But new ideas for snooping, maybe a new name pops up, or all communications emanating from a new telephone exchange or town becomes “of interest,” those new ideas can’t be implemented under the generous provisions of the PAA. The snooper would have to prepare more elaborate paperwork to explain the snoop regime, and would also subjected to more strict “throw away” (minimization) rules, as contained in pre-PAA statute.

Thanks much–after my 5th time reading the quote I realized the “new target” implications.

Existing snoop regimes, which I picture as orders to the telecoms to provide specific information (and which might be VERY broad and “looking for trouble” like), continue as ordered.

But new ideas for snooping, maybe a new name pops up, or all communications emanating from a new telephone exchange or town becomes “of interest,” those new ideas can’t be implemented under the generous provisions of the PAA. The snooper would have to prepare more elaborate paperwork to explain the snoop regime, and would also subjected to more strict “throw away” (minimization) rules, as contained in pre-PAA statute.

Except for that cute little pill they included that programs initiated during the active life extend for one year even if the PAA sunsets. So that argument may well work for them, but is disingenuous.

It’s disigenuous and obscene, because Wainstein, Assistant AG for National Security has been quoted all over the media acknoledging this, although with his own spin designed to confuse, and Republican Senators got up on the floor and acted as if this extension doesn’t exist. Bond, Hatch, and several others also distorted and misquoted parts of the SSIC bill because he thinks the public is too stupid to understand or care, From

Democrats Try to Delay Eavesdropping Vote NYT:

Kenneth L. Wainstein, assistant attorney general for national security, said in an interview that if the August bill was allowed to expire in 10 days, intelligence officials would still be able to continue eavesdropping on already approved targets for another year under the law.

But “there is a risk,” Mr. Wainstein said, that the officials would not be able to use their broadened authority to identify and focus on new suspects and would have to revert to the more restrictive, pre-August standards if they wanted to eavesdrop on someone.

I don’t understand the risk Waintein raises in the second paragraph as to reverting to pre-August standards given the year extension provision.

Thanks a lot C-boldt for help clarifying S. 2248’s State of the Bill and your very helpful links:

Senate Showdown Monday Jan. 28, 2008

I wasn’t able to find Rockerfeller’s statement about voting against cloture on his site yet.

http://www.rfidjournal.com/

For privacy issues:

http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/topics/7/

Read a few of these articles and try to imagine the potential for misuse. It’s mind boggling. Some of it is premium content (you have to pay) but there is also free stuff.

http://www.visionid.ie/rfid.php

And happened to catch the above article in a search and was hit by some of the content wrt the archiving of email issue.

FWIW, I don’t think the use of this term of art flips anything on its head either.

I agree with your conclusion that the administration is trying to hide the extent of its snooping on the public, from the public. It’s lying its ass off.

I haven’t studied the narrow issue of privacy rights supposedly accorded to Americans abroad by the Bond amendment, but my prejudiced predisposition is that it’s smoke and mirrors.

Funny thing, that Constitution thingy…

In talking with family our conversation centered on “this is not the country I envisioned and worked so hard for, for my children.”

My parents said, “This is not the country we envisioned for our children and grandchildren. We did not think we would have to witness all of this craziness towards basic constitutional rights.”

There is a campaign message within this conversation because I know my family is NOT the only one having such an exchange which is consistent across the generations.

IRT your RFI tagging comment, I found this interesting…

http://www.gcn.com/print/25_01/37884-1.html

The whole point (and the real underlying drama between the SJC and SSCI bills) is that the Administration is doing a number of things that it won’t admit it’s doing–many of which revolve around the scale and methods of targeting. The reason why the Republicans don’t want amendments, aside from just the immunity provision, is that a lot of the amendments (including the clean prohibition of Americans overseas) are deal-killers for Bush, because tehy don’t let him do what he wants to do. I think the Bond amendment on tapping overseas attempts to get enough votes to pass teh SSCI bill, while still carving out their larger program.