<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Concerns About Sen. Specter&#8217;s NSA Eavesdropping Compromise</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/07/13/concerns-about-sen-specters-nsa-eavesdropping-compromise/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/07/13/concerns-about-sen-specters-nsa-eavesdropping-compromise/</link>
	<description>Information, Law, and the Law of Information</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 21:55:50 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Info/Law &#187; Specter Bill Released</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/07/13/concerns-about-sen-specters-nsa-eavesdropping-compromise/comment-page-1/#comment-581</link>
		<dc:creator>Info/Law &#187; Specter Bill Released</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2006 22:53:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/07/13/concerns-about-sen-specters-nsa-eaves#comment-581</guid>
		<description>[...] The text of the Specter bill on the NSA eavesdropping program is now available here, and a summary here, both via Marty Lederman. In a post yesterday I analyzed the outlines of the proposal based on news accounts; now that actual legislative language is available I see that it is much, much worse than I had thought. While not a model of draftsmanship, the bill is clearly enough more of a capitulation than a compromise. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The text of the Specter bill on the NSA eavesdropping program is now available here, and a summary here, both via Marty Lederman. In a post yesterday I analyzed the outlines of the proposal based on news accounts; now that actual legislative language is available I see that it is much, much worse than I had thought. While not a model of draftsmanship, the bill is clearly enough more of a capitulation than a compromise. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: William McGeveran</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/07/13/concerns-about-sen-specters-nsa-eavesdropping-compromise/comment-page-1/#comment-578</link>
		<dc:creator>William McGeveran</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:41:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/07/13/concerns-about-sen-specters-nsa-eaves#comment-578</guid>
		<description>Thanks, Evan, I fixed the error, which was indeed just a typo.

But you do raise an implication on which I want to comment.  Personally, I believe that Senator Specter is acting in good faith.  He is trying to protect the legislative branch&#039;s institutional prerogatives and evaluate a vital civil liberties issue while at the same time remaining sensitive to both legitimate national security interests and, of course, party loyalty.  He could have chosen to just let the program proceed without challenging the President.  So he deserves credit for trying.

I don&#039;t mean to question his motives, just the (apparent) result of his efforts.  If the consolidation is what I believe it is, then the &quot;compromise&quot; is actually worse than the status quo, which at least involves some potential judicial review of the program through the efforts of EFF and many others.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, Evan, I fixed the error, which was indeed just a typo.</p>
<p>But you do raise an implication on which I want to comment.  Personally, I believe that Senator Specter is acting in good faith.  He is trying to protect the legislative branch&#8217;s institutional prerogatives and evaluate a vital civil liberties issue while at the same time remaining sensitive to both legitimate national security interests and, of course, party loyalty.  He could have chosen to just let the program proceed without challenging the President.  So he deserves credit for trying.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t mean to question his motives, just the (apparent) result of his efforts.  If the consolidation is what I believe it is, then the &#8220;compromise&#8221; is actually worse than the status quo, which at least involves some potential judicial review of the program through the efforts of EFF and many others.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: evan</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/07/13/concerns-about-sen-specters-nsa-eavesdropping-compromise/comment-page-1/#comment-577</link>
		<dc:creator>evan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:18:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/07/13/concerns-about-sen-specters-nsa-eaves#comment-577</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m sure it&#039;s just a typo, but it seems just too appropriate that &quot;Sneator&quot; is a natural shortening of &quot;sneaky senator&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m sure it&#8217;s just a typo, but it seems just too appropriate that &#8220;Sneator&#8221; is a natural shortening of &#8220;sneaky senator&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
