Calling Abroad? Then Your Privacy Rights May Be "Eliminated"

Modern American privacy law begins with Charles Katz, an accused gambler, making a call from a Los Angeles phone booth. In a now-famous opinion, Justice John Marshall Harlan concluded that the US Constitution protected Katz's "expectation of privacy" in his call. American phone booths are now a thing of the past, of course, and Americans' expectations of privacy seem to be fast disappearing, too.

In two significant but almost-completely overlooked legal briefs filed last week, the US government defended the constitutionality of the Fisa Amendments Act, the controversial 2008 law that codified the Bush administration's warrantless-wiretapping program. That law permits the government to monitor Americans' international communications without first obtaining individualized court orders or establishing any suspicion of wrongdoing.

It's hardly surprising that the government believes the 2008 law is constitutional – government officials advocated for its passage six years ago, and they have been vigorously defending the law ever since. Documents made public over the last eleven-and-a-half months by the Guardian and others show that the NSA has been using the law aggressively.

What's surprising – even remarkable – is what the government says on the way to its conclusion. It says, in essence, that the Constitution is utterly indifferent to the NSA's large-scale surveillance of Americans' international telephone calls and emails:

The privacy rights of US persons in international communications are significantly diminished, if not completely eliminated, when those communications have been transmitted to or obtained from non-US persons located outside the United States.

Read the rest of this piece at The Guardian.

Learn more about government surveillance and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alertsfollow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

Add a comment (3)
Read the Terms of Use


I don't know why that would bother ME. The only person I'D call whose abroad now is also in the Army and they probably have his entire existence wire-tapped.
They think they can tell him to tell his family what they can and CAN'T talk about on social network sites.
When he first said it I thought "What IS this? The new 'old Russia?' "
They own HIM, not his family. I don't know where they get off with thinking these things but they not only think it they put the ideas into action.
I was going to call him but decided not to based on the sneaking suspicion I have that they're listening in on his conversations.

Vicki B.

I was going to call my brother in South Korea. That's where he's stationed now. But I figure the Army has me tapped 7 ways of Sundays and they're going to know every move I make.
I'm related to my brother, that DOESN'T mean I'm government issue and that they own MY ass too.
If they're going to insist they own me I'm going to urge them to pay me a salary. I don't DO "owning" mentalities without getting a little something for it.


please comment on why you are not retrying this case

Sign Up for Breaking News