Source: http://www.techlawjournal.com/home/newsbriefs/2008/03c.asp
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 13:06:23+00:00

Document:
TLJ News from March 11-15, 2008.
3/14. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) and other groups filed an amicus curiae brief [PDF] with the U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) in Brandon Mayfield v. USA, a case involving abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) powers by the federal government.
The District Court held in its September 26, 2007, opinion [44 pages in PDF] that the FISA, at 50 U.S.C. § 1804 and 50 U.S.C. § 1823, violates the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. See, story titled "District Court Holds Parts of FISA Violate 4th Amendment" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,646, September 26, 2007.
In so doing, the District Court rejected the reasoning of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) in In re Sealed Case. See, opinion in In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, 310 F.3d 717 (F.I.S. Ct. Rev. 2002).
Section 218 of the USA PATRIOT Act amended Section 1804 of Title 50 to provide that "(a) Each application for an order approving electronic surveillance ... shall include ... (7) a certification ... (B) that a significant purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information". Previously, the standard was "primary purpose".
Section 218 of the PATRIOT Act also amended Section 1823 of Title 50 to provide that "significant purpose" is also the standard for FISA orders for "a physical search".
The USA PATRIOT Act is the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001". It was enacted after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 by the 107th Congress as HR 3162. It became Public Law 107-56 on October 26, 2001.
These changes enable criminal prosecutors to obtain FISA search and surveillance orders, and to use evidence obtained thereby in domestic cases, provided that they can articulate a foreign intelligence or terrorism connection.
At the time the PATRIOT Act was being considered in late 2001 critics of Section 218 argued that it could be abused. That is, they argued that FISA orders would be used to collect information in criminal cases, but without the procedural safeguards that are associated with Title III warrants.
Title III is a reference to Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. It is codified at Chapter 119 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522. It requires, among other things, probable cause, a warrant, and notice. These are not required for FISA orders.
The EFF/CDT brief states that "The Mayfield case highlights the dangers of allowing the Executive branch to rely on foreign intelligence procedures where its primary intent is criminal prosecution. Brandon Mayfield -- a U.S. citizen, a former Army officer with an honorable discharge, and a practicing Oregon lawyer -- found himself, his wife and their three children under extraordinarily intrusive surveillance by federal agents. The agents secretly entered their family home, recorded their most intimate conversations, and followed them to and from the children's school, Mr. Mayfield's law office, family activities, and their place of worship. The FBI secretly and repeatedly entered Mr. Mayfield's home and law office, inspected, copied, and seized personal documents, legal files, computer hard drives, even the children’s homework. On one occasion one of the Mayfield children cowered in a bedroom closet while federal agents searched the home."
The amicus brief continues that "The government's primary -- perhaps even exclusive -- purpose in monitoring the Mayfield family was to criminally prosecute Mr. Mayfield. Did the FBI have criminal probable cause? No. Did the FBI have a traditional criminal warrant? No. Did the FBI ever give notice? No. The Mayfields are not alone. Today the government claims the unprecedented right to subject any number of Americans to secret and invasive searches of their homes, offices, personal belongings, telephone calls, and e-mails, without criminal probable cause, notice, or a traditional criminal warrant."
The brief argues that "The FISA's less protective standards are plainly not constitutional with respect to investigations whose primary purpose is to gather evidence of criminal activity."
This case is Mayfield et al. v. USA, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, App. Ct. No. 07-35865, an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, D.C. No. 04-1427-AA, Judge Ann Aiken presiding.
3/14. Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) gave a speech in Washington DC titled "Fostering Sustainable Homeownership". He stated, among other things, that "advances in information technology" and other developments "have significantly increased access to mortgage credit".
3/13. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an administrative complaint [5 pages in PDF] against Multiple Listing Service, Inc. (MLS Inc.), a Milwaukee, Wisconsin area group of real estate professionals, alleging violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, which is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), in connection with the MLS Inc.'s adoption of a rule that limits the publication of certain listing agreements for the southeast Wisconsin region on real estate web sites. The MLS Inc. and FTC simultaneous settled.
The complaint alleges that "MLS, Inc. adopted a rule that limits the publication of certain listing agreements on popular internet real estate websites, in a manner that limits the ability of real estate brokers to use Exclusive Agency Listings to offer unbundled brokerage services at a lower price compared to the full service package. This rule deprives such brokers and the home sellers they represent of a significant benefit afforded by the MLS."
It adds that "Consumers are harmed by this rule because it inhibits a lower cost option to sellers and increases search costs to buyers."
The FTC and MLS entered into an Agreement Containing Consent Order, in which MLS admitted no wrongdoing. The FTC released its Decision and Order [6 pages in PDF].
It provides the MLS, Inc. "shall forthwith cease and desist from adopting or enforcing any policy, rule, practice or agreement of MLS, Inc. to deny, restrict or interfere with the ability of Participants to enter into Exclusive Agency Listings or other lawful listing agreements with the sellers of properties, including but not limited to any policy, rule, practice or agreement to", among other things, "prevent Participants from publishing information concerning listings offered pursuant to Exclusive Agency Listings on Approved Websites".
See also, March 13, 2008, letter [PDF] from the FTC to the National Association of Realtors (NAR), which previously submitted a comment for the FTC's record.
2. The FCC's agenda states that it is scheduled to approved a Fifth Report regarding the "availability of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans", which reports are required by Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
3/12. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) issued an Order [2 pages in PDF] in the proceedings titled "In the Matter of: Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements; Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems; Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. Request for Declaratory Ruling; 911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers".
The FCC adopted the underlying order on September 11, 2007, and released the text on November 20, 2007. See, story titled "FCC Adopts E911 Location Tracking Accuracy Benchmarks" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,640, September 17, 2007. This September order is FCC 07-166. The just released order is DA 08-557. Both pertain to PS Docket No. 07-114, CC Docket No. 94-102, and WC Docket No. 05-196.
AT&T, Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, Sprint-Nextel, and the Rural Cellular Association have sought a stay. See, Rural Cellular Association and T-Mobile USA v. FCC and USA , U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir), App. Ct. Nos. 08-1069, 08-1070, and 08-1076. See also, story titled "FCC Files Opposition to Stay in Challenge to Its Latest Wireless E911 Location Tracking Mandates" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,729, March 11, 2008.
Go to News from March 6-10, 2008.

References: v. 
 § 1804
 § 1823
 v. 
 § 45
 v.