No Subject

Subject: clipper_q-and-a.txt
>Q.      Who will hold the escrowed keys?

>.      The government.

All this bullshit doesnot state that a court order is required, rather
'legal authorization', which means the NSA for foreign intellingence
purposes without a court order.

Perhaps what is needed is statuatory protection to prevent the NSA
from eavesdropping on U.S. Citizens, communicating domestically,
without a court order.

Lets close a loop hole - no more SHAMROCK

David Koontz writes:

> All this bullshit doesnot state that a court order is required, rather
> 'legal authorization', which means the NSA for foreign intellingence
> purposes without a court order.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires a court order
for such taps.


--Mike

Mike Godwin says:
>  
> David Koontz writes:
> 
> > All this bullshit doesnot state that a court order is required, rather
> > 'legal authorization', which means the NSA for foreign intellingence
> > purposes without a court order.
> 
> The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires a court order
> for such taps.

I seem to remember something about this from The Puzzle Palace. Am I
mistaken, or are such orders not made by a special court, which holds
secret proceedings and which, so far as is known, has never denied a
request?

Perry

Perry writes:

> Mike Godwin says:
> >  
> > David Koontz writes:
> > 
> > > All this bullshit doesnot state that a court order is required, rather
> > > 'legal authorization', which means the NSA for foreign intellingence
> > > purposes without a court order.
> > 
> > The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires a court order
> > for such taps.
> 
> I seem to remember something about this from The Puzzle Palace. Am I
> mistaken, or are such orders not made by a special court, which holds
> secret proceedings and which, so far as is known, has never denied a
> request?

You remember it correctly.


--Mike