Politics: Patriot Act to be Expanded

[Bob Hubbard]

[font=arial,helvetica]http://politics.slashdot.org/Patriot Act to be Expanded[/font]

Wednesday June 08, @09:39PM
from the big-brother dept.
m4dm4n writes "It seems that the patriot act is being expanded rather than scaled back after a vote late Tuesday by the Senate Intelligence committee. The FBI has gained new powers to demand documents from companies without a judge's approval, as well as the ability to designate subpoenas as secret and punish disclosure of their existence with up to one year in prison."

( Read More...Slashdot.org

 

[TonyM.]

Ahhhh, now I understand. Everytime the media gets shrill about something that really doesn't effect or concern most Americans, same sex marriage, medical marijuana ect. what's really happening is their putting it to the constitution hard again. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."
Gotta admit. Works every time.

 

[Bammx2]

"senate intelligence"? The supreme of oxymorons?!
Or just morons?
Big brother need his *** whooped!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

But remember, they won't abuse this new power.
And if they do, you have no right to ask about it since admiting it = jail time, possibly being "accidentally" mis ID'd as a terrorist earning you a rights-free vacation in Sunny Cuba, and I aint talking that small town in western NY with the great fishing either.

 

[sgtmac_46]

[font=arial,helvetica]Patriot Act to be Expanded[/font]

Wednesday June 08, @09:39PM
from the big-brother dept.
m4dm4n writes "It seems that the patriot act is being expanded rather than scaled back after a vote late Tuesday by the Senate Intelligence committee. The FBI has gained new powers to demand documents from companies without a judge's approval, as well as the ability to designate subpoenas as secret and punish disclosure of their existence with up to one year in prison."

( Read More...Slashdot.org

Why is that everytime someone rails on and on about the Patriot Act, they do so in the most vague, ominous terms possible? What, specifically, about the Patriot Act, are we to fear the most. I'm real eager to get some straigt answers as to what is threatening to me personally about the patriot act. If there's something there, I need to know about.

For example, WHAT specific documents from companies does the FBI now have the power to demand, and by what process do they demand it?

What process is required to designate subpoena's as secret, and how is someone punished for that (By how, I mean by what process)?

Finally (and most importantly) what, specifically, is objectively unreasonable about any of these powers? or are we just experiencing a knee jerk reaction?

Again, I could be wrong, but I get nervous anytime someone starts complaining about something in vague and ominous ways. I feel it's more important to discuss specific facts.

I'll make this discussion easier. Lets pick any section of the source document http://www.eff.org/patriot/sunset/sunset_bill_draft_20050517.pdf and discuss the relavent objective reasonableness of any particular section someone has concerns with. Reading someone else's analysis of this type of thing I find to be often times deceptive.

 

[OULobo]

Why is that everytime someone rails on and on about the Patriot Act, they do so in the most vague, ominous terms possible? What, specifically, about the Patriot Act, are we to fear the most. I'm real eager to get some straigt answers as to what is threatening to me personally about the patriot act. If there's something there, I need to know about.

For example, WHAT specific documents from companies does the FBI now have the power to demand, and by what process do they demand it?

What process is required to designate subpoena's as secret, and how is someone punished for that (By how, I mean by what process)?

Finally (and most importantly) what, specifically, is objectively unreasonable about any of these powers? or are we just experiencing a knee jerk reaction?

Again, I could be wrong, but I get nervous anytime someone starts complaining about something in vague and ominous ways. I feel it's more important to discuss specific facts.

I'll make this discussion easier. Lets pick any section of the source document http://www.eff.org/patriot/sunset/sunset_bill_draft_20050517.pdf and discuss the relavent objective reasonableness of any particular section someone has concerns with. Reading someone else's analysis of this type of thing I find to be often times deceptive.

It simply comes down to giving the government more ability to abuse power legally. It's not like it hasn't been done before. I don't see any reason why the government needs to be exempt from the supena process. Making trials and applications for evesdropping public is a safeguard against abuse of power, the possibility of blackmail or harrassment.

 

[arnisador]

But remember, they won't abuse this new power.

Ah, here in Indiana they've raised talk of the equally elusive "one-year only" tax. Has there ever been a one-year tax that hasn't become permanent?

Just naming it the "Patriot Act" is so Orwellian as to to be self-parody. It concerns me.

 

[michaeledward]

Why is that everytime someone rails on and on about the Patriot Act, they do so in the most vague, ominous terms possible? What, specifically, about the Patriot Act, are we to fear the most. I'm real eager to get some straigt answers as to what is threatening to me personally about the patriot act. If there's something there, I need to know about.

For example, WHAT specific documents from companies does the FBI now have the power to demand, and by what process do they demand it?

What process is required to designate subpoena's as secret, and how is someone punished for that (By how, I mean by what process)?

Finally (and most importantly) what, specifically, is objectively unreasonable about any of these powers? or are we just experiencing a knee jerk reaction?

Again, I could be wrong, but I get nervous anytime someone starts complaining about something in vague and ominous ways. I feel it's more important to discuss specific facts.

I'll make this discussion easier. Lets pick any section of the source document http://www.eff.org/patriot/sunset/sunset_bill_draft_20050517.pdf and discuss the relavent objective reasonableness of any particular section someone has concerns with. Reading someone else's analysis of this type of thing I find to be often times deceptive.

"A nation that gives up freedom for security deserves neither." - B. Franklin

 

[Makalakumu]

"A nation that gives up freedom for security deserves neither." - B. Franklin

"So, this is how freedom dies, with applause..." - Padme Amidala

 

[Ray]

With all this concern being raised, I have to ask: how have your lives been negatively impacted by the Patriot act and how will the "expanded" Patriot act change your lives for the <even> worse?

My life hasn't been negatively impacted by the patriot act. I still do the things that I want to do...maybe I just lead a dull, boring life. In any case, I'm curious.

 

[Makalakumu]

With all this concern being raised, I have to ask: how have your lives been negatively impacted by the Patriot act and how will the "expanded" Patriot act change your lives for the <even> worse?

My life hasn't been negatively impacted by the patriot act. I still do the things that I want to do...maybe I just lead a dull, boring life. In any case, I'm curious.

I'm not sure I want to plaster the entire story on the internet...but I do have a personal experience.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

How have our lives been impacted?

I'm paying cash alot more.
I've stopped visiting my local libraries since the government can now just stop in and pick up a copy of what I read on a whim. Considering I used to practically live there....

Theres 2. I also don't like the idea that it will now be possible for LEO to break into my home and rifle through my belongings on a whim (I'm sorry "suspision of possible terroristic activity) and I'm not allowed to know why. No search warrent needed, well, none that -I- am allowed to see. They made their own, no need to convinve a judge and allow for checks and balances. Of course we know that they've never, ever, ever made a mistake, gone into the wrong house, shot the wrong guy, etc.

I would feel alot more comfortable if I knew that our government was carefully reading these changes, weighing them out and carefully considering the impact. But we know that they don't have time for that. They've said it. They are too busy to read everything they pass, so stupid laws slip through (like the one giving congress permission to review your tax return which was thankfully caught in time that "no one" knows who put it in.)

The system -NEEDS- it's checks and balances. Without it, there is too much room for abuse of power, and as much as I respect LEO, I don't trust them to all be honorable. Look at LA. I'll never go there. Seems at least 2-3 times a year theres an issue. Rodney King was 1, and most recently, 120 rounds fired against an unarmed man.

I agree, "A nation that gives up freedom for security deserves neither." - B. Franklin

Changes need to be made, yes. But maybe, just maybe, those changes should be to enforce the laws already in place, and properly train and staff our LEO. Not give them powers used by the likes of Sadamn and Adolph. "It'll never get that way". Right. Not over night, but 1 step at a time. We can't take those steps. We can't let this nation, who so many fought and died for become that which they fought against.

 

[michaeledward]

I'll make this discussion easier. Lets pick any section of the source document http://www.eff.org/patriot/sunset/sunset_bill_draft_20050517.pdf and discuss the relavent objective reasonableness of any particular section someone has concerns with. Reading someone else's analysis of this type of thing I find to be often times deceptive.

I especially am concerned with this section of the document. Perhaps you can help me understand what it's really saying ... 'cuz I am having a hard time understanding it.

6 ... Section 224 (a) of the usa patriot acto fo 2001
7 ... (Public Law 107-56; 115 stat. 295; 18 u.s.C. 2510 note)
8 ... is amended ---
9 ... (1) by striking "203(a), 203(c)" and inserting
10 ... "203, 204";
11 ... (2) by inserting "206, 207," after "205";
12 ... (3) by inserting "214, 215," after "213";
13 ... (4) by inserting "218" after "216"; and
14 ... (5) by striking "and 222" and inserting "222,
15 ... and 225".

So, please sgtmac_46 ... other than the fact that the government seems unable to sequence numbers correctly, what rights is the government taking away from the individual and assuming for itself in that document? Perhaps you can provide a reasonable explanation?

I'll wait . . . . . .

You do understand that a big problem with the Patriot Act is that very little of the language references itself. Most of the language is referencing other federal documents and laws, which means a staff is needed to perform the research required to determing what the damn thing is changing.

The original law was passed within 30 days of 9/11. The sunset provision was included to provide cover for anyone who might vote YAY! without having read the ACT.

Much like we have discovered that the many Billions of Dollars spent on security measures post 9/11 has been woefully poorly administered ; such as the radiological scanners that can not make the distinction between a nuclear weapon in a cargo container and natural background radiation in cat litter.

 

[Ray]

How have our lives been impacted?

I'm paying cash alot more.
I've stopped visiting my local libraries since the government can now just stop in and pick up a copy of what I read on a whim.

Sounds like a choice you've made. I pay by check for almost everything & use credit cards when appropriate; and I still visit my local library.

Theres 2. I also don't like the idea that it will now be possible for LEO to break into my home and rifle through my belongings on a whim (I'm sorry "suspision of possible terroristic activity) and I'm not allowed to know why....

I would feel alot more comfortable if I knew that our government was carefully reading these changes, weighing them out and carefully considering the impact.

I understand that you have concerns and have made changes in your life because you may have some worries. But has anything happened to you soley because of the patriot act?

I grew up in So Cal and had a couple of my brothers who were in trouble with the law. More than once did my brothers get beat up and/or hit by cops unnecessarily. Once a cop entered our house, bowling over my mother and blacking her eye. None of that was because of the patriot act.

I had a friend who perceived that the gov't was out to get him for no good reason. He carried a pistol in his car {illegally} along with some coke...he was also a "naturist" who felt like he was persecuted by police just because he would run around places like Griffifth Parked naked. None of his problems occurred because of the patriot act.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Do we have to be passive about the destruction of our civil liberties until each one of us has been personally limited, incarcerated without appeal, FBI-searched for no reason?

Hello, fascist state.

 

[Ray]

Do we have to be passive about the destruction of our civil liberties until each one of us has been personally limited, incarcerated without appeal, FBI-searched for no reason?

Of course not. I'm just curious to know about the harm that is being done to us. So far, my life is unchanged. I'm trying to assess the impact to my life and the lives of my family.

In my mind, it's one thing to be concerned and another to make a change to what we do because we fear the gov't will unjustly do something bad to us.

I'm all for joining the cause against it if it were shown to actually be determental, but so far I've only seen it to be a good thing.

 

[Tgace]

There are no "powers" that the patriot act gives "LEO's" (other than the Feds) that I have seen.....

 

[Tgace]

http://www.globegazette.com/articles/2005/04/28/opinion/doc4270485c9cce1452103736.txt

Original critics of the Patriot Act predicted the government could rummage through private citizens' homes without anyone ever knowing a search had taken place. The truth is, in limited circumstances approved by a judge, there could be delayed notification that a court-ordered search warrant had been executed.

This only can take place if a judge finds that immediate notification could have adverse impacts; for example, if immediate notification would tip off a terrorist that he was under investigation before the investigation was complete.

Original critics also predicted the government could rummage through private citizens' library records just because of what a person was reading. The truth is, the act only allows a judge to authorize the review of business records and other tangible things during the course of a pending international terrorism investigation. Since the Patriot Act was passed, not one person's library records have been examined under the act.

Other misconceptions and half-truths are circulating about the Patriot Act, but a truthful debate will disclose their fallacies. There may be appropriate changes to the Patriot Act that will strengthen our ability to protect ourselves from terrorism. Those changes should only come about after an honest and reasonable debate on the act.

 

[Tgace]

http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/comm/20030921edbuch0921p4.asp

The Patriot Act strengthened our ability to prevent terrorism in three primary ways.

First, the act attempts to provide parity between criminal and intelligence investigative law. The Patriot Act allows investigators to use the tools in terrorism investigations that were already available to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking offenses. As Sen. Joe Biden, a Democrat from Delaware, said during the floor debate in October 2001: "The FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the Mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. To put it bluntly," he continued, "that was crazy! What's good for the mob should be good for terrorists."

Second, the Patriot Act began the process of breaking down the barrier between criminal investigations conducted by law enforcement and intelligence investigations conducted by agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency.

For example, before the Patriot Act, if a federal prosecutor in my office learned during a grand jury session that terrorists were planning to detonate a nuclear bomb in the Golden Triangle within 30 minutes, the federal rules of criminal procedure would have prevented the prosecutor from immediately notifying national security officials. The limitations on communication between the law enforcement and intelligence communities is now regarded as a significant weakness in our pre-Sept. 11 defense against terrorism. Improving that communication is absolutely essential in order to "connect the dots," to prevent terrorist activity.

Third, the Patriot Act brought the law up to date with current technology, so we no longer have to fight a digital-age battle with antique weapons, using legal authorities leftover from the era of rotary telephones.

For example, and this is just one of many possible examples, Section 211 of the Patriot Act requires cable companies that provide Internet or telephone service to comply with the same disclosure requirements as telephone companies and Internet service providers. Previous law, enacted long before cable companies provided anything other than television shows or movies, prohibited almost any disclosures. Protection for civil liberties has been maintained in Section 211 by prohibiting disclosure to the government of a customer's cable viewing activity. There are many myths about the Patriot Act. When those myths are put aside, as they should be, it becomes clear that the Patriot Act is a reasonable response to both the threat of terrorism and to the challenges of domestic law enforcement in the age of new and improved technologies.

 

[Tgace]

PATRIOT ACT MYTHS