but then I married a woman non-lawyer! I can't get anything right.

Did you listen to Glenn's podcast with the ACLU attorney? If you do, I believe that will answer your question.

I'm not sure at all you're really looking for information, since this all has been covered several times. But in case you are, the way the law is written allows surveillance on all communications of US citizens to foreigners, as long as the target is not a citizen.

(a) Authorization- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon the issuance of an order in accordance with subsection (i)(3) or a determination under subsection (c)(2), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may authorize jointly, for a period of up to 1 year from the effective date of the authorization, the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information.

(emphasis mine)

Sub clause 4 attempts to limit the surveillance:

(4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and

The executive branch does not need to prove that senders are not in the US nor is there review of any actual data captures. The court will only periodically review the procedures used to determine what data is to be captured. The ACLU writes:

While these two sets of guidelines will be reviewed by the FISC, it is not a substitute for individualized review, a judicial finding of apparent wrongdoing, and a directive to a specific entity for a specific communication collection. In fact, the legislative requirements for these guidelines in H.R. 6304 could not be more ambiguous. It is unclear what the government will actually submit to the FISC, and it is probable that the submission will contain insufficient detail for the court to make a meaningful decision about whether Americans’ privacy is being protected.

In addition, there's no provisions regarding what to do with the data if actually captured unlawfully, leading to fears that even if the executive branch gets it wrong, they still can use the data.

US Constitution, IV Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

ACLU:

Before the government may obtain a warrant for a search, it must identify with particularity the person or persons who are the target of the search. By authorizing the government to initiate surveillance programs in § 702, the proposed bill fails to meet this requirement. In direct contradiction, it states that certifications are “not required to identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property at which an acquisition authorized under subsection (a) will be directed or conducted.”[4] Instead the new law authorizes general directives that need to state only that procedures exist to ensure that the “targets” of the programs are reasonably believed to be overseas.

Thus, H.R. 6304 permits the NSA to wiretap substantial numbers of unknown individuals in the United States, just as long as no United States person is the “target.” The likely consequence is that U.S. persons communicating with those living, working or traveling abroad will have their communications swept up into the dragnet of communications obtained under non-individualized program warrants. From there, the NSA could pass along those conversations and the information could be misused even though the communications do contain no foreign intelligence information.

Bernbart, I am curious if your friends have actually read the law, or the numerous briefs authored by the ACLU and the EFF, or Glenn's arguments, or Judge Walker's rulings, which include statements like: "[telecoms] cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal."

One would be hard pressed to find worse rhetorical tools than, "my friend says..." If you (or your friends) would actually like to proffer arguments that counter the specific arguments made by Glenn, et. al., please do so.

Haven't gotten to that yet, but I will. Thanks.

I have in fact read the legislation, though. But, then, IANAL, and have not stayed at Holiday Inn Express recently.

The government's ability to use information from a FISA wiretap to prosecute a crime does not come from express language in a bill, but from court cases interpreting the requirement (at least in the version of FISA before these amendments) that FISA intercepts be conducted only where a "significant purpose" of the intercept is to collect foreign intelligence information.

In re Sealed Case:

Having determined that FISA, as amended, does not oblige the government to demonstrate to the FISA court that its primary purpose in conducting electronic surveillance is not criminal prosecution, we are obliged to consider whether the statute as amended is consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html

The court then went on to rule that the provision was consistent with the Fourth Amendment. That's your answer in a nutshell.

I confess to not knowing at the moment whether the new FISA amendments do anything to the "significant purpose" requirement. If not, the standard remains the same. Essentially, there is no "wall" between law enforcement and foreign intelligence activities, provided the purpose of the intercept was proper to begin with. I am, of course, simplifying things, or perhaps leaving out a more direct response, but this should suffice for now.

Y'know, gay marriage just might ruin hetero marriage! Look, it's already happening to me! Two guys moved in to a delapidated house down the block from us (I think they're "that way") and started fixing it up. Pretty soon all I hear from the little helpmeet is "Why doesn't our lawn look like that" and "Why don't you do that to our deck" Next thing I know, she's over there, consulting with them on house colors. She consults, but I have to paint, of course. Well, last night the axe fell. After we drove past and my wife looked at the progress they have made on their retaining walls and garden, I heard her mutter "Next time, I think I'll marry a man!"

I'm telling ya, I never get a break!