SCA WARRANTS NOW REACH OUTSIDE THE U.S.

What is an SCA Warrant?

 

In short, an SCA (Stored Communications Act) Warrant is a device used by the Federal Government to obtain information from Microsoft and others regarding individual users actual information stored on the companies computers.  This goes beyond the normal information that the Government admits that it is already gathering regarding an account holder's usage activity and gets to the meat and potatoes of what that user searches for, message content etc....  The Stored Communications Act (SCA) was enacted in 1986 as part of the larger Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), and sought to provide 4th Amendment-like protections to the contents of electronic communications in the hands of service providers like Microsoft. 

 

Here is the scary part,  U.S. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, ruled last Friday that Microsoft must turn over the records sought by the U.S. Government even though the records they were seeking lay outside the United States in Ireland. 

 

 

18 U.S. Code § 2703 - Required disclosure of customer communications or records

 

(a) Contents of Wire or Electronic Communications in Electronic Storage.— A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication, that is in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for one hundred and eighty days or less, only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or, in the case of a State court, issued using State warrant procedures) by a court of competent jurisdiction. A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communications services of the contents of a wire or electronic communication that has been in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for more than one hundred and eighty days by the means available under subsection (b) of this section.

 

According to the article publish in the National Review

 

Under the SCA, the government can obtain certain kinds of electronic information held by a service provider only upon a showing of probable cause of wrongdoing.  Obtaining the actual content of an electronic communication requires a higher showing than for, say, account information.  If the showing requirement is met, a court can issue an SCA Warrant.^[2]  The SCA Warrant is served on a service provider, who then conducts a search and produces relevant communications.

The article continues and states:

In its motion to quash the SCA Warrant in this case, Microsoft’s argument was simple: warrants are not subpoenas. If the government served a subpoena on Microsoft, then Microsoft would be required to produce relevant information within its possession, custody or control regardless of where it physically resided.  But, by attempting to obtain information located on servers in Ireland via a warrant, the U.S. government sought information outside of the territorial limits of the United States.  Because Federal courts have no authority to issue warrants for the search and seizure of property outside the territorial limits of the United States, Microsoft argued it should not be required to produce the information. In support of its argument, Microsoft noted the SCA Warrant is referred to as just that, a “warrant,” and also requires to the use of warrant procedures in obtaining it.

Here is the unbelievable part:

This argument, however, failed to convince Judge Francis. After conceding Microsoft’s analysis was “not inconsistent with the statutory language” of the SCA, Judge Francis held that the SCA Warrant was not a typical warrant, but was a “hybrid: part search warrant and part subpoena.”  It is a like a search warrant in that an application is made to a magistrate upon a showing of probable cause.

This so-called Magistrate Judge has single-handedly changed the intent of the 4th Amendment single without any concern for citizen's rights, case law or waiting for the Supreme Court of the United States to consider the wide spread implications of granting the government even more power and authority to invade the reasonable expectations of "We The People".

Semper Vigilantes

ABOUT BENGHAZI

WHY LIE?

Today I watched the entire heated exchange between Press Secretary Carney and the reporter attempting to gain clarity regarding the Administrations prior statements about what they knew regarding the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi.  That entire exchange is available for your own review here for your own review and consideration.  In this exchange, Carney attempts to deflect and redirect the journalist with regards to the contradictions in statements made by the Administration and what was found in the e-mail released to Justice Watch through their recent Freedom of Information Act Request. 

I found that contrary to Carney's assertions in the exchange that according to U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2012-38774 Doc No C054152280 Dated 04/17/2014, that on page two of the heavily redacted document production the exact following:

"Q)  What's your response to the Independent story that says we have intelligence 48 hours in advance of the Benghazi attack that was ignored?

This story is absolutely wrong.  We are not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.  We also see indications that this action was related to the video that has sparked protests in other countries."

It is important to remember that these were admittedly the "TOPLINE POINTS" that were given to Secretary Rice to help her prepare for her Sunday Morning T.V. appearance.  The administration knew that the questions were coming and this was the response that they came up with for her to tell the entire world on Sunday morning.

The Administration has attempted to duck and dodge this issue for far too long.  They have attempted to have the public believe that this was not a preplanned attack which we now know is completely lacking in credibility.  Our former military leaders previously assigned to Germany state that the military should have been sent in.  We have former Government officials stating that they knew of the possibility of this having been a pre-planned terrorist attack and still the White House attempts to have us believe otherwise.  In the story published by USA Today, today it is clear that Air Force Brigadier General Lovell, Retired who served on the Africa Command stated: "This was no demonstration gone terribly awry."

The good General was testifying before the House Subcommittee on Government Oversight and Reform when Lovell stated:

"Lovell's testimony contradicts the story that the Obama administration gave in the early days following the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. Consulate that left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Back then the administration insisted that the best intelligence it had from CIA and other officials indicated that the attack was a protest against an anti-Islam video that turned violent."

More disturbingly was Lovell's statement:

"As the attack was ongoing, it was unclear whether it was an attempted kidnapping, rescue, recovery, protracted hostile engagement or any or all of the above," Lovell said.

While people on the ground were fighting for their lives, discussions among U.S. leaders outside Libya "churned on about what we should do," but the military waited for a request for assistance from the State Department, Lovell said.

So while the White House and the Administration would have us believe that there was no real or actionable intelligence to indicate that the boots on the ground in Benghazi were at risk, the Leading Democrat on the Committee asks:

Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the committee, cited the testimony of then-commander of AFRICOM Gen. Carter Ham and others who testified that the military moved a special forces unit from Europe to Sicily while the attack was ongoing, and sent a special anti-terrorism team of Marines to Tripoli within a day of the attack.

"Why are you testifying that the U.S. military did not try to save lives," Cummings asked.
Lovell said he was not disputing that information.

"I did not say we did not try," Lovell said. "What I'm speaking to is that we as a nation need to try to do more, in preparations, so that in the future ... we can support the people and have their backs."

Why then is it so important that "We The People" fall for this cover story or allow the facts to be swept away in some tide of time?  Perhaps the answer lies in the 2016 Presidential elections.  If Benghazi goes away and the entire nation suddenly gets a case of CRS (Can't Remember Squat), the this would not tarnish Hilary's chances at a run for the oval office.  This is a woman who reportedly knew of the impending attack, allegedly knew that the boots on the ground were asking for help to defend against a potential threat which we now know was not only credible but resulted in the senseless and unnecessary loss of American lives and most importantly, she is the woman who absolutely decided to ignore all of the evidence, warnings and requests for assistance thereby signing the death warrant of our Fellow Americans.

Semper Vigilantes