The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
As far as I know, this is the exact three month renewal of what has
been the case for the past seven years. This renewal is carried out
by the FISA Court under the business records section of the Patriot
Act. Therefore, it is lawful.
It has been briefed to Congress and the letters that we have
distributed — and you’ll note on the dates, this is prior to
the Patriot Act amendments coming before the body, each of those. As
you know, this is just Continue reading →
Decades before 9/11, and the subsequent Bush order that directed the
NSA to eavesdrop on every phone call, e-mail message, and
who-knows-what-else going into or out of the United States, U.S.
citizens included, they did the same thing with telegrams. It was
called Project Shamrock, and anyone who thinks this is new legal and
technological terrain should read up on that program.
Project SHAMROCK…was an espionage exercise that involved the
accumulation of all telegraphic data entering into or exiting from
the United States. The Armed Forces Security Agency (AFSA) and its
successor NSA were given direct access to daily microfilm copies of
all incoming, outgoing, and transiting telegraphs via the Western
Union and its associates RCA and ITT. Operation Shamrock lasted well
into the 1960s when computerized operations (HARVEST) made it
possible to search for keywords rather than read through all
Here’s the diagram from the NPRM that the FCC folks mentioned frequently at the NANOG panel
(The Regulators Meet the Operators, at NANOG 48, Austin, Texas, 22 Feb 2010)
regarding scope of net neutrality rule making:
Martin broke the news Thursday evening by way of the Associated Press, telling them that "the Commission has adopted a set of principles that protects consumers' access to the Internet. We found that Comcast's actions in this instance violated our principles."
The decision could be an historic one, but not for its actual effect on Comcast. The cable company has already announced plans to transition away from the current throttling regime to something that looks more at overall bandwidth use rather than particular applications. Trials in Pennsylvania are currently underway on the new system, set to be deployed by year’s end. Martin’s order would therefore not require the company to do anything new, but it would have to provide more detail about past and future practices.