The Law is the US Communications Act of 1934 and it's not particularly complicated although you seem to be having trouble reading it. I believe the 1934 law has been superceded by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Victoria Toensig was on FOXNEWS earlier, stating that this law specifically authorizes the Telecommunications companies themselves to cooperate with the government in furnishing information to track terrorists. I haven't read it yet.
Perhaps you should.
"Perhaps you should."
I have :)
The Telecommunications Act of 1996
builds upon the one from 1934, it does not replace it.
The additions in regards to subscriber privacy are made by referring to
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986.
Section 2511 (2)(a)(i)(ii) of the ECPA states (heavily abbreviated see link above for full text)
"...providers of wire or electronic communication service. .. are authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, if such provider, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person, has been provided with--
(A) a court order directing such assistance signed by the authorizing judge, or
(B) a certification in writing by a person specified in section 2518(7) of this title or the Attorney General of the United States that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met..."
I would put money on it that it is the second provision (the Attorney General) that was used here. The problem is that FISA does not allow a blanket sweep like this and if the A.G. did in fact certification in writing that "no warrant or court order is required by law" he is terribly mistaken and according to FISA, criminally so.
Now I'm sure you will say that is B.S. and I'll be happy to post the relevant sections of FISA which you can then ignore too.