Reply #32: I'm not a lawyer and am trusting the ACLU because they are lawyers.

[EFerrari]

But when I read Sec 702b (Limitations), it seems that were relying an awful lot on the term "intentional". Only one end of the communication seems to be required to be outside the US and if they both are inside the US, it's implicitly okay unless it was "intentional". Isn't that a lot like trying to prove "intention"?

And then, look at this under 703:

CERTAIN ACQUISITIONS INSIDE THE UNITED STATES TARGETING UNITED STATES PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.: Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Government to seek an order or authorization under, or otherwise engage in any activity that is authorized under, any other title of this Act.

(Doesn't that language seem awfully permissive to you?)

(2) LIMITATION- If a United States person targeted under this subsection is reasonably believed to be located in the United States during the effective period of an order issued pursuant to subsection (c), an acquisition targeting such United States person under this section shall cease unless the targeted United States person is again reasonably believed to be located outside the United States while an order issued pursuant to subsection (c) is in effect. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Government to seek an order or authorization under, or otherwise engage in any activity that is authorized under, any other title of this Act.

(Ditto about permissiveness.)

:shrug: