<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Getting tired of partial quotes -- so here is one more cut and past
from the link. In addition to the dates, I see several conditions, and
a review process by the courts.<br>
<br>
Now I admit I stopped reading about here. I'm beginning to believe that
the real issue is trust in the government. If that is true, then there
is nothing to be gained by discussion. <br>
<br>
Those that are objecting to FISA, or the "Protections for Electronic
Communication Service providers", I'm guessing would have also been
apposed to similar procedures used during WWI and WWII. At that time
all cable traffic to and from Europe was intercepted, decoded and
read. All mail to/from Europe was selectively opened, decoded, read
and resealed. There are several books on the subject and the
contribution to the "war effort."<br>
<br>
COC<br>
<br>
S. 2248: FISA Amendments Act of 2007<br>
<h4>TITLE II--PROTECTIONS FOR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS</h4>
<p><b>SEC. 202. LIMITATIONS ON CIVIL ACTIONS FOR ELECTRONIC
COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS.</b></p>
<p>(a) Limitations-</p>
<ul>
<p>(1)
IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a covered civil
action shall not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court, and
shall be promptly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the
court that--</p>
<ul>
<p>(A) the assistance alleged to have been provided by the
electronic communication service provider was--</p>
<ul>
<p>(i) in connection with an intelligence activity involving
communications that was--</p>
<ul>
<p>(I) authorized by the President during the period beginning
on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and</p>
<p>(II)
designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in
preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States; and</p>
</ul>
<p>(ii)
described in a written request or directive from the Attorney General
or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy
of such person) to the electronic communication service provider
indicating that the activity was--</p>
<ul>
<p>(I) authorized by the President; and</p>
<p>(II) determined to be lawful; or</p>
</ul>
</ul>
<p>(B) the electronic communication service provider did not
provide the alleged assistance.</p>
</ul>
<p>(2) REVIEW- A certification made pursuant to paragraph (1) shall
be subject to review by a court for abuse of discretion.</p>
</ul>
<br>
</body>
</html>