Posted on 06/09/2006 1:01:36 PM PDT by SmithL
WASHINGTON, (AP) --
A divided federal appeals court Friday sided with the Bush administration over rules that make it easier for police and the FBI to wiretap Internet phone calls.
In a 2-1 ruling, the court said the Federal Communications was correct when it decided that providers of Internet phone service and broadband services have legal obligations similar to those of telephone companies.
The FCC was responding to Justice Department complaints that companies must ensure their equipment using new technologies can accommodate police wiretaps under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, known as CALEA.
"We cannot set aside the commission's reasonable interpretation of the act in favor of an alternatively plausible or an even better one," wrote appeals court judge David Sentelle.
Judge Harry Edwards said the law contains an exemption for information services and that the FCC "has altogether gutted" it.
In determining that broadband Internet providers are subject to the act just as telecommunications carriers are, the FCC "apparently forgot to read the words of the statute," Edwards wrote in dissent.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Did the Dems who supported and voted for this develop amnesia? Or are they just gonna blame their votes and Toon's approval on pods in their cellars?
Why not "deeply divided?" Or "bitterly divided?" Come on, AP... lose your style book?
Yawn, some minor technical impact to VOIP providers, possibly some financial burden as well. As to actually being effective in monitoring calls or wire taps for people who wish to keep their conversations private by implementing encryption.... worthless.
The Dems have Institutional Amnesia on every front in the War on Terror.
Yes, very true.
This is one of those times (it's cyclic) when the ability to obscure is far easier to implement than the ability to decode. For a long time, it has been possible with special equipment, to prevent a wiretap from being able actually listen in on a conversation. However, until the PC and person to person communications, it has not been very effective. Now, with technology where it is today, there is very little that can be done against the determined person who wishes to keep their conversations private.
Well a 2/3 vote is good enough for a constitutional amendment, but divided when it's a court ruling. I love it.
That was a bitter pill for the AP to swallow.
If I recall correctly, in 1994, the Democrats controlled the White House, the Seante,a nd the House of Representatives. Must be Bush's fault!
It's wierd, the Pete Yost column posted here,
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/09/D8I50QE80.html
doesn't have the "divided court" line.
Who's editing who, and why?
When is an information service not an information service? Answer: when the US Government wants to wiretap it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.