NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

[ScienceRocks]

NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants

National Security Agency discloses in secret Capitol Hill briefing that thousands of analysts can listen to domestic phone calls. That authorization appears to extend to e-mail and text messages too.

NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants | Politics and Law - CNET News

Who would of thought it? Now it is confirmed.

 

[TemplarKormac]

U.S. vs Warshak 6 Cir. (2010). Google it.

 

[Moonglow]

I say prosecute those that broke the law.

 

[ScienceRocks]

U.S. vs Warshak 6 Cir. (2010). Google it.

However, constitutional violation notwithstanding, the evidence obtained with these emails was admissible at trial because the government agents relied in good faith on the Stored Communications Act (SCA). The court further declared that the SCA is unconstitutional to the extent that it allows the government to obtain emails without a warrant.[1]


This case is notable because it is the first court from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals to explicitly hold that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of e-mails stored on third party servers and that the content of these emails is subject to Fourth Amendment protection.[1]
United States v. Warshak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TemplarKormac]

U.S. vs Warshak 6 Cir. (2010). Google it.

However, constitutional violation notwithstanding, the evidence obtained with these emails was admissible at trial because the government agents relied in good faith on the Stored Communications Act (SCA). The court further declared that the SCA is unconstitutional to the extent that it allows the government to obtain emails without a warrant.[1]


This case is notable because it is the first court from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals to explicitly hold that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of e-mails stored on third party servers and that the content of these emails is subject to Fourth Amendment protection.[1]
United States v. Warshak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You got it!

 

[mudwhistle]

Now they'll say......'what are you going to do about it?'

 

[TemplarKormac]

Now they'll say......'what are you going to do about it?'

"How about I put fivadees across yo lip?" is what my response would be. Channeling Fred Sanford.

S A N F O R D, period.