Canons of statutory construction refers to a set of guidelines or rules that a Judge may use to interpret statute that is ambiguous in it’s wording. It compliments the “plain-meaning” interpretation, which would be used in most situations.

[T]he office of all judges is always to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief, advance the remedy, and to suppress subtle invention and evasions for continuance of the mischief…according to the true intent of the makers of the act

See the thing is, sec. 215 is clearly being used in a way other than the makers of the act intended, atleast according to those very legislatures.

The ACLU’s website is a great resource to learn more about sec. 215. In general:

Section 215 allows the FBI to order any person or entity to turn over “any tangible things,” so long as the FBI “specif[ies]” that the order is “for an authorized investigation…to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.”
Section 215 vastly expands the FBI’s power to spy on ordinary people living in the United States, including United States citizens and permanent residents.

• The FBI need not show probable cause, nor even reasonable grounds to believe, that the person whose records it seeks is engaged in criminal activity.
• The FBI need not have any suspicion that the subject of the investigation is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power.
• The FBI can investigate United States persons based in part on their exercise of First Amendment rights, and it can investigate non-United States persons based solely on their exercise of First Amendment rights.

For example, the FBI could spy on a person because they don’t like the books she reads, or because they don’t like the web sites she visits. They could spy on her because she wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy.

This was the easy part I guess…Here are a few landmark Fourth Amendment cases:

• Boyd v. United States 116 U.S. 616 (1886)

This case began the development of right to privacy protections. The U.S. Supreme Court held, in overturning a statute, that the forced production of, in this case, business records violated the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and the Fifth Amendment protection against forced self incrimination.

• Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961)

In this very important case, Fourth Amendment protections were incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This incorporation resulted in requiring state and local police to comply with Fourth Amendment standards in regards to searches and extended the exclusionary rule to trials in state courts. Dolly Mapp’s home was searched by seven police officers who claimed they had a warrant but never produced it. The police alleged that an informant had told them that a bombing suspect and gambling paraphernalia were inside the residence. Neither were found but the police confiscated what they termed obscene materials. Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials and imprisoned. Justice Tom Clark wrote that the lack of an exclusionary rule left states without an effective means of dealing with unreasonable searches and seizures.

• Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966)

James (Jimmy) Hoffa, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, was convicted In Federal District Court of attempting to bribe two members of a jury in a previous trial. Edward Partin testified to details of the bribery attempts learned through statements he said Hoffa and co-defendant Ewing King made in his presence. Justice Powell delivered the opinion of the Court, writing “What the Fourth Amendment protects is the security a man relies upon when he places himself or his property within a constitutionally protected area, be it his home or his office, his hotel room or his automobile. There he is protected from unwarranted governmental intrusion.” Powell explained that because Partin had not entered the hotel room by stealth or by force but had been invited, and that every conversation testified to by Partin was either directed at him or freely made in his presence, no legitimate interest protected by the Fourth Amendment had been violated.

• Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

In this case, a reasonable expectation of privacy test was created. Federal agents had attached a listening device to the outside of a phone booth that was know to be often used by Mr. Katz. Evidence of his end of the conversations obtained by the listening device was admitted in his trial in which he was accused of transmitting wagering information by telephone. The lower court held that this was not a search because the wall of the phone booth had not been physically penetrated. Their ruling was based on Olmstead v. United States (1928) in which the Supreme Court had ruled that a tap of a telephone did not constitute a search. In Katz, the Supreme Court ruled that the electronic “listening to” and recording of Mr. Katz’s conversation violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied and thus constituted a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

• Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

This case was the first in a long line of Supreme Court cases that recognized the police practice known as “stop and frisk” as a legitimate law enforcement tool. Stop and frisk is a stopping and interrogation or brief investigation which may be accompanied by the patting down of outer clothing to make sure the suspect is not armed. The Supreme Court ruled that, for the protection of an officer, stop and frisk was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment when a police officer’s experience tells him that criminal activity may be occurring and that the suspected criminal may be armed and dangerous.

• Bond v. United States 529 U.S. 334 (2000)

Steven Dewayne Bond was indicted for conspiracy to possess, and possession with intent to distribute, methamphetamine in violation of a Federal statute. He had been traveling on a Greyhound bus bound for Little Rock, Arkansas from California. When the bus stopped at a Border Patrol checkpoint in Sierra Blanca, Texas, Agent Cesar Cantu boarded the bus to check on the immigration status of its passengers. When Agent Cantu reached Bond’s green canvas bag, in squeezing the bag, he felt what he described as a “brick-like” object inside. Bond admitted the bag was his and consented to a search. Inside the bag was a “brick” of methamphetamine wrapped in duct tape and rolled inside a pair of pants. The District court ruled the seizure of the methamphetamine was not a search under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme court overturned that finding.

• Jones v. United States (2012)

In 2005 defendant Antoine Jones was suspected of drug trafficking. Police investigators asked for and received a warrant to attach a GPS tracking device to the underside of the defendant’s car but then exceeded the warrant’s scope in both geography and length of time. The Supreme Court justices voted unanimously that this violated the Fourth Amendment, though they were split on the reasoning. The majority held that by installing the GPS device on the defendants car the police had committed a trespass on private property and that the trespass constituted a per se breach of the defendant’s privacy.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Footnote:

Prior to scheduling a hearing in this matter, the Court reviewed the Proposed Application and its filed Exhibits pursuant to its standard procedure. Exhibit A consists of a Declaration from the NSA in support of the government’s Application. As Ordered by this Court in Docket No. BR 13-80, Exhibit B is a Renewal Report to describe any significant changes proposed in the way in which records would be received, and any significant to controls NSA has in place to receive, store, process, and disseminate information. [REDACTED] It also provides the final segment of information normally contained in the 30-day reports discussed below. As Ordered by this Court in Docket No. BR 13-80, Exhibit C is a summary of a meeting held by Executive Branch representatives to assess compliance with this Court’s Orders. Furthermore, the Court reviewed the previously filed 30-day reports that were Ordered by this Court in Docket No. 13-80, discussing NSA’s application of the reasonable, articulable suspicion (RAS) standard for approving selection terms and implementation of the automated query process. In addition, the 30-day reports describe disseminations of U.S.-person information obtained under this program. (emphasis added)

Most of this footnote is of no particular interest, except for that last part. When the NSA revelations began back in the summer of 2013, just about every major news channel constantly looped soundbites from the Obama administration, and General Keith Alexander:

I think it’s important to understand the strict oversight that goes into these programs because the assumption is that people are out there just wheeling and dealing, and nothing could be further from the truth. We have tremendous oversight and compliance in these programs, auditability.

As you can see, this argument is laughable at best. Although there is “oversight” in the loosest sense, this oversight is conducted based on admissions by the NSA itself. This is akin to the police “investigating” a crime by sitting around and hoping the criminal comes in to explain himself.

“Tangible things” eh? The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act vaguely defines this as:

including books, records, papers, documents, and other items

What’s interesting about this is the fact that Bush carried out similar operations between 2001-2005, though on what seems to have been a much smaller scale. Unfortunately for Bush, these acts were illegal in 2005. When the FISA amendments rolled around in 2008, however, the law was expanded under “section 215”.

Hence, the irony in the reaction after 2013’s revelations regarding the NSA’s spying, e.g. “it’s legal, don’t worry!”…Anyway, as you can see below, there’s been a huge uptick in the amount of requests since 2005. Most of which have had to be reworded by the judges, which is a bit troubling.

Note: the overall # still seems small, but understand that these requests are for huge telecom/internet companies, not for specific individuals, and they get reviewed and reinstated every 30-90 days at the FISC’s discretion.

At this point in the movie, Tony has succeeded in alienating the people most important to him. Not hard to see where comparisons could be drawn with Gucci’s current situation.

http://youtu.be/BiPL28K-S4w

Ever since Iran’s 2009 protests, there has been this wide-sweeping narrative that Twitter was the “medium of the movement”, one that is very attractive for the western capitalists of the world, but probably not too accurate. In his paper explaining the real role of Twitter during the protests, social technology researcher Evgeny Morozov jokes:

..who would have expected that after decades of blasting propaganda from dedicated radio and television channels, Americans would be able to support democracy in Iran via blogs and social networks?

Yes, Iran heavily censors the internet. In many ways, this deserves criticism. However, not from Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who have largely assisted the U.S. government in turning social networks into a tool for domestic spying. Anyone who can’t see that lack of privacy is a very strong form of indirect censorship, is a fool.

Twitter > Food/Water/Medicine?

Again, it’s comical that Rouhani is such a prodigious tweeter, yet his people are not even allowed to use twitter. Fair enough. But why are Americans so concerned with twitter access in Iran, when many Iranians are facing restricted access to humanitarian trades, like food and medicine, due to a number of unilateral and multilateral sanctions imposed on the country? Sanctions, by the way, which have only really effected the people, and have done nothing but sour relationships with Iran.

This is something that Hip Hop fans, in particular, need to really think about. While Ecko brings up a good example in Jay Z, it’s hard to imagine any rapper has been called a sellout more times than his man Kanye. I mean, anyone else remember the reaction to 808s and Heartbreak?

For the most part, I think it’d be hard to argue that West is really a sell out. Name a piece of art the man released over the years, that he hasn’t put his heart and soul into…Of course, he did drop a fashion line this past year, which features a plain white “hip hop” t-shirt for $120. So, yeah..that argument may have just gotten a bit easier.