Deep Kimchi
10-06-2006, 13:44
Well, you wanted it "in advance" rather than "after the fact", but here you go....
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/09/D8I50QE80.html
A federal appeals court sided with the Bush administration Friday on an electronic surveillance issue, making it easier to tap into Internet phone calls and broadband transmissions.
The court ruled 2-1 in favor of the Federal Communications Commission, which says equipment using the new technologies must be able to accommodate police wiretaps under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, known as CALEA.
Judge David Sentelle called the agency's reading of the law a reasonable interpretation. In dissent, Judge Harry Edwards said the FCC gutted an exemption for information services that he said covered the Internet and broadband.
The FCC "apparently forgot to read the words of the statute," Edwards wrote.
FCC chairman Kevin Martin said the decision ensures that law enforcement's ability to conduct court-ordered electronic surveillance will keep pace with new technology.
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, primary sponsor of CALEA, called the court's decision contrary to congressional intent, saying it stretches a law written for "the telephone system of 1994 to cover the Internet of 2006."
Then perhaps it would be a good idea for Leahy to pass legislation concerning the Internet, rather than letting his old legislation rot away, and get reinterpreted by the courts.
I don't really think it's the job of the courts to constantly reinterpret and stretch the meaning of things - that's why we have a legislature that can pass laws and amendments - it's not the court's fault, however, if the legislature doesn't have the balls to face facts and do their job.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/09/D8I50QE80.html
A federal appeals court sided with the Bush administration Friday on an electronic surveillance issue, making it easier to tap into Internet phone calls and broadband transmissions.
The court ruled 2-1 in favor of the Federal Communications Commission, which says equipment using the new technologies must be able to accommodate police wiretaps under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, known as CALEA.
Judge David Sentelle called the agency's reading of the law a reasonable interpretation. In dissent, Judge Harry Edwards said the FCC gutted an exemption for information services that he said covered the Internet and broadband.
The FCC "apparently forgot to read the words of the statute," Edwards wrote.
FCC chairman Kevin Martin said the decision ensures that law enforcement's ability to conduct court-ordered electronic surveillance will keep pace with new technology.
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, primary sponsor of CALEA, called the court's decision contrary to congressional intent, saying it stretches a law written for "the telephone system of 1994 to cover the Internet of 2006."
Then perhaps it would be a good idea for Leahy to pass legislation concerning the Internet, rather than letting his old legislation rot away, and get reinterpreted by the courts.
I don't really think it's the job of the courts to constantly reinterpret and stretch the meaning of things - that's why we have a legislature that can pass laws and amendments - it's not the court's fault, however, if the legislature doesn't have the balls to face facts and do their job.