# Understanding Legalese aka Lame first rant **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 26, 2003, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-legalese-aka-lame-first-rant/184624 "2003-06-26T21:07:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![nahtanoj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71c47a/32.png) [@nahtanoj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nahtanoj)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-legalese-aka-lame-first-rant/184624/1 "2003-06-26T21:07:55Z")
Okay, first off: > [@](#): > > Nothing contained in this chapter or chapter 121, or section 705 > of the Communications Act of 1934, shall be deemed to affect the > acquisition by the United States Government of foreign intelligence > information from international or foreign communications, or foreign > intelligence activities conducted in accordance with otherwise > applicable Federal law involving a foreign electronic communications > system, utilizing a means other than electronic surveillance as defined > in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and > procedures in this chapter or chapter 121 and the Foreign Intelligence > Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which > electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the > interception of domestic wire and oral communications may be conducted. Everybody got that? No? That was Title 18, section 2511(2)(f) of the United States Code. If anyone can understand that snippet of legalese and hasn’t spent years in law school and makes less than $1k an hour, you have my sincere congratulations. I, however, have not and cannot. [**Debaser**](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=193283&pagenumber=2) decided to attack me on this since I used an interpretation by the EFF (Electronic Frontiers Foundation, a simple google search would have turned that acronym up) of a piece of legislation that would affect that section of US code. All well and good, but he then issued a personal attack and used that to dismiss my arguements altogether. Cowardly and unworthy, **Debaser**. In a debate, you are supposed to counter the oppositions point, not whitewash your opponent with a generalization. That is what this forum is for. Idiot. As to this: > [@](#): > > Ok, then. Let’s end this hijack. You started the hijack in the first place, pal. Don’t cry to me when you don’t like where it goes. Nahtanoj ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-legalese-aka-lame-first-rant/184624/2 "2003-06-26T21:19:34Z")
It means that “this chapter or chapter 121, or section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934” aren’t applicable to gathering information by spying on the communications of other countries. I haven’t read the code, but if that chapter says something like “The government can’t wiretap without a judge’s order”, the gov’t wouldn’t need one to wiretap as part of espionage. ---
**Author:** ![nahtanoj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71c47a/32.png) [@nahtanoj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nahtanoj)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-legalese-aka-lame-first-rant/184624/3 "2003-06-26T21:34:20Z")
We were discussing the Patriot Act in respect to how it changes this snippet of the code. But attempting to read this run-on sentence and make sense out of it seems nigh impossible. What about that last line about domestic wire? Nahtanoj P.S. My respect to you, **Captain**. ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-legalese-aka-lame-first-rant/184624/4 "2003-06-26T21:51:35Z")
When all else fails, diagram the sentence. You must expect technical and complex language when dealing with a technical and complex subject. If you are not prepared to read carefully, go read \* Readers’ Digest \*. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-legalese-aka-lame-first-rant/184624/5 "2003-06-26T23:15:46Z")
First off, here’s the U.S. Code. [http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/](http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/) Like **Spavined** said, read slowly and diagram the sentences. Ok, so title 18, section 2511 says that it’s illegal to try to intercept oral, wire, or electronic communications, or disclose the content of those communications. In other words, I can’t wiretap your phone, etc., or tell anyone what I hear if I do tap your phone, or, if your phones are tapped as part of a criminal investigation, I can’t tell you what the government has on you to try to impede that investigation. Ok, so that’s part A Part B talks about the exceptions to those rules…when it’s ok to tap somebody’s phone. It’s ok for your phone company to tap into a line if it’s necessary for maintenence, to protect their lines, or if they have to to provide you service. It’s ok for your phone company to tap your phone if they get a legal order, under the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978,either from the court, or the Attorney General, telling them to do so. It’s ok for the FCC to tap your phone, for the purposes of monitoring violations of the rules that it’s the FCC’s job to enforce. It’s ok for the government to tap a phone conversation if they have the permission of one of the people in the conversation, in order to investigate a crime. It’s ok for somebody to tap your phone if they have your permission, unless that intercept is being done as part of a crime. Well, that’s everything up to (2)(d). Just read the rest and break down the sentences, and you’ll be able to figure it out. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-legalese-aka-lame-first-rant/184624/6 "2003-06-26T23:20:31Z")
Reading statutory language isn’t that bad; it only looks intimidating. For really thick passages, flowcharts help. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-legalese-aka-lame-first-rant/184624/7 "2003-06-26T23:22:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by nahtanoj \* > \*\*What about that last line about domestic wire? > \*\* That last line is part of a clause… > [@](#): > > and procedures in this chapter or chapter 121 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted. In other words, the government is only allowed to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications using the proceedures laid out in this chapter (which is chapter 119, btw), chapter 121, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. It’s not anything goes, in other words. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2003, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-legalese-aka-lame-first-rant/184624/8 "2003-06-27T17:28:12Z")
Frankly, it doesn’t seem that intimidating to me, and I have never billed my time at $1000 per hour. It’s not “Hop on Pop,” I grant you, but then the subject is complex enough that “Hop on Pop” level writing is inadequate to convey the requisite meaning. I’m sorry if you have toruble with it, but it’s nothing that a high-school level reader cannot master. - Rick