Talk:Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

message: I have reverted this page to the version before the copy violation.  It was previously blanked.  That is a very stupid thing to do unless your primary purpose is to ensure that nobody can read information on the topic.  If, instead, your primary purpose is to avoid a copyright violation, you should ONLY blank out the copyright violation parts - not the entire article. Kainaw 22:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright violation

message: sentence taken from [this] website.  I think this is governmental, and therefore in the public domain, right?  Lethe 01:55, 29 June 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: From the U.S. Copyright office: "Works by the U. S. Government are not eligible for U. S. copyright protection." --Kainaw (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Government sentence

message: Can you please give some historical context to this very important and timely Act? Legal nonsense does not count in my mind as some kind of mystical and elusive argument for control over this article. I am >trying< to be patient here. And I am no fool, though I appreciate your care and thoughtfulness. ")
Holon67 10:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Adding the definitions in the text does not clarify and instead obfuscates the text of that section as written. It can change the meaning of the text as written. Why do you think they create a separate definition section when they the bill? It is to keep things as simple as possible to make sure it the bill is clear to those reading the text. As for the definition of Foreign power, That's the purpose of the footnote(s) including one which links to the exact text of the section in question. 
A possible compromise would be to add a footnote to the definition of foreign power and place it next to the word foreign power in that text. -- SusanLarson New talk, Contribs)</sup></span> 01:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: Orcutt, stop adding material which has previously been removed. Your statement says:
 The act does not authorize electronic surveillance without a warrant of foreign powers 
as defined by §§1801(a)(4),(5),(6), and thus the act does authorize electonic 
surveillance of terrorists without a warrant.
:* This statement is clearly inaccurate.  The act does quite clearly authorize warrantless surveilence of Foreign powers. 
:* This makes the legal conclusion that the act authorizes spying on Americans(Terrorists or not) which is in currently seriously disputed yet you repeatedly add it to the article as being fact.
::* As for the justification that the act authorizes the warrentless surveilence of Amercians, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service has released a report rebutting the legal justifications the administration used for spying on Americans.  (News)(HTML)  (Report)(PDF) "Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information"
:* You mispelled Electronic
Thus based on the above reasons I am again removing your sentance from the article. Please do not re-add it. Further additions of this material when it has been removed will result my issuing a request for admin intervention. -- SusanLarson New talk, Contribs)</sup></span> 22:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop adding misinformation and POV to this article

message: SusanLarson, you continue to misrepresent the FISA and my edits.  You wrote:
This statement is clearly inaccurate.  The act does quite clearly authorize warrantless surveilence of Foreign powers.
You must think the FISA authorizes warrantless electronic surveillance of all foreign powers, because otherwise your objection wouldn't be germane to my claim that the FISA doesn't authorize electronic surveillance of terrorist organizations.  This proves you have no idea what is in the FISA and what isn't.  The act authorizes--under conditions--the electronic surveillance without a warrant of foreign powers as defined by §1801(a)(1)(2)(3).   Just look at §1802(a)(1)(A)(i). 
the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
What part of that don't you understand?  It does not authorize warrantless surveillance of all foreign powers, but only those as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title.  This isn't a matter of legal conclusions or "policy" statements, whatever that means.  It's a question of the plain English.  So, where in the FISA does it authorize electronic surveillance of foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(4), (5), or (6)?  It simply doesn't do so anywhere, a fact which is worthwhile to point out to the reader since most readers can't say off the tops of their heads what is in §1801(a)(1),(2),(3) and §1801(a)(4),(5),(6).  I don't see why you have a problem with the sentence about what the FISA does not authorize.  I'm sure that is a question which many readers of this entry will be wondering.  If you're able to have this much trouble with the FISA after working on this entry, pity the poor reader who's looking for the first time.  I also don't see what the point is of bringing up the CRS report.  This entry doesn't have anything to do with whether the NSA program is legal or illegal.  That is beyond the scope of this entry.  The question whether the FISA authorizes electronic surveillance without a warrant of groups engaged in international terrorism doesn't even arise in the CRS report because the answer is clearly no.  A quick read through §1802 will tell you that.  The report is focused on questions of other authorizations, matters which are clearly out of the scope of the FISA entry.  I'd be pleased to have admin intervention since it will give someone of authority a chance to look over the evidence and decide whether true, NPOV, explanatory material which prevents the reader from getting a wrong impression of the FISA should remain in the entry.  We shouldn't require the reader to read the FISA in order to get accurate information from Wikipedia.  It would be a great disservice to the Wikipedia readers if an article is left in a state which gives the totally false impression that the FISA authorizes electronic surveillance of all foreign powers.
Ortcutt 04:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is POV? It's right there in the FISA

message: You are correct, and I am sorry. The added material was worded in a way which resulted in my misreading it. I apologize.  After re-read the section of the act I finally understood the point you were trying to get across. I have rewritten the added sentence in order to clarify and expand on it. I hope this meets with your approval. -- SusanLarson New talk, Contribs)</sup></span> 07:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My apology

message: Given that the critics of the FISA are claiming that some of it's restrictions are too limiting and they should be changed, how is it wrong to claim that they are arguing that the law be weakened or loosened?  When you change a law to authorize something that was forbidden, then you are weakening the restrictions imposed by the law.  The vague "updated" papers over what is being advocated.
It is also POV to claim that "Although FISA and other related laws may need to be updated to address technology developments" since that implies that the FISA does need to be updated, and it is POV to claim that "care must be taken" when updating it, since some people might argue that the concerns raised by the Church Committee.  The sentence should only reflect the fact that weakening the resrictions of the FISA would allow more activities, and as such, provides more means of abusing the system.
Ortcutt 23:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weakening of the FISA

message: In the passage reading:
"When Congress decided to pass FISA in 1978, they knew that a "wall" had to be erected between domestic and foreign intelligence surveillance, for if FISA was used in criminal cases it would infringe on the very liberties that the U.S. is built upon."
The opinion of the Congress that passed FISA is stated as factual.  This is somelike the difference in saying, "Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God" and "Jesus is the Son of God".  The first statement is a factual statement about Christian beliefs.  The second statement states Christian beliefs as authoritative fact.  Properly, this passage should read:
"When Congress decided to pass FISA in 1978, the bill's supporters believed that a "wall" had to be erected between domestic and foreign intelligence surveillance, because they believed that if FISA was used in criminal cases it would infringe on the very liberties that the U.S. is built upon."
There is an even more subtle problem with this statement, in that it makes a statement about the opinion of FISA supporters which is not widely enough known to be accepted at face value.  Such a statement should have an accompaning quotation expressing intent from one of the bill's original sponsers, for it is not otherwise obvious that the reader should believe such an assertion of intent.  Otherwise, the sentence should be deleted from the article as an unsupported assertion.  
Also, it would be nice if the article was going to mention the concept of the 'wall' between domestic and foreign intelligence surveillance, that it also mention that since the 9/11 attacks the barrier between domestic and foreign intelligence agencies has come under increased criticism.
:I went ahead and removed that entire section because it was almost entirely POV.  It was also just poorly written.  The points that were being addressed might be a useful addition, but is mostly in reference to the United States v. Nicholson case mentioned in the "Post FISA" section.  Maybe that case could be explained in greater depth to address the legality of using evidence gathered in a criminal case.   Uruz7 02:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement of Opinion as Fact and other problems

message: "(a subsequent Bloomberg article[3] suggested that this may have already begun by June 2000)."
The subject of this article (NSA call database) has nothing to due with the NSA surveillance controversy that is it cited in reference to. The are sperate programs. The references herein are adding to the confusion which should be anathema to an encyclopedic article. All references to data mining should be removed to the appropriate page and a wikilink made in the related topics sectionJpat34721 00:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading references to NSA data mining should be removed 

message: Why are all of the "criticisms" of FISA from  right-wing institutions claiming that FISA is too restrictive, when there are a number of critiques of FISA from groups and persons who claim that FISA is not protective enough of civil liberties, particularly as amended by the PATRIOT Act? I'm adding an ACLU critique to this section, absent compelling arguments to the contrary
e.g. http://www.aclu.org/natsec/spying/14454res20030510.html
http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/winter02/dempsey.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/20/ramasastry.patriotact/index.html
70.107.152.216 00:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Criticisms

message: I came here looking for information about this landmark legislation, only to find no mention of the bill just passed (08/05/07) relating to the FISA legislation.  See the article President Bush Commends Congress on Passage of Intelligence Legislation for information from the White House about the bill's passage.  This bill, as many may know, has extended (or restored) the powers of the FISA law to allow warrantless wiretapping of all international calls, among other revisions.  I think this bill is very noteworthy, especially in context of the continuing investigations into Alberto Gonzales's role in pushing the earlier wiretapping in that now confusing, infamous late night hospital visit to the ailing ex-AG John Ashcroft.  I'm no expert, but this legislation is a huge issue, and really needs to be addressed by someone better qualified to interpret and communicate the purpose and effects of this legislation.  Finally, here is the final vote roll call from the house of representatives, which is surely important to many Americans, and could fit nicely in the link section, or as a reference citation to some statement relating the large margin of victory this bill enjoyed.  I haven't found the Senate vote tally yet, but will track it down when I have more time. Seanherman 03:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: someone was kind enough to create Protect_America_Act_of_2007.  There is also an extensive write up contained within the FISA article itself.  I'm no wikipedia expert, but it seems it would make more sense to include a brief mention in the FISA article, then link to the new act's article. Seanherman 21:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protect America Act of 2007

message: I've just removed a citation from thisweekincongress.com that was attached to a quote from George W Bush. The owner of the site pointed out in an OTRS ticket that he didn't have this quote in the article cited so it doesn't make a lot of sense to attach the cite to that particular part of the article. —Sean Whitton / 13:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: thisweekincongress.com

message: The "History" section falls into the trap of "recentism" or contemporary myopia.  The "History" section would be appropriate as a "Background" section for an article on the Bush administration's "Warrantless Domestic Surveillance" program.  However, that is not what this article is titled.  The history section of this article should spend more time discussing the motivation for enacting the law, the controversies and debates surrounding the law and anything else that is known about the implementation and enforcement of the act.  The Bush administration's "Warrantless Domestic Surveillance" program is only the most recent and publicly prominent aspect of FISA.
To help suggest that more is needed, I have broken out the text about the Bush administration's "Warrantless Domestic Surveillance" program into a separate subsection.
--Richard 07:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The Bush stuff is taking over the page.  It should be reduced to a very short note and linked to the main article. -- kainaw™ 17:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduced subsection into "History" section

message: What exactly does FISA let Intelligence Officials do in terms of surveillance??
Does it let them spy on citizens from other countries or what, because the article isn't really clear on the specifics, any help would be appreciated. (Murchy 09:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, it defines what Federal officials may do when investigating foreign citizens.  It does apply to U.S. citizens in the sense that if you (as a U.S. citizen) are talking on the phone to a foreign person who is under investigation, your phone call may be tapped.  However, if you then call a U.S. citizen, it is citizen-to-citizen, so the FISA doesn't apply. -- kainaw™ 12:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It does not apply to U.S. citizens who are engaged in terrorist activities who do not have any contact in any way with foreigners.  Once the citizens contact foreigners for any form of support, it becomes international terrorism and FISA (now the Patriot Act) can step in to authorize investigation.  This should be put in historical context.  Before FISA, citizens were investigated all the time without warrants and without any need to have contact with foreigners.  Some people argue that FISA set up restrictions against the government investigating citizens.  Others argue that it legalized the illegal investigation of citizens with foreign contacts. -- kainaw™ 20:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It is my opinion that it is important to put this in historical context.  The problem is referencing the historical context.  I am not a historian and I avoid history books, papers, and the like.  I know why FISA was created and what Congress said it would be used for.  Wikipedia does not allow original research, so I cannot simply state what I know.  I have to find it documented somewhere and reference that.  If you have respectable references, it would be nice to add the historical context.  Then, the next step is to handle the backlash from those who claim FISA was created with the sole purpose of attacking civil liberties (many even claim Bush created it).  If this were a computer topic, I'd be all over the historical context.  It just isn't in my field of expertise. -- kainaw™ 15:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Watergate and the "Red Scare" surveillance of supposed Communists were not handled with warrants.  Some people in the government wanted to spy on citizens.  So, they did.  These two events were key to getting Congress to decide it is time to slap some rules on "foreign" intelligence. -- kainaw™ 12:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: FISA Restrictions

message: Since the Protect America Act expired, I think all that material should be in a separate article with just a brief mention here, and then we should describe the Fisa Ammendments Act in detail. What does everyone think? Asbruckman (talk) 12:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Take out Protect America Act and Put in FISA Ammendments Act?

message: A funny fact is that "(att) fisa" is a swedish word meaning "(to) fart". Fabbe (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously?  Words in one language can mean something else in another language?  That is so funny.  I never would have thought it possible. -- kainaw™ 18:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's true! So if someone wonder why "FISA stinks", there is a good answer! :-) Fabbe (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Funny fact

message: What does "The law does not apply outside the United States" mean?  National laws of countries do not apply outside the homeland. Each country has its own laws, surely.203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laws applying outside the USA 

message: With 99% of the talk about FISA referring to FISA 702, why does the string 702 not even appear in this article.   How can someone reading The Guardian even figure out which part of FISA is referred to by the NSA when it isn't mentioned in the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.102.33.217 (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does the string 702 not appear in this article? 

message: *Menn, Joseph. "Secret U.S. court approved wider NSA spying even after finding excesses." (Archive) Reuters. Tuesday November 19, 2013.
WhisperToMe (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  FISA finds NSA excesses but approves powers anyway 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080318182939/http://www.chicagotribune.com:80/news/opinion/chi-0602120419feb12,0,6895976.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed to http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0602120419feb12,0,6895976.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060206162614/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071030095250/http://www.ss8.com/pdfs/Ready_Guide_Download_Version.pdf to http://iilj.org/documents/Jordan-47_BC_L_Rev_000.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080302033755/http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=%2Fsebok%2F20080129.html to http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=%2Fsebok%2F20080129.html
*Added  tag to http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s1927/show
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080319031919/http://digital50.com/news/items/PR/2007/09/10/DC02717/prepared-remarks-of-kenneth-l-wainstein-assistant-attorney-general-for-national-sec.html to http://digital50.com/news/items/PR/2007/09/10/DC02717/prepared-remarks-of-kenneth-l-wainstein-assistant-attorney-general-for-national-sec.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060719031932/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE to https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070825205004/http://eteraz.org/2007/08/11/short-primer-on-new-fisa/ to http://eteraz.org/2007/08/11/short-primer-on-new-fisa/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Revealed: The Justice Dept's secret rules for targeting journalists with FISA court orders
Should this be added to the article?Terrorist96 (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revealed: The Justice Dept's secret rules for targeting journalists with FISA court orders 

message: Very interesting article:
* Diagnosing the FBI Failures in the Inspector General's FISA Report
The article contains a good analysis of systemic problems with the FISA warrant system which are present without any relation to Trump or political bias. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I will put some info from there: "we could not review original Woods Files for 4 of the 29 selected FISA applications because the FBI has not been able to locate them and, in 3 of these instances, did not know if they ever existed" "identified apparent errors or inadequately supported facts in all of the 25 applications we reviewed" "identified deficiencies in documentary support and application accuracy" "interviewed FBI officials who indicated to us that there were no efforts by the FBI to use existing FBI and National Security Division oversight mechanisms to perform comprehensive, strategic assessments of the efficacy of the Woods Procedures or FISA accuracy" from  https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2020/a20047.pdf 91.76.22.132 (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagnosing the FBI Failures in the Inspector General's FISA Report 

message: I added information on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in United States v Moalin, where the court stated mass telephony metadata collection was illegal when using FISA. It was added as a peer to Physical Searches. If someone would like to polish the addition, it would be appreciated.
Jeffrey Walton  (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Telephony Metadata 

message: The requested split had already taken place so the split notice has been removed. A notice referring to to the split article has been added. Some additional information from this section could be moved to the other page. Gusfriend (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section '''Subsequent developments''' split 

message: This edit (a revert) caught my eye. It concerns bill numbers. I'm no expert, but some googling turned up both S.2455 (Sponsor: Sen. DeWine, Mike [R-OH], Introduced 03/16/2006) and S.3931 (Sponsor: Sen. McConnell, Mitch [R-KY]. Introduced 09/22/2006) on the Congress.gov website (Horrors, primary source!!) -- both bills being titled Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006. Just mentioning this here for info of editors. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006