As it looks like I may be having to move again, possibly to the Triad where land is reasonably priced, I’d kinda like my next place to be rural enough that I can “go to the range” by walking out of the house and into my own backyard. As a rule of thumb, how much land do you need for that to be realistic, safe, not a nuisance, etc.? 5 acres? 10? 100?

Does anyone know the bill number of the new FISA law? Kooks and Liars thinks the contents of the bill are classified, but I rather doubt that. I’m reserving further judgment on the bill until I’ve … um … read it.

UPDATE: I was right, the law isn’t classified after all. Patterico has a link to it, it’s S. 1927. Thomas doesn’t play nice with deep links, and PDFs are clunky, so here’s the text of the bill in full, with my coments:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Protect America Act of 2007′.

OK, that I can do without. Sure, it does that, but c’mon, they could have done better than that. If vanilla names like “FISA Update Act” are too boring, they could always have called it the “Make Glenn Greenwald and Russ Feingold Cry In Each Other’s Beer Act” instead.

SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL PROCEDURE FOR AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ACQUISITIONS OF FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 105 the following:

‘CLARIFICATION OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE OF PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

Sec. 105A. Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under section 101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States.

From this, Kooky Liar Steve Benen deduces:

Whereas the law previous insisted that the administration get FISA Court-approved search warrants to eavesdrop on communications involving Americans citizens on U.S. soil, this new law changes the landscape. If the federal government wants to spy on someone, and the target is “reasonably believed” to be overseas, a warrant is no longer necessary.

Um, no. The old version never required a warrant to eavesdrop on communications involving American citizens on U.S. soil where the target of the surveillance was overseas. Here’s the definition of “electronic surveillance,” before and after:

(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;

This definition is irrelevant to Benen’s babbling, as it applies only to situations where the person on U.S. soil was the target. At most, the new provision helps the government in the situation where they reasonably but incorrectly believe that person (not the U.S. schmuck he is talking to) to be abroad.

(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511(2)(i) of title 18, United States Code;

Meaning, if the NSA reasonably believes that a conversation is between two individuals abroad, but one of them really is in the U.S., what was previously an inadvertent FISA violation is now kosher. If that scares the bejeezus out of you, stop using your non-U.S. cell phone or VOIP number in the U.S., act like a normal U.S. person in the U.S., and any perception on NSA’s part that you are abroad will be unreasonable, and the new law will not change anything.

On the flip side, if you read this definition carefully, you’ll see the old version of FISA allows precisely what Benen decries: if the federal government wants to spy on someone, and the target really is overseas, no FISA warrant is necessary so long as the acquisition of the information occurrs outside the United States. This crucial element is almost completely absent from the FISA debate we’ve seen over the past couple of years, with the Glenn Greenwalds, the Russ Feingolds and the New York Timeses simply ignoring the fact that if NSA’s wiretaps were conducted abroad or in international waters, the Bush Administration never violated FISA in the first place. Didi you really feel that much safer before, knowing that the federal government could eavesdrop on your international calls to its heart’s content, but only if the taps took place outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States?!

(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States;

Again, this definition is left mostly unchanged, except in the rare situation where the federal government reasonably believes it’s listening in on an international conversation, but for some odd reason everyone really is inside the United States. After all, when it comes time to prevent the next 9-11, it’s critically important to our national security that we can all eavesdrop on Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, but not on Mohammad Atta here in the U.S.

or

(4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.

Which, of course, never covered targets abroad.

Then there’s the new Section 105B of FISA that allows an additional procedure which requires, among other things, that the acquisition “not constitute electronic surveillance,” i.e., was outside the ambit of the old FISA as well as the new, and the new Section 105C, which requires the Attorney General to submit to the FISA court the procedures by which they determine that the surveillances in question are outside the ambit of FISA. The old FISA contained no such requirement; if a wiretap was outside the definition of “electronic surveillance,” FISA by its terms, including the provisions for judicial review, did not apply. Granted, the new “clearly erroneous” standard is rather difficult to meet, but from the perspective of those concerned about government surveillance, “clearly erroneous” review is better than no review at all. Finally, there’s a section requiring further oversight by Congress. Oh yeah, and the whole thing sunsets in six months.

Pretty scary, huh? It should be, if you’re planning on talking to al Qaeda members on the telephone over the next six months. Otherwise, not so much.

UPDATE: Interesting discussion here.

I’m headed there tomorrow. Anyone know the area? Any recommendations?

I know they call it doocing when one gets canned because of his blog. I’m not sure what to call it when things happen in reverse, i.e., when a totally crappy work situation just about causes you to “fire” your blog. That’s basically what happened over the past few months, and the reason why blogging has been so light. In a nutshell, I left a good job in California for what appeared to be an indistinguishable one in Virginia, only to find out soon after I began that my new boss was both a dumbass and a hardass, and that his boss, the General Counsel, apparently thinks he can do no wrong. I also learned that in addition to cycling through administrative staff too many times to count, my new idiot/asshole boss had managed to burn through four regulatory counsels in less than three years. Yesterday, I became number five.

For obvious reasons, this really, really sucks. Doubly so since one of the reasons we moved here was so we could afford to live on my salary alone. Now our family income is $0. Any possible job leads would be highly appreciated. Insurance regulatory law is my background, but I’m open to other options as well. Not wild about moving yet again, but if it happens it happens.

All whining ends now. As you were.

I was torn between a sedan, which likely would have been an Altima, and a pickup, which likely would have been a Chevy Silverado or GiMmiCk Sierra, so now I’m thinking of getting a Baby Tahoe. Isn’t it cute?

Haven’t gotten my birthdaymobile yet, but will do soon since all the specials expire one day before Bubba Xrlq’s birthday. Here are the vehicles I’ve been considering so far:

• Toyota Camry. Uncly-Wuncly thinks Toyota is anti-gun. While I always respect him and usually agree with him, on this occasion I think he’s wetter than anything within 20 miles of the James River. So Toyota hired one lame PR person who picked the wrong high school student to highlight. No big whoop. What is a big whoop is that the Camry is like the hot chick every other guy wants - and she knows it. Ask Ms. Camry for a date on her terms, and she might say yes, if she happens to be in the mood. Ask her for 5 years’ free financing, dealer incentives, etc., and she’ll throw a drink in your face and say “what kind of girl do you think I am?” Three more drinks will follow if you’re dumb enough to point out the obvious fact that we’ve already established what kind of girl she is, and now we’re just haggling over the price. So one side of me says “Kos her, let someone else put up with that attitudinal be-yatch.” But the other side keeps responding “Attitude, schmattitude, that chick is hot!”
• Honda Accord. Everything I said about the Camry. Can’t figure out who is hotter, or more arrogant. One’s a blonde, the other a brunette, but I’m not even sure which is which.
• Nissan Altima. This chick ain’t half bad, either. In fact, she looks a lot like Ms. Camry and Ms. Accord, only without the attitude. She knows what kind of girl she is, and she’s willing to deal. But she keeps acting all needy, asking me “I’m just as good as Camry, right? What does that Altima bitch have that I don’t?” I don’t know if I can deal with that twice a day, every day for the next 10 years or so. Plus, I can’t shake the sense that even if Ms. Altima gets over her complex, sooner or later I’ll end up calling out the name “Camry” or “Accord” during … um … driving. Where did you think I was going with this?
• Chevrolet Impala. This car has a normal outward appearance, an annoyingly retro looking dashboard, and is otherwise a no-nonsense alternative to those three geishas that keep chasing me. It has all the functionality of all three, a slightly lower price, and space rivaling their grossly overpriced big sisters. But however infatuated I may be with my four-wheeled friend, believe it or not there’s actually another woman in my life, Mrs. X. She’s assured me that if I buy an Impala, we (or worse, I) will be officially shunned as white trash. So this one’s a nonstarter.
• Chevy Silverado or GMC Sierra. Forget the chicks; they’re too complicated. Why not go gay on a real man of a vehicle instead? Normally, these things cost an arm and a leg more than a sedan, but after the massive discounts currently being offered by GM, which Nissan makes a half-hearted attempt to match and Toyota and Honda won’t dignify with a comment, they’re really not that much more expensive after all. And besides, it would really cool to have a pickup, in case I ever needed to … do whatever the hell you’re supposed to do with a pickup.
• Ford F-150. Don’t know much about this model, but he sure looks cool.
• Ford Five Hundred. OK, maybe I should get a sedan after all. This one was recommended by a co-worker who swears by Volvos, and says this one is essentially a Volvo in disguise. And as Dudley Moore’s character nicely put it in Crazy People, Volvos are boxy, but they’re good. Be safe, not sexy, yadda yadda yadda.

What say you?

And to my fellow Virginians - WTF is up with all these dealerships that are closed on Sunday? Is there a friggin’ blue law prohibiting anyone from buying a car on Sunday? Seriously. And if there is such a law, what about North Carolina? Driving down there tomorrow would be a pain in the [insert symbol for Democratic Party here], but taking time off from work is worse.

Anyone have any ideas for how to get audio from your computer to a stereo system, preferably by a wireless route?

Anyone had experiences with both? I’ve been a Costco member for years, but my membership is due to expire soon and they’re both located almost exactly the same distance from home.

Anyone know if lane-splitting is legal in Virginia? I’m a little nervous ‘cuz no one seems to do it.

Any readers from Virginia, esp. Richmond area?