Good comment AmeriBrit.
Anybody have any idea why this law isn't mentioned in the article?
http://macsmind.blogspot.com/
. It was President Clinton who signed into law the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, after it was passed in both the House and Senate by a voice vote. That law is an act "to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes." The act made clear that a court order isn't the only lawful way of obtaining call information, saying, "A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization."
The law that President Clinton signed into law and that was approved by voice votes in 1994 by a Democrat-majority House and a Democrat-majority Senate not only made clear the phone companies' "duty" to cooperate, it authorized $500 million in taxpayer funds to reimburse the phone companies for equipment "enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to access call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier." Again, the law, by referring to "other lawful authorization," states clearly that a court order isn't the only form of lawful authorization possible."
I've yet to see the AP or Reuters - reputed 'news outlets' actually report the FACTS instead of trying to invent a controversy that was no controversy TWELVE years ago. Of course el-savior was President then and in fact most of the current controversy (warrentless wiretaps and searches) originated under HIS administration.
The difference of course is Bill's was used to keep track of his enemies, and today it's used to keep us safe. That is a immutable fact and cannot be argued.
And more on the law:
Short version:
An article in the WSJ summed it up:
But since the database doesn't involve any wiretapping, FISA doesn't apply. The FISA statute specifically says its regulations do not cover any "process used by a provider or customer of a wire or electronic communication service for billing, or recording as an incident to billing." As to Ms. Feinstein's invocation of the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court has already held (Smith v. Maryland, 1979) that the government can legally collect phone numbers since callers who expect to be billed by their phone company have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" concerning such matters.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110008376
=====
Detailed:
Are Telephone Records Protected: Supreme Court Said "No" In 1979
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1632177/posts