Search for: "Does 1-215"
Results 1 - 20
of 1,003
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Mar 2015, 3:52 pm
It expires on June 1. [read post]
23 Apr 2012, 3:24 pm
A New York Injury Lawyer said there is an exception provided for within CPLR 215(1), but it does not apply in this case. [read post]
25 Apr 2021, 1:22 pm
(§ 215, subd. [read post]
25 Mar 2015, 8:52 am
A letter sent from major tech companies and civil society groups demanded Congress end the mass collection of calling records under Section 215 of the Patriot Act before an upcoming June 1 expiration date. [read post]
18 Jun 2013, 10:16 pm
Metadata can only be accessed with reasonable, articulable suspicion.The NSA does not do pattern analysis of metadata, because that is not permitted Metadata is only accessed for terrorist investigations, not for domestic crimes. [read post]
27 Dec 2007, 5:10 am
Unlike the FLSA, New York Labor Law does not require a formal complaint. [read post]
7 Apr 2015, 2:27 pm
That’s the sound of time slipping away before the June 1 sunset of the Patriot Act 215 provision. [read post]
27 Mar 2015, 12:12 pm
Some of them may become moot, depending on what Congress does or doesn’t do. [read post]
23 Apr 2015, 9:30 am
AALL renews our call on members of Congress to oppose any surveillance legislation that does not contain major reforms to our nation’s surveillance laws. [read post]
1 Feb 2017, 4:30 am
Ohio 1/24/17), an Ohio federal court recently decided this very issue. [read post]
17 Sep 2013, 4:39 pm
Does the risk that customer metadata would be deleted in the ordinary course of business create a “necessity” to overcollect? [read post]
22 May 2015, 5:39 pm
Nor does the ultimate outcome of this story instill much confidence in the process. [read post]
12 May 2015, 1:40 pm
Does Section 215 sound grim yet? [read post]
8 May 2015, 1:05 pm
A reader familiar with surveillance matters writes in with these two questions about yesterday’s opinion from the Second Circuit: 1) The opinion seems to turn on the Court’s belief that either not enough Members of Congress were aware or that the *right* Members of Congress (in its view) were not aware that Section 215 was being used to enable bulk collection. [read post]
2 Jul 2009, 3:47 pm
App. 215, 216-217 (1) (501 SE2d 508) (1998). [read post]
21 Nov 2019, 12:31 pm
Second, Congress must beef up protections to ensure that Section 215 does not violate our other constitutional rights. [read post]
23 Sep 2014, 6:20 am
On the likelihood of success of the merits, the government argues that the Section 215 program does not implicate constitutional privacy rights, and would be reasonable even if it did. [read post]
19 May 2015, 4:36 pm
The program does not conduct mass surveillance of American citizens—or any surveillance at all. [read post]
24 May 2015, 12:56 pm
What does this all mean for the politics of meaningful surveillance reform? [read post]
7 May 2015, 2:23 pm
Ahead of Section 215’s sunset on June 1, Sen. [read post]
