above, go to http://www.petitiononline.com, select the Top 10 Petitions and choose the Oppose the Federal Marriage
Amendment. #ˇˇ

(comment on this)

Monday, April 28th, 2003
12:29 am - we will NOT stand down...

bccghettoprep
Annonomous reply to a previous most of mine:
i found your link thru some chicks journal and all i have to say is that your fucking retarded and you should open your eyes cause we fucking helped out a country that was being KILLED BY THEIR FUCKING "LEADER make themselves better and actaully envolve themselves in the world. We helped them and now they will survive in the world instead of being killed cause saddamm wants to test his new fucking weapons. everyone else is happy that we helped their butts out so you should be too. protesters are gay the only reason you can protest is cause our troops saved your asses back in the Revolution by FORMING THE FUCKING US OF A and damn im happy to live in a free country so why dont you think about what you are about then slap yourself for being retarded."
and my reply:
i would like to thank you for your overall iliterate rampleings.. im glad to know that i pissed poeple off.. and i am not going to try and change your mind, because we know that isnt going to happen, aswell as me changing my "retarded" views.. but lets think for a minute.. we win, and they show millions of iraqies waving the peace sign, stealing fucking air conditionars, and chanting "we love bush"... now they are protesting because they want us out... no one really knows what is going on over there besides them, and they want us fucking gone.. so right.. and also.. gas prices have dropped.. and this wasnt a war for oil.. and sadam was leaveing us the fuck alone.. it was his people that he was harassing.. but somehow, it was americas problem.. why not let china, britan, poland.. someone else handle it.. why is it americas job to take the big brother act, go behind the UN (an organization for maintaining world peace), to do something that we had to fucking business doing.. and again to a previous point.. yes, we do live in america.. thank you captin obvious.. and we do have the right to protest.. and they do now to. and they are telling us to get the fuck out.. GO FUCKING FIGURE.. and also.. you made me sound like chiken shit.. when i was the one that made the post.. and you were the one that made an annonimous comment.. its funny.. the pro peace welcome critisizm.. we welcome protesters.. we even welcome this bullshit.. but those that are anti peace.. Yes.. thats right.. ANTI FUCKING PEACE.. like to rant and rave and kick the shit out of our ideals.. gee.. wonder who is close minded on this one.. bub.. and if you werent so hell bend on being a fucking hick.. you would see the whole point of the peace.. we wanted peace so we fought a war.. which is extreamly contridictouralel.. we wanted to set them free... so we fought a war that killed millions of thier innocent civilans.. im not saying that they wouldnt have eneded up dead anyway.. but they didnt die at the hands of someone that wanted them dead.. they died for thier own freedom.. and not willingly mind you.. so i wish you a good life.. an open mind.. and better information.. before you open your mouth to speak, make sure that your mind isnt closed aswell...

and ps..
you can love jesus.. and NOT throw sticks at gay people.. (just thought you should know)

(4 comments | comment on this)

Wednesday, April 23rd, 2003
12:47 pm - just some food for thought...

cuardaitheoir
Here's a qoute to think about...

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a
double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever >pitch and the blood boils with hate, and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry.
Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Ceasar."

(comment on this)

Sunday, April 13th, 2003
1:31 am - cnn will hate my yet

bccghettoprep
so there was nothing there to comment on.. but i would love to make one of my own.. war sucks.. bush is out for world domination.. and i dont personally see how we as americans can justify the killing of millions of the innocent for thier own liberation.. it is goes without saying that there is alot of propaganda around the war.. so i like to base things on what i know.. wars kill people.. and we are fighting a war to free them from sadamns empire.. which would mean that we are killing them to free them.. there is a quote that one man said.. a very wise man..

"Fighting for peace is like having sex for virginity"

and seeing as how we are fighting for the iraqie peace from thier own government.. i definately think that it applies..

(3 comments | comment on this)

Thursday, April 10th, 2003
9:46 am - US draft to be reinstated?

stealthmunchkin
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:s89is.txt.pdf

Stop this now, if you can...protect yourselves (this drafts women as well as men BTW). This bill hasn't been passed yet - make sure it never is.

(2 comments | comment on this)

Tuesday, April 8th, 2003
1:11 am

bccghettoprep
if the ireqie leaders are cought then they want to impose the death penalty.. and this was decided from a man that killed 141 some odd prisioners in his short term as governer.. and we are all surprised how?

(comment on this)

Sunday, April 6th, 2003
8:47 pm

delirious3
Hello my friends. First time posting here. I hope this action is fair and decent and looked on in a good way. I started a list a short while ago to bring together the anti war movement. Too few people really know what's going on. Its just meant to bring us together for the sake of knowledge.



Subscribe to stopthewar_usa





Powered by groups.yahoo.com

(comment on this)

Thursday, April 3rd, 2003
1:16 pm

stealthmunchkin
http://www.theonion.com/onion3912/i_should_not_be.html

=======
As Americans, we have a right to question our government and its
actions. However, while there is a time to criticize, there is also a
time to follow in complacent silence. And that time is now.

It's one thing to question our leaders in the days leading up to a war.
But it is another thing entirely to do it during a war. Once the blood
of young men starts to spill, it is our duty as citizens not to
challenge those responsible for spilling that blood. We must remove the
boxing gloves and put on the kid gloves. That is why, in this moment of
crisis, I should not be allowed to say the following things about
America:

Why do we purport to be fighting in the name of liberating the Iraqi
people when we have no interest in violations of human rights-as
evidenced by our habit of looking the other way when they occur in
China, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Syria, Burma, Libya, and countless other
countries? Why, of all the brutal regimes that regularly violate human
rights, do we only intervene militarily in Iraq? Because the violation
of human rights is not our true interest here. We just say it is as a
convenient means of manipulating world opinion and making our cause seem
more just.

That is exactly the sort of thing I should not say right now.

This also is not the time to ask whether diplomacy was ever given a
chance. Or why, for the last 10 years, Iraq has been our sworn
archenemy, when during the 15 years preceding it we traded freely in
armaments and military aircraft with the evil and despotic Saddam
Hussein. This is the kind of question that, while utterly valid, should
not be posed right now.

And I certainly will not point out our rapid loss of interest in the
establishment of democracy in Afghanistan once our fighting in that
country was over. We sure got out of that place in a hurry once it
became clear that the problems were too complex to solve with cruise
missiles.

That sort of remark will simply have to wait until our boys are safely
back home.

Here's another question I won't ask right now: Could this entire
situation have been avoided in the early 1990s had then-U.S. ambassador
to Iraq April Glaspie not been given sub rosa instructions by the Bush
Administration to soft-pedal a cruel dictator? Such a question would be
tantamount to sedition while our country engages in bloody conflict.
Just think how hurtful that would be to our military morale. I know I
couldn't fight a war knowing that was the talk back home.

Is this, then, the appropriate time for me to ask if Operation Iraqi
Freedom is an elaborate double-blind, sleight-of-hand misdirection ploy
to con us out of inconvenient civil rights through Patriot Acts I and
II? Should I wonder whether this war is an elaborate means of
distracting the country while its economy bucks and lurches toward the
brink of a full-blown depression? No and no.

True patriots know that a price of freedom is periodic submission to the
will of our leaders-especially when the liberties granted us by the
Constitution are at stake. What good is our right to free speech if our
soldiers are too demoralized to defend that right, thanks to disparaging
remarks made about their commander-in-chief by the Dixie Chicks?

When the Founding Fathers authored the Constitution that sets forth our
nation's guiding principles, they made certain to guarantee us
individual rights and freedoms. How dare we selfishly lay claim to those
liberties at the very moment when our nation is in crisis, when it needs
us to be our most selfless? We shame the memory of Thomas Jefferson by
daring to mention Bush's outright lies about satellite photos that
supposedly prove Iraq is developing nuclear weapons.

At this difficult time, President Bush needs my support. Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld needs my support. General Tommy Franks needs
my support. It is not my function as a citizen in a participatory
democracy to question our leaders. And to exercise my constitutional
right-nay, duty-to do so would be un-American.

(comment on this)

Wednesday, April 2nd, 2003
11:04 pm - racism ~vs~ war

bccghettoprep
i have been reading over a white sepremecie site.. stromfront.org.. and i must admit that what i have found was shocking.. this site is a group of people that breed hate.. and considering that the site is founded by a fourteen year old, this proves my point exactly.. i was talking to my mother tonight about all of this.. and i figured something out.. these people wouldnt speak thier minds if they were actually around black people.. they are all from the deep south, where black folk dear not go.. i learned of a white sepremisis that lived here in battle creek about ten years back.. he was very active in his beliefs.. and had his legs broken and was burnt alive in his house.. i think that it is extreamly funny how they sit and hide in back country when the first logical step to thier plans of white domination would be to expose themselves to black culture inorder to figure out a way to domolish it.. i have found that war is the same way.. those that are pro war are like white sepremicists.. they do not like the arab culture and therefore are fighting a war to get ride of it.. it is procaimed against sadamn husain.. but somehow in trying to get him we have found the means to justify the killing of many millions of innocent woman children and sivilians.. after nine elveen, all of us wanted to rid the country of the arab ethnicity.. we thought that because they possed certain characteristics and skin pigments that it made them inferior.. freind of mine stopped buying cigs from the liberty mart, my friends mom refused to by gas from the marathon gas station.. and we started to burry ourselves deep in the back countries of our minds... and this lured us all into a false set of belifs.. one that made each and every one of us at one time or another form superiority.. or atleast the complex of.. and today, as i was reading over the articles in this site.. i began to draw the distintion between these white men and woman and thier haterd for blacks to the over all american hated or the arabs.. the iraqies.. and i began to cry.. because i realized that i am part of a culture inwhich we fight wars and justify murder by skin color and ethnicity..

current mood: uncomfortable

(6 comments | comment on this)

Tuesday, April 1st, 2003
12:25 am - I wish they could have had faith in us..... but .... Good Ole Bush---had his American Way

ladyofthestorm
"Have confidence in the American people"
This will not be an easy task and indeed the road towards the fulfilment of this goal is fraught with danger and difficulty. There are those who wish Iraq harm regardless of the circumstances or costs, and many of these currently reside in the government of the United States. However, I ask of you to keep in mind what I have shared with you regarding the people of the United States and their relationship with the American government. Once the politics of fear can be defeated by the forces of truth then the current policies of the United States can be replaced by those that reject confrontation and embrace reconciliation and peaceful coexistence. Have confidence in the American people and the strength of American democracy. I know I do, which is the only reason why I am here before you today. Thank you Mr President and the members of the Iraqi National Assembly for allowing me this opportunity to speak before you today. I am prepared to answer any questions you or your members may wish to ask me about what I have said here today. Thank you."

(comment on this)

12:11 am - Taken from: http://www.cspan.org/iraq/ritter.asp

ladyofthestorm
Former U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter re-read an address delivered to the Iraqi Parliament on September 8, 2002.

TEXT OF FMR. U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR SCOTT RITTER'S ADDRESS

September 8, 2002
Former chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq Scott Ritter has said that Iraq should allow the immediate and unconditional return of UN weapons inspectors. In an address to Iraq's National Assembly on 8 September, Ritter said the US was using the "rhetoric of fear" to justify an attack on Iraq although there were no hard facts to substantiate its allegations that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction or supported terrorism. He said Iraq should counter US threats by adopting a "more welcoming posture". He also proposed a confidence-building mechanism based on the use of an honest broker to oversee the work of the inspectors and Iraq's compliance with their work, since Iraq had legitimate reasons to distrust inspectors after previous teams had been used by US and UK intelligence services to gather information on Iraq outside their mandate. The following is the text of a report broadcast by Iraqi satellite TV on 8 September, including the "full recording" of Ritter's address; Ritter speaks in English with passage-by-passage translation to Arabic; processed from the English; a comparison of the Arabic and English versions found them to be substantively identical bar in one instance as detailed in editorial note in paragraph 10; subheadings inserted editorially:

Source: Iraqi Satellite Channel, Baghdad, in Arabic 1003 gmt 8 Sep 02/ BBC Monitoring/ © BBC/http://www.monitor.bbc.co.uk
BBCi at http://www.bbc.co.uk

Read more!Collapse )

(comment on this)

Saturday, March 29th, 2003
11:54 pm - (enter your deaty here) bless america

bccghettoprep
EFF Analysis Of The Provisions Of The USA PATRIOT Act
That Relate To Online Activities (Oct 31, 2001)
Text of USAPA

Introduction
On October 26, 2001, President Bush signed the USA Patriot Act (USAPA) into law. With this law we have given sweeping new powers to both domestic law enforcement and international intelligence agencies and have eliminated the checks and balances that previously gave courts the opportunity to ensure that these powers were not abused. Most of these checks and balances were put into place after previous misuse of surveillance powers by these agencies, including the revelation in 1974 that the FBI and foreign intelligence agencies had spied on over 10,000 U.S. citizens, including Martin Luther King.

A Rush Job
The bill is 342 pages long and makes changes, some large and some small, to over 15 different statutes. This document provides explanation and some analysis to the sections of the bill relating to online activities and surveillance. Other sections, including those devoted to money laundering, immigration and providing for the victims of terrorism, are not discussed here.

Yet even just considering the surveillance and online provisions of the USAPA, it is a large and complex law that had over four different names and several versions in the five weeks between the introduction of its first predecessor and its final passage into law. While containing some sections that seem appropriate -- providing for victims of the September 11 attacks, increasing translation facilities and increasing forensic cybercrime capabilities -- it seems clear that the vast majority of the sections included have not been carefully studied by Congress, nor was sufficient time taken to debate it or to hear testimony from experts outside of law enforcement in the fields where it makes major changes. This concern is amplified because several of the key procedural processes applicable to any other proposed laws, including inter-agency review, the normal committee and hearing processes and thorough voting, were suspended for this bill.

Were our Freedoms the Problem?
The civil liberties of ordinary Americans have taken a tremendous blow with this law, especially the right to privacy in our online communications and activities. Yet there is no evidence that our previous civil liberties posed a barrier to the effective tracking or prosecution of terrorists. In fact, in asking for these broad new powers, the government made no showing that the previous powers of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to spy on US citizens were insufficient to allow them to investigate and prosecute acts of terrorism. The process leading to the passage of the bill did little to ease these concerns. To the contrary, they are amplified by the inclusion of so many provisions that, instead of aimed at terrorism, are aimed at nonviolent, domestic computer crime. In addition, although many of the provisions facially appear aimed at terrorism, the Government made no showing that the reasons they failed to detect the planning of the recent attacks or any other terrorist attacks were the civil liberties compromised with the passage of USAPA.

Executive Summary
Chief Concerns
The EFF's chief concerns with the USAPA include:

Expanded Surveillance With Reduced Checks and Balances. USAPA expands all four traditional tools of surveillance -- wiretaps, search warrants, pen/trap orders and subpoenas. Their counterparts under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that allow spying in the U.S. by foreign intelligence agencies have similarly been expanded. This means:
Be careful what you put in that Google search. The government may now spy on web surfing of innocent Americans, including terms entered into search engines, by merely telling a judge anywhere in the U.S. that the spying could lead to information that is "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. The person spied on does not have to be the target of the investigation. This application must be granted and the government is not obligated to report to the court or tell the person spied upon what it has done.
Nationwide roving wiretaps. FBI and CIA can now go from phone to phone, computer to computer without demonstrating that each is even being used by a suspect or target of an order. The government may now serve a single wiretap, FISA wiretap or pen/trap order on any person or entity nationwide, regardless of whether that person or entity is named in the order. The government need not make any showing to a court that the particular information or communication to be acquired is relevant to a criminal investigation. In the pen/trap or FISA situations, they do not even have to report where they served the order or what information they received. The EFF believes that the opportunities for abuse of these broad new powers are immense. For pen/trap orders, ISPs or others who are not named in the do have authority under the law to request certification from the Attorney General's office that the order applies to them, but they do not have the authority to request such confirmation from a court.
ISPs hand over more user information. The law makes two changes to increase how much information the government may obtain about users from their ISPs or others who handle or store their online communications. First it allows ISPs to voluntarily hand over all "non-content" information to law enforcement with no need for any court order or subpoena. sec. 212. Second, it expands the records that the government may seek with a simple subpoena (no court review required) to include records of session times and durations, temporarily assigned network (I.P.) addresses; means and source of payments, including credit card or bank account numbers. secs. 210, 211.
New definitions of terrorism expand scope of surveillance. One new definition of terrorism and three expansions of previous terms also expand the scope of surveillance. They are 1) 802 definition of "domestic terrorism" (amending 18 USC 2331), which raises concerns about legitimate protest activity resulting in conviction on terrorism charges, especially if violence erupts; adds to 3 existing definition of terrorism (int'l terrorism per 18 USC 2331, terrorism transcending national borders per 18 USC 2332b, and federal terrorism per amended 18 USC 2332b(g)(5)(B)). These new definitions also expose more people to surveillance (and potential "harboring" and "material support" liability, 803, 805).
Overbreadth with a lack of focus on terrorism. Several provisions of the USAPA have no apparent connection to preventing terrorism. These include:
Government spying on suspected computer trespassers with no need for court order. Sec. 217.
Adding samples to DNA database for those convicted of "any crime of violence." Sec. 503. The provision adds collection of DNA for terrorists, but then inexplicably also adds collection for the broad, non-terrorist category of "any crime of violence."
Wiretaps now allowed for suspected violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This includes anyone suspected of "exceeding the authority" of a computer used in interstate commerce, causing over $5000 worth of combined damage.
Dramatic increases to the scope and penalties of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This includes: 1) raising the maximum penalty for violations to 10 years (from 5) for a first offense and 20 years (from 10) for a second offense; 2) ensuring that violators only need to intend to cause damage generally, not intend to cause damage or other specified harm over the $5,000 statutory damage threshold; 3) allows aggregation of damages to different computers over a year to reach the $5,000 threshold; 4) enhance punishment for violations involving any (not just $5,000) damage to a government computer involved in criminal justice or the military; 5) include damage to foreign computers involved in US interstate commerce; 6) include state law offenses as priors for sentencing; 7) expand definition of loss to expressly include time spent investigating, responding, for damage assessment and for restoration.
Allows Americans to be More Easily Spied Upon by US Foreign Intelligence Agencies. Just as the domestic law enforcement surveillance powers have expanded, the corollary powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act have also been greatly expanded, including:
General Expansion of FISA Authority. FISA authority to spy on Americans or foreign persons in the US (and those who communicate with them) increased from situations where the suspicion that the person is the agent of a foreign government is "the" purpose of the surveillance to anytime that this is "a significant purpose" of the surveillance.
Increased information sharing between domestic law enforcement and intelligence. This is a partial repeal of the wall put up in the 1970s after the discovery that the FBI and CIA had been conducting investigations on over half a million Americans during the McCarthy era and afterwards, including the pervasive surveillance of Martin Luther King in the 1960s. It allows wiretap results and grand jury information and other information collected in a criminal case to be disclosed to the intelligence agencies when the information constitutes foreign intelligence or foreign intelligence information, the latter being a broad new category created by this law.
FISA detour around federal domestic surveillance limitations; domestic detour around FISA limitations. Domestic surveillance limits can be skirted by the Attorney General, for instance, by obtaining a FISA wiretap against a US person where "probable cause" does not exist, but when the person is suspected to be an agent of a foreign government. The information can then be shared with the FBI. The reverse is also true.
Future Actions
The EFF urges the following:

That law enforcement and the intelligence agencies will use these new powers carefully and limit their use to bona fide investigations into acts of terrorism.
That if these laws are misused to spy on innocent people, that the courts will appropriately punish those who misuse them and that Congress will reexamine its decision to grant such broad, unchecked powers.
That if these laws are misused to harm the rights of ordinary Americans involved in low level crimes unrelated to terrorism, the courts will refuse to allow evidence collected through use of these broad powers to be used in prosecuting them.
That the many vague, undefined terms in the USAPA will be defined in favor of protecting civil liberties and privacy of Americans. These include:
the definition of "content" of e-mails which cannot be retrieved without a warrant.
the definition of "without authority" in the computer trespass statute to include only those who have intentionally broken into computers that they have no relationship with, including educational institutions and other organizations that may not have formal "contractual" relationships with users.
That ISPs and others served with "roving" wiretaps and other Orders that do not specify them will require that the Attorney General give them certification that the order properly applies to them.
That Congress will require the law enforcement and intelligence agencies who operate under provisions of the USAPA that are set to expire in December, 2005, to provide them with comprehensive reports about their use of these new powers to enable Congress to reasonably determine whether these provisions should be renewed. (see related EFF statement)
I. Expanded Surveillance with Reduced Checks and Balances
A. A Brief, Incomplete Introduction to Electronic Surveillance under US Law.
US law has provided four basic mechanisms for surveillance on people living in the United States: interception orders authorizing the interception of communications; search warrants authorizing the search of physical premises and seizure of tangible things like books or other evidence; "pen register" and "trap-and-trace device" orders (pen/trap orders), which authorize the collection of telephone numbers dialed to and from a particular communications device; and subpoenas compelling the production of tangible things, including records. Each mechanism has its own proof standards and procedures based on the Constitution, statutes, or both.

US law also provides two separate "tracks" with differing proof standards and procedures for each of these mechanisms depending upon whether surveillance is done by domestic law enforcement or foreign intelligence. All of these have been expanded by the USAPA.

For instance, when surveillance is conducted for domestic law enforcement purposes, the probable cause standard of the Fourth Amendment applies to interception orders and search warrants. But a court order compelling an ISP to produce e-mail logs and addresses of past e-mail correspondents uses a lower standard: the government must show specific and articulable facts showing reasonable grounds to believe that the records are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation. A pen/trap order uses an even lower standard: the government need only tell the court that the surveillance is relevant to a criminal investigation. The standard for subpoenas is also very low.

Where foreign intelligence surveillance is concerned, however, the standard of proof and procedures for each mechanism has been different. One key difference is that foreign intelligence surveillance is not based on the concept of criminality. Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the key issue is whether the intended surveillance target is an "agent of a foreign power" or a "foreign power." Only if the target is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident alien must the government show probable cause of criminality.

Second, FISA allows a secret court to authorize US intelligence agencies to conduct surveillance using each of the four basic mechanisms listed above. For instance, FISA interception orders involving U.S. persons are issued by the secret court based on an application from the Attorney General stating reasons to believe that the surveillance target is an agent of a foreign power or a foreign power, certifying that "the purpose" of the surveillance is to gather foreign intelligence information, and several other facts and representations. The secret court's role here, however, is quite limited: it is not supposed to "second-guess" the government's certifications or representations. (Unsurprisingly, the secret FISA court has only denied one application in its over twenty-year existence.) Moreover, unlike ordinary interception orders, FISA does not require reports to the court about what the surveillance found; no reports of what is being sought or what information is retrieved are ever available to the public. Thus, the secret court's only practical accountability is in a district court when a surveillance target is prosecuted and seeks to suppress the fruits of FISA surveillance.

FISA's requirements are even weaker if the electronic surveillance is directed solely at means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers and when it is unlikely that communications to which a U.S. person is a party will be intercepted; in such cases, surveillance may proceed for up to a year without a court order.

Immediately after the September 11 attacks, electronic surveillance was conducted pursuant to FISA orders. There have been no reports that the limitations of FISA power posed any problems for the government.

Domestic Law Enforcement Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
1. Intercept Orders.

Title III (named after the section of the original legislation, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968) surveillance is a traditional wiretap that allows the police to bug rooms, listen to telephone conversations, or get content of electronic communications in real time.

Obtained after law enforcement makes a showing to a court that there is "probable cause" to believe that the target of the surveillance committed one of a special list of severe crimes.
Law enforcement must report back to the court what it discovers.
Up to 30 days; must go back to court for 30-day extensions
(Courts do not treat unopened e-mail at ISPs as real-time communications.)
1. FISA Intercept Orders.

Secret Court. No public information about what surveillance requested or what surveillance actually occurs, except for a raw annual report of number of requests made and number granted (the secret court has only refused one request)
Previous standard was certification by Attorney General that "the purpose" of an order is a suspicion that the target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.
Attorney General is not required to report to the court what it does.
Up to 90 days, or 1 year (if foreign power)

2. Pen/Trap.

Pen/Trap surveillance was based upon the physical wiring of the telephone system. It allowed law enforcement to obtain the telephone numbers of all calls made to or from a specific phone.

Allowed upon a "certification" to the court that the information is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.
Court must grant if proper application made
Does not require that the target be a suspect in that investigation and law enforcement is not required to report back to the court.
Prior to USAPA there had been debate about how this authority is to be applied in the Internet context.
2. FISA Pen/Trap.

Previous FISA pen/trap law required not only showing of relevance but also showing that the communications device had been used to contact an "agent of a foreign power."

While this exceeds the showing under the ordinary pen/trap statute, such a showing had function of protecting US persons against FISA pen/trap surveillance.

3. Physical search warrants

Judicial finding of probable cause of criminality; return on warrant. Previously, agents were required at the time of the search or soon thereafter to notify person whose premises were searched that search occurred, usually by leaving copy of warrant. USAPA makes it easier to obtain surreptitious or "sneak-and-peek" warrants under which notice can be delayed.
3. FISA Physical search warrants

See FISA 50 USC 1822. USAPA extends duration of physical searches.

Under previous FISA, Attorney General (without court order) could authorize physical searches for up to one year of premises used exclusively by a foreign power if unlikely that US person will be searched; minimization required. A.G. could authorize such searches up to 45 days after judicial finding of probable cause that US target is or is an agent of a foreign power; minimization required, and investigation may not be based solely on First Amendment-protected activities.

4. Subpoenas for stored information.

Many statutes authorize subpoenas; grand juries may issue subpoenas as well. EFF's main concern here has been for stored electronic information, both e-mail communications and subscriber or transactional records held by ISPs. Subpoenas in this area are governed by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA).
4. FISA subpoenas

Previously, FISA authorized collection of business records in very limited situations, mainly records relating to common carriers, vehicles or travel, and only via court order.

USAPA permits all "tangible things," including business records, to be obtained via a subpoena (no court order).

Domestic Law Enforcement Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

II. Increased Surveillance Authority
The USAPA removes many of the checks and balances that prevented both police and the foreign intelligence agencies from improperly conducting surveillance on US citizens who are not involved in criminal or terrorist activity. For Internet users, it opens the door for widespread surveillance of web surfing, e-mails and peer to peer systems. In addition, the protections against the misuse of these authorities -- by the foreign intelligence agencies to spy on US citizens and by law enforcement to use foreign intelligence authority to exceed their domestic surveillance authority -- have been greatly reduced.

A. Law enforcement intercept orders (Wiretaps)
Wiretaps (for telephone conversations) can only be issued for certain crimes listed in 18 USC 2516. USAPA adds to this list. This restriction has never applied to interception of electronic communications.

1. Adds Terrorism.
USAPA sec. 201 adds terrorism offenses (Note: this is probably redundant since list already included most if not all terrorist acts --e.g., murder, hijacking, kidnapping, etc.)

2. Adds Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 USC 1030.
USAPA sec. 202 adds felony violations of the CFAA (see below for discussion of changes to CFAA).

3. Removes voicemail from Title III purview.
USAPA sec. 209 allows police to get voicemail and other stored wire communications without an intercept order; now, only search warrant needed.

4. Exempts certain interceptions from requirement of judicial authorization
Computer trespassers, see below.

B. Law enforcement search warrants.
1. Single-jurisdiction search warrants for terrorism and for electronic evidence.
In general, search warrants must be obtained within a judicial district for searches in that district. Fed.R.Crim.Pro. 41. USAPA relaxes this rule. USAPA sec. 219 Adds terrorist investigations to the list of items where single-jurisdiction search warrants may be issued. Allows issuance in any district in which activities related to terrorism may have occurred for search of property or person within or outside the district. USAPA sec. 220. Once a judge somewhere approves a warrant for seizing unopened e-mail less than 180 days old, that order can be served on any ISP/OSP or telecommunications company nationwide, without any need that the particular service provider be identified in the warrant.

2. "Sneak-and-peek" warrants greatly expanded.
USAPA sec. 213. Can delay notification for "a reasonable period" and can be "extended for good cause shown" to court for any wire or electronic communication or tangible property. Problematic because notice to a searched person is a key component of Fourth Amendment reasonableness.

C. Law enforcement Pen/Trap orders
Pen/trap orders are issued by a court under a very low standard; USAPA does not change this standard. USAPA instead expands the reach of pen/trap orders.

1. Expressly includes Internet information, e.g., e-mail and Web browsing information.
USAPA sec. 216 modifies 18 USC 3121(c) to expressly include routing, addressing information, thus expressly including e-mail and electronic communications. "Contents" of communications excluded, but USAPA does not define what it includes (dialing, routing, addressing, signalling information) or what it excludes (contents). Serious questions about treatment of Web "addresses" and other URLs that identify particular content. DOES NOT SUNSET.

Applies to those not named (nationwide). Previously, pen/trap orders limited by court's jurisdiction, so had to be installed in judicial district. Now, court shall enter ex parte order authorizing use anywhere within the US if court has jurisdiction over crime being investigated and attorney for US Government has certified that information "likely to be obtained" is "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation." Order applies to any provider "whose assistance may facilitate the execution of the order, " whether or not within the jurisdiction of the issuing court. But if entity is not named, may require that US attorney provide written or electronic certification that the order applies to the person or entity being served. DOES NOT SUNSET.

IF government agency uses its own technology (e.g., Carnivore), then and "audit trail" is required, e.g., 30 day report back to court.

No mandate that equipment facilitate surveillance. sec. 222 (prevents CALEA application here).

D. Law enforcement subpoenas (and some court orders) for stored information
1. USAPA sec. 210 amends Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA).
Expands records that can be sought without a court order to include: records of session times and durations, temporarily assigned network addresses; means and source of payments, including any credit card or bank account number.

Allows disclosure of customer records by the service provider on the same basis that it currently allows content.

Expands "emergency" voluntary disclosure to government of both content and customer records if reason to believe immediate danger of death or serious physical injury. Also expands ECPA 2703(d) court-ordered mandatory disclosure to government. USAPA Sec. 212.

2. USAPA sec. 211. Reduction of Privacy for Cable Records.
Previously, the Cable Act had mandated strong privacy protection for customer records of cable providers; USAPA overrides these protections for customer records related to telecommunications services. This is a major change because several courts have already held that these privacy protections don't apply for telecommunications services.

E. Information sharing between law enforcement and intelligence community
Because foreign intelligence surveillance does not require probable cause of criminality and because of the fear that foreign intelligence surveillance aimed at foreign agents would violate the rights of US persons, the law has tried to keep foreign intelligence surveillance (including evidence gained therefrom) separate from law enforcement investigations. USAPA greatly blurs the line of separation between the two.

1. Easier to Use FISA authority for Criminal Investigations.
USAPA Sec. 218 Foreign intelligence gathering now only needs to be "a significant purpose" not "the purpose" (edits to 50 USC 1804(a)(7)(b), and 1823 (a)(7)(B)). FISA court only looks to see that certifications present and are not "clearly erroneous".

Courts have said that it is not the function of the courts to "second guess" the certifications.

2. Now Can Disclose Formerly Secret Grand Jury Information to Intelligence Services.
USAPA 203(a). Amends Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6. Grand jury information now can be disclosed to intelligence services when "matters involve foreign intelligence or counterintelligence per 50 USC 401a or foreign intelligence information (defined below)"

3. Foreign Intelligence Information.
New category of information that can be disclosed to foreign intelligence agents.

Any info, whether or not concerning a US person, that "relates" to the ability of the US to protect against an actual or potential attack, sabotage or international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities; any info, whether or not concerning a US Person, that "relates" to the national defense or security or the conduct of foreign affairs. DOES NOT SUNSET.

4. Disclose Criminal Wiretap Information With Any Government Official, Including Foreign Intelligence Services
Section 203(b) amends 18 USC 2517. Allows disclosure of contents of wiretaps or evidence derived therefrom to any other government t official, including intelligence, national defense and national security, "to the extent such contents include foreign intelligence or counterintelligence or foreign intelligence information (see definition above)

5. General Authority to Disclose
Section 203(d). Notwithstanding other law, lawful for foreign intelligence or counterintelligence or foreign intelligence information (see definition above) to be disclosed to anyone to assist in performance of official duties.

USAPA Sec. 504 also authorizes general coordination between law enforcement and FISA surveillance.

F. FISA
1. Intercept orders: adds "roving wiretap" authority to FISA.
USAPA 206 amends 50 USC 1805. FISA court now may authorize intercepts on any phones or computers that the target may use. The foreign intelligence authorities can require anyone to help them wiretap. Previously they could only serve such orders on common carriers, landlords, or other specified persons. Now they can serve them on anyone and the Order does not have to specify the name of the person required to assist. No requirement that request for authority identify those.

Roving wiretap authority raises serious Fourth Amendment problems because it relaxes the "particularity" requirements of the Warrant Clause. Such authority already exists under Title III. Increases duration of FISA intercept orders. USAPA 207 amends 50 USC 1805(e)(1) concerning surveillance on agents of a foreign power (not US persons) from 90 to 120 days.

2. FISA search warrants
Extend time for surveillance. USAPA 207 amends 50 USC 1824(d) for judicially authorized physical searches to a) 90 days (up from 45), or b) if agent of a foreign power (employee or member of a foreign power but not US persons), 120 days.

3. FISA pen/trap orders
USAPA Sec. 214. Amends 50 USC 1842 and 1843 (emergency) to allow pen/trap orders when they are concerning foreign intelligence information and:

are not concerning a US person or;
ARE concerning a US person, and to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation is not conducted solely upon the basis of 1st Amendment activities.
4. FISA subpoenas and similar authorities
Broad authority for compelling business records. Under current law, only records of common carriers, public accommodation facilities, physical storage facilities and vehicle rental facilities can be obtained with a court order.

USAPA 215: Amends 50 USC 1862 to allow application to FISA court for an order to compel the production of any business record from anyone for any investigation to protect again

(3 comments | comment on this)

3:29 pm - its all about the finger...

bccghettoprep
when someone that is pro peace comes across a rally of those that are anit peace (a.k.a. pro war), we scream we yell.. the same things that they do.. BUT.. we flip them the peace sign.. when someone who is anti war comes across one of our rallys, we get "half a peace sign".. we get the same finger that mothers have warned their children about, the same one that politicians of all walks of life want to see made illegal, and the same finger that start many a fight.. so if the nationally recognized sign for peace is obviously the peace sign, and the nationally recognized sign for this war is the middle finger.. what does that say about not only this ridiculous war that we are fighting, but the people that are in support of it all...

also,
ever notice how the ones that support the war are always trashy red necks?? i mean if i cant take a shower in support of this thing.. im glad that i am pro peace...

"War is nothing less then a fancy name for reckless endangerment"

(comment on this)

> previous 20 entries
> top of page
LiveJournal.com