It's not the terrorism that concerns me, it really isn't. There are things in place to deal with that- in just a regular criminal case, it's very difficult for an agency to get a Title III intercept order to tap communications in real time. They have to issue a warrant to get historical records or communcations, they can't collect information content in real time without it (other things however, such the headers and routing of communications they can get in real time a bit easier). But in confidential cases dealing with international terrorism, there's still a judicial process to get that information from confidential courts.

The real concern is your everyday stuff- more and more state govenments are giving local agencies administrative subpoena powers- an investigator or Special Agent can issue their own subpoenas without the signature of a supervisor, head of law enforcement department, officer of the court such as a prosecuting attorney, clerk of the court, or judge. They don't necessarily have an open criminal case against you in these situations.

One of the most unusual laws I've seen yet comes out of Texas, allowing a board of nurses to issue subpoenas. I've seen a head supervising nurse trying to subpoena email content, obviously unaware of US privacy laws protecting communications content from a subpoena or even court order.


http://www.bon.state.tx.us/nursinglaw/npa1.html
Sec. 301.161.

"Land of the free and the home of the brave." Am I the only one to notice the irony of the statement anymore?

We have turned into a nation of cowards who are willing to sacrifice our liberties for false promises of safety.

I don't even know if cowardly is the word- cynical, maybe. A rather prevailing attitude people have, even those who promote extreme anti-government views are often the same people who believe with respect to certain things, the government should have almost unlimited tools, or believe that someone is guilty by virtue of being investigated. Just as you tell them that the prisons are overflowing with non-violent offenders, or people who are costing the tax payers $50,000 dollars a year to jail over crimes totalling maybe just a few hundred dollars, and they don't care, or believe that it's practical and makes economic sense to do that.

I don't think that is true, it does not matter where a corporation is based, if they are selling a product overseas then they are bound by the overseas countries laws. See below.

http://www.techi.com/2010/05/facebook-vs-canada-its-about-to-get-ugly/

http://www.canadamomsblog.com/2009/07/canada-vs-facebook-rtp-.html

I am not anti USA as was implied by Dart, I just despise control freaks.

I know it's true, this is what I do for a living, not on the law enforcement end, I work for a large Silicon Valley company in legal compliance. It's our job to make sure the company complies with US law. Many times, we have to educate these government agencies so that they comply with the law as well, and not try do things out of ignorance and try to do things to compel with inappropriate or illegal demands. This happens all the time for major corporations in banking, commerce, technology, you name it.

You're confusing something here.

If the company is a US company, that's it- it doesn't matter whether its customers are foreign nationals, the business itself is a US based company, subject to US laws. Their records, which they keep in the normal part of business, are what law enforcement and government agencies are looking for.

However, unless the subjects are doing their thing on US soil, that doesn't mean the US is prosecuting foreign nationals. All it means is that a US agency can collect thier information from a US company. They could still be prosecuted under their own country's laws, which in the case of friendly nations, could be likely when the US shares information with its friends. It probably won't be the case that a Russian citizen will be prosecuted for violating US laws for example, the Russians don't have mutual assistance treaties with the US, but it doesn't mean that a US agency won't be 'eavesdropping' on Russians using US based network services, either.

Remember, this is just collecting information, this doesn't always mean prosecution. Sometimes surveillance is just surveillance- it's useful just to listen to gather information (the UK has more closed circuit TV cameras than any other Western country, as such, is one of the largest surveillance states). All kinds of schemes can go on for years under surveillance. It can happen similarly in the domestic US and its territories- they're not necessarily going to charge someone with a crime when they do this, they just might want to identify someone for some particular reason. More and more the stuff that was used for and against foreign activities are increasingly being more mundane things in the US as more and more local state agencies get familiar and more up to speed with technology. People should keep their eye on it, but in my experience, most people just are indifferent. You couldn't convince them of anything. So, there you have it.

I also want people to understand how alot of this works- a lot of it is political. So for example, let's say a certain governor feels that it's a popular enough issue to make the Internet a safer place to run on for relection. He goes to the media and says that these companies are 'permitting' criminals all over their networks doing whatever it is they do, and if elected, he'll fix that, that is, he's going to kind of first communicate to these companies he's going to out them to the media for allowing all kinds of bad people victimize you and your family. It can happen similarly with some investogator or a government attorney- they can go to the media and smear these companies a bit if they don't play ball a little.

Large corporations are very image conscious. They have to weigh the effects of either fighting and possibly being dragged into court if they don't comply, or on the other hand, appear to be in the pocket of government spying on its citizens and everyone thinks they have been completely bought off. Bad publicity either way. It's lose-lose for them, either they are spying on the citizens for the government, or they're letting all kinds of criminal activities go on and allow their users and customers to be at their mercy.

To put in my late 2 cent (EUR)

As the Premptive Data Capture currently ongoing in EU Law shows, it is not a tool to thwart terrorists, it is a tool to observe petty criminals, illegal downloaders and such.

If you aren't of the details: Phone and Internet Providers in the EU are now supposed to log source and destination of each call or IP connection for six months.

Real criminals can use Proxy Servers outside the EU, or Prepaid Phone Cards (still available without personal identification) to get around that. None of their communication can then be tracked. It's worthless for terrorism prevention.

But some Companies already have sued to force ISPs to hand out this data in pursuit of filesharing. While originally the law was specifically worded to only allow access to this data for serious and organized crime.


In the end such tools hit the law abiding citizen.

Stasi would be green with envy about the surveillance society we have become.

^ This.

I am sorry was a joke, and yes it is every politician, they do not represent thier voters but more like party lines. if yea didn't like my joke I can not help yea,lol.
BTW with the patroit act they can do a lot more with out a warrent, so this is just icing on the cake.
Bullet