CNN News: 竊聽

One thing you need to know about wiretapping is that if law enforcement does it without probable cause and a warrant, it`s probably unconstitutional.

關(guān)于竊聽，需要知道一件事情，如果執(zhí)法部門沒有正當(dāng)?shù)睦碛?，并獲得批準(zhǔn)，那么竊聽行為是違憲的。

That`s from a 1967 Supreme Court case called Katz. Shortly after that, Congress enacted Title III, which governs procedures for wiretapping and electronic surveillance.

這是根據(jù)1967年一個叫做凱茨(Katz)的案子。不久之后，美國國會修改了美國憲法第四修正案，明確規(guī)定了竊聽和電子監(jiān)控的程序。

In an ordinary criminal investigation, Title III requires two things. First, a statement of probable cause. But in addition to that, a statement that this is probably the only way that this evidence can be obtained. But until Title III, those requirements don`t apply to national security type surveillance. The problem is, even after Title III, the executive branch continued to engage in electronic surveillance of Americans based on their political opinions, but under the guise of national security.

對于普通的刑事犯罪偵查，憲法第三章要求需要存在兩個要素。第一，合理的聲明。但是，除此之外，聲明中表示這是唯一可以或者證據(jù)的辦法。到但是直到憲法第四修正案第三章，這些要求并不適用于關(guān)乎國家安全的監(jiān)測。但是問題是，盡管第三章做出了修改，但是，一些行政機(jī)關(guān)，仍然打著國家安全的幌子，而是出于自己的觀點(diǎn)，對美國公民進(jìn)行電子監(jiān)視。

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 or FISA was actually intended to create more rigorous procedural requirements for this kind of surveillance. Originally under FISA, obtaining a warrant was something like the criminal process. The requests were individualized. You had to show necessity and you had to show either a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.

1978年外國情報監(jiān)視法案(簡稱FISA)，實(shí)際的目的旨制定更加嚴(yán)格的監(jiān)控程序。最初根據(jù)FISA,犯罪過程等監(jiān)控需要獲得批準(zhǔn).之后,這些要求被個性化. 你必須展示進(jìn)行監(jiān)聽的必然性,以及出示自己是否是外國勢力或外國勢力的代理人.

Now, after a series of amendments, when it comes to a non-U.S. person overseas, you don`t need any probable cause at all. And unlike the criminal courts, FISA courts are almost completely conducted in secret. Title III wiretaps in ordinary criminal cases are generally difficult to obtain, especially when compared to the law standard and secrecy in the FISA courts.

現(xiàn)在,經(jīng)過一系列的修正,涉及到海外的非美國公民,則完全不需要任何合理根據(jù). 不同于刑事法庭,FISA法院幾乎完全在秘密進(jìn)行.根與FISA法院的法律標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和保密程度,按照憲法第三章,普通的刑事案件通常很難達(dá)到標(biāo)準(zhǔn).