Jordan 6 DAVID ALAN JORDAN, LL.M., New York University School of Law (2006); J.D., cum laude, Washington and Lee University School of Law (2003). Member of the District of Columbia Bar.
Boston College Law Review May, 2006 47 B.C. L. Rev 505 ARTICLE: DECRYPTING THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: WARRANTLESS NSA SURVEILLANCE AND THE ENHANCED EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY PROVIDED BY ENCRYPTED VOICE OVER INTERNET PROTOCOL lexis
n100 See FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1801(f). Section 1801(f) of FISA defines four types of conduct that are considered "electronic surveillance" under FISA. Signals collection operations that target U.S. persons outside the United States do not fit within any of these four definitions. The first three definitions require the targeted individual to be located inside of the United States to be considered "electronic surveillance." The fourth definition applies only to the use of surveillance devices within the United States. Therefore, the NSA's signals monitoring stations in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are not regulated by FISA. U.S. personnel located at these foreign stations presumably may monitor U.S. persons who are outside the United States, and that conduct technically would not be considered electronic surveillance under FISA's definitions. This highlights the fact that FISA was meant to govern only domestic surveillance taking place within U.S. borders. Although such efforts would not fall under FISA's definition of "electronic surveillance," USSID 18's minimization procedures still would apply and offer some protection to the rights of U.S. persons abroad. See generally USSID 18, supra note 13.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |
