Is Wire tapping the telephones of American citizens without a court order illegal?
931674
A court order must be obtained to legally surveil someone in this country. \n \nThe FISA Court was created to allow some leeway for our government to 'wiretap' in emergency situations as determined by the court but it is time-sensitive and a court order must still be obtained.\n\nBush Co. has stated that they aren't listening to US citizens' phone calls but with several huge telecoms like ATT, Sprint, MCI, and Verizon giving the federal govt our phone records and conversations its hard to believe that they haven't.\n\nWhile other Presidents have used this intelligence gathering procedure, Bush is the only one to decide that he did NOT need a court order.  \n\nThat is illegal.
403101
Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most also have extended the law to cover in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as "one-party consent" statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)\n\nTwelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as "two-party consent" laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.\n\nRegardless of the state, it is almost always illegal to record a conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent to tape, and could not naturally overhear.
577342
Just when you think that Bush might actually be not breaking a law with one of his programs..... See the Stored Communications Act of 1986.\n\nIs specifically prohibits phone companies from turning over this type of information to government agencies. And like FISA, is not only directly on point but is being blatantly ignored by the Bush administration.
418527
Ever hear of the Patriot Act? The NSA's been doing just that in a big way since 9/11,and was doing it on a smaller scale since before that. Also let's not forget the FBI,\nthat also has a history of tapping phones since J.Edgar\nHoover-I'm sure they've kept up with the times.
239056
"Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most also have extended the law to cover in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as "one-party consent" statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)\n\nTwelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as "two-party consent" laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping."\n\nHope that helps.
917031
Government records of who they listen in on are labeled secret information but yes they are supposed to be only calls in which at least one party is on foreign soil as far as not having to get the court approval.actually I think it could be two way American calls if one is already being investigated for possible terrorism. But it is really kinda moot who the hell would know? They don't have an overseer and its national security ya know. and if your not guilty you don't have anything to hide...right? Stupidest argument in the world I apologize for repeating that nonsense.... just_curious if they pass a law where they can put your grandmother in a consentration camp it would be legal!
314694
In public, without using electronics? No.\n\nIf you are wiretapping or using other electronic devices, probably.  If you provide more details, you might get more specific help.\n\n(The laws in question will probably be Tennessee, but federal law may or may not be implicated.)
726782
Yes, I can see no legal issue with gathering 1003 information from outside the US. I completely disagree with the extended use of foreign phone rooms to solicit US consumers but unfortunately it is not illegal.\n\nHere is some additional info. Hope this helps.
318926
Actually, the US Supreme Court has NOT addressed warrantless wiretaps as they are being done by Bush. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has said (see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld) that the current poltiical situation is "not a blank check" for the President to do anything he wants, regardless of existing laws.\n\nIn fact, there are two reasons why warrantless wiretapping is not authorized, and is explicitly illegal under specific laws that were intended to cover this exact situation.\n\nFirst, FISA passed by Congress thirty years ago explicitly states the conditions under which surveillance can be conducted, and was passed specifically to address monitoring of US citizens communicating with people in another country, where one or more were suspected of being a threat. FISA requires that even in an emergency, the wiretapping agency get a warrant from a judge within 72 hours AFTER the tap is initiated. This defeats any argument made about their not being enough time to act within the bounds of law, and Bush has admitted that he's never even applied for the warrants afterwards in an attempt to obey with the law.\n\nInterestingly, some of big names opposing FISA being passed thirty-years ago include Bush Sr., Rumsfeld and Cheney. So, they were told, by Congress explicitly, that they ideas about inherent presidential authority were wrong. So, not only is Bush breaking the law, but he's breaking a law that was specifically set up to govern this very action, after his top advisors were told what the law was in this exact situation.\n\nSecond, there is the ridiculous claim that Bush is acting under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which the administration argues implicitly allows such actions. However, the AUMF is two paragraphs long, and states only that Bush is authorized to send military troops to Afghanistan, pursuant to the War Powers Act.\n\nWhat does the War Powers Act say? It limits presidential authority to send troops or deploy domestic assets unless authorized by Congress (since only Congress can declare war, and only Congress has jurisdiction for making domestic laws). The War Powers Act also specifically says that the President does not get any implied powers under this law, and that the President must obey all existing laws even when exercising explicit powers.\n\nYou can't claim implied powers based on a law that says "no implied powers". That's basic legal theory 101. It's like trying to argue it doesn't count as treason because the traitor chooses to call it something else. Performing actions that explicitly breaking laws that were intended to cover this exact situation is breaking the law, pure and simple.
120875
It's not illegal as far as I know, but it's probably a violation of the terms of service from your isp. The worst that's going to happen is that your isp will cut off your service if they find out about it.
1187330
of course it is illegal! its jusr the same of wiretapping, among others. we have here a law under our constition of the Republic of the Philippines Under Article III Section 3. \n(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. \n\n(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
562092
Yes this is called theft of services. Unless a wireless network is specifically designated as free public access internet service then you can theoretically be prosecuted.
1091870
Of course it’s a matter of opinion.  Just this week a law was passed, by the Supreme Court of the U.S.A., that search and enter, bust your door down anytime for any or no reason, without warrant is not only okay (always was). Although now any evidence found, in this what I will call illegal action, is admissible in a court of law. That’s just one example. \nI like the Patriot Act 2 answer- I too hope all know and read the PNAC (project for a new Amerikan century) I couldn't resist the "K".\n\nMy Answer is the Supreme Court of the U.S.A.\n(today)
764677
they just do , i think they should be sent to prison ,for invasion of privacy, telamarketers get your un-published, unlisted number also, which is illegal ,,because if you enter your number a the federal no call list you made it available
720056
Not really.\n\nCuz if I find out that its an illegal, then I just call the immigration department and watch them go bye bye.
894891
You aren't trying to get innocent people to dial a number that will result in a massively expensive charge on their phone bill, are you?\n\nNo, you wouldn't do that!
1011431
Yes, it is legal!! "Recording Conversations in Texas"\nThe law is often misunderstood by lay people and lawyers alike in Texas as to the legality of recording conversations over the telephone in Texas. The general rule is you may record a telephone conversation in which you are a participant even if the other person or people do not have knowledge of your recording the telephone conversation. This is the general federal rule as well. You may also use the recording for any lawful purpose.