[Krusty]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=6369763

Another over-intrusive, unconstitutional part of the Patriot Act bites the dust. Yay for us !!! The ACLU had originally filed the suit.

he ACLU said that the Patriot Act provision was worded so broadly that it could effectively be used to obtain the names of customers of Web sites such as Amazon.com or eBay, or a political organization's membership list, or even the names of sources that a journalist has contacted by e-mail.

"This is a landmark victory against the Ashcroft Justice Department's misguided attempt to intrude into the lives of innocent Americans in the name of national security," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero.

"Even now, some in Congress are trying to pass additional intrusive law enforcement powers. This decision should put a halt to those efforts," he said.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Yay for us !!

Just great. Now people can buy bombmaking materials and kits without fear of detection, and murderous cells can plot, plan, and communicate anonymously.

[smacintush]

It's yet another example that our system of checks and balances works.

[icruise]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Just great. Now people can buy bombmaking materials and kits without fear of detection, and murderous cells can plot, plan, and communicate anonymously.

If it's a choice between that and having every citizen's communications monitored, then yes.

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by Icruise:
If it's a choice between that and having every citizen's communications monitored, then yes.

I agree.


This is great news.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by Earth Mk. II:
I agree.


This is great news.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by smacintush:
It's yet another example that our system of checks and balances works.

Great point, and its a little heartening to see that its actually working.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Icruise:
If it's a choice between that and having every citizen's communications monitored, then yes.

You don't know what you're talking about.

This is about the FBI being able to get a name from an ISP of an account holder (ex. IP address) who is engaged in possible terror-related activities.

With this ruling, you and others can use or host a phpBB forum and openly plan an attack, and the FBI cannot get any of the participants name from ISPs, even with the FBI "secret" subpeonas.

Imagine me and other conservatives here on this forum and planning how we are going to find and kill each liberal poster on MacNN. Sure, we'd get banned, but we'd just set-up our own forum and discuss your identities and addresses, debate which methods of torture we would use before killing you and your families, set the dates, times, and travel plans, etc.... and there is not a thing you or the FBI could do to get our names.

That, my fellow loungers, is bullsh-t.

[smacintush]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

[Krusty]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
With this ruling, you and others can use or host a phpBB forum and openly plan an attack, and the FBI cannot get any of the participants name from ISPs, even with the FBI "secret" subpeonas.

Imagine me and other conservatives here on this forum and planning how we are going to find and kill each liberal poster on MacNN. Sure, we'd get banned, but we'd just set-up our own forum and discuss your identities and addresses, debate which methods of torture we would use before killing you and your families, set the dates, times, and travel plans, etc.... and there is not a thing you or the FBI could do to get our names.

That, my fellow loungers, is bullsh-t.

Dude .. there are SO MANY WAYS to circumvent "participant requirements" of forums. Having a bead on ISP traffic means about zilch. Just go to a public library or anyone else's computer and carry out your plans anonymously. Not to mention the multitude of other ways this sort of thing could be accomplished (phone, mail, personal communication, etc). This provision of the PA intrudes upon every single citizen connected to the internet and is highly unlikely to yield any real info re: terrorist plots (unless the terrorist are moronic enough to register themselves with fixed identities and fixed locations and continue to use them over and over).

This part of the Patriot Act has been appropriately challenged, IMHO.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by smacintush:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

What does anonymously using a public website to plan an attack have to do with Ben Franklin?

And where is it specified that internet usage is an essential liberty?

[smacintush]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
What does anonymously using a public website to plan an attack have to do with Ben Franklin?

And where is it specified that internet usage is an essential liberty?

Ben Franklin understood the danger of allowing public paranoia to erode our civil liberties.

It doesn't say "AN essential liberty", it say "essential liberty". There's a distinction.

Internet usage isn't an essential liberty. Privacy from the prying eyes of the Federal government is. The fact that the Patriot Act COULD be used so broadly is reason enough to shoot it down, no matter what it is intended for. They need to tighten up the language.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Dude .. there are SO MANY WAYS to circumvent "participant requirements"... Not to mention the multitude of other ways this sort of thing could be accomplished (phone, mail, personal communication, etc).

Then let the thugs use mail to plan attack. Let them have to travel across the globe for a single meeting.

But if you are going to sit here and argue that those using the internet to plot and plan such attacks should be able to remain anonymous, even if their names and locations are somewhere on record, then you have demonstrated perfectly why I don't want you or your ilk anywhere near the White House or any other elected office.

[itai195]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
This is about the FBI being able to get a name from an ISP of an account holder (ex. IP address) who is engaged in possible terror-related activities.

What qualifies as 'possible terror-related activity?' Anyway, I think this is relevant:

The 4th 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.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by smacintush:
Ben Franklin understood the danger of allowing public paranoia to erode our civil liberties.

When attacks occur, it's not paranoia. When attacks are planned in public, it's not paranoia.

Internet usage isn't an essential liberty. Privacy from the prying eyes of the Federal government is.

If you and I can access a web page, how is it "private"? Are we prying whenever we visit a website uninvited?

The fact that the Patriot Act COULD be used so broadly is reason enough to shoot it down, no matter what it is intended for. They need to tighten up the language.

Have you read the language? Most sections specify it's intent as being for "terror-related" activities/investigations.

And notice this...

Jaffer, the ACLU lawyer, said the government had turned over as part of the lawsuit a six-page document showing it had obtained Internet or telephone records dozens and possibly hundreds of times.

200 million internet users and telephone users, and "dozens" or "possibly hundreds" of records have been obtained... You call that broad usage?

Who's your congressperson? Did they vote in favor of the act? If so, did you contact them with your concerns? What was their reply to you?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by itai195:
The 4th 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.

There was still judicial review involved with this provision.

And you don't think that a public website where users are openly planning and/or discussing an upcoming attack constitutes "probable cause"?

[Sock Puppet Theater]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
But if you are going to sit here and argue that those using the internet to plot and plan such attacks should be able to remain anonymous, even if their names and locations are somewhere on record, then you have demonstrated perfectly why I don't want you or your ilk anywhere near the White House or any other elected office.

The feds can still get normal search warrants. It's not like the internet is wide open now. The Patriot Act was just too broad.
You seem like the type that would freely admit a police officer into your home to do a search, even if he had no probable cause. Your response to 'liberty lovers' would be "Well, I'm not a criminal, I have nothing to hide."

Am I right?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Sock Puppet Theater:
The feds can still get normal search warrants. It's not like the internet is wide open now.
You seem like the type that would freely admit a police officer into your home to do a search, even if he had no probable cause. Your response to 'liberty lovers' would be "Well, I'm not a criminal, I have nothing to hide."

What good is a "normal" search warrant if the authorities cannot obtain a name and address from an ISP?

And what's this "no probable cause" stuff? If a website is hosting discussions on attack plans, surely that's probable cause.

[smacintush]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
What good is a "normal" search warrant if the authorities cannot obtain a name and address from an ISP?

And what's this "no probable cause" stuff? If a website is hosting discussions on attack plans, surely that's probable cause.

The Feds should require a warrant to obtain names and addresses. Right now they don't and that my fellow loungers, is bullsh-t.

[itai195]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
There was still judicial review involved with this provision.

Not according to all the sources I've seen, but I'll keep looking.

And you don't think that a public website where users are openly planning and/or discussing an upcoming attack constitutes "probable cause"?

The definition of 'terrorism' is broad enough to fit all kinds of activities. Combined with the secret nature of these investigations, the ban on disclosure (freedom of speech?), the lack of judicial review, and the stipulation that the search only has to be 'relevant' to a terrorism investigation, I think it creates a large potential for abuse. Besides, if people are planning a terrorist attack on a public website, the FBI can still use traditional means to pursue them.

Marrero said another reason to halt the use of NSLs to communications firms was the worrisome potential for misuse. "For example, the FBI theoretically could issue to a political campaign's computer systems operator a (letter) compelling production of the names of all persons who have e-mail addresses through the campaign's computer systems," he wrote. "The FBI theoretically could also issue an NSL (to learn) the identity of someone whose anonymous Web log, or 'blog,' is critical of the government."

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Just great. Now people can buy bombmaking materials and kits without fear of detection, and murderous cells can plot, plan, and communicate anonymously.

Somebody here likes Big Brother watching...

[spacefreak]

-

[Millennium]

Woohoo! Score one for the good guys!

The "good guys" meaning the innocent, who do not deserve this intrusion into their lives, even at the cost of making law enforcement's job a little tougher (though by no means impossible, which is why this increased burden is acceptable).

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
Somebody here likes Big Brother watching...

It's not that. I just feel that if the bad guys can take advantage of technology, why can't law enforcement?

If pricks are openly plotting scumbag activities on the web, you're damn right I want the Feds to get their names and check them out.

Do law enforcement officials need a warrant to run my license plate number? Do they need a warrant to obtain my name when a cop sees me - in plain view - stuff a handgun down my pants?

This provision deals with activities that are done IN PLAIN VIEW (ie. on the web). It has nothing to do with "Big Brother".

If this ruling stands, you could visit a website and see discussions on how this group was going to bomb your kids' school, and law enforcement won't even be able to obtain the names of the participants.

[SimeyTheLimey]

I think you guys are celebrating prematurely. I just pulled up the opinion, and while I didn't read more than a couple of the 122 pages I did look at the remedy ordered. The Southern District of New York applied an injunction against enforcement of one portion of the Act. Then it stayed enforcement of the injunction for 90 days pending appeal.

The Second Circuit could overturn the So. District of N.Y., or it could affirm. It it affirms, the US could then petition the Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court could take the case, or it could deny cert. Even if the Supreme Court denies cert or takes the case and strikes the provision down, there is nothing to stop Congress from fixing any minor deficiency and relegislating. Then the whole thing would have to start again.

In other words, this issue is a long way from being resolved. All that has happened so far is the ACLU has convinced one judge sitting on the bottom rung of the federal judiciary. Don't be taken in by a press release and the rather glib gloss put on it by Reuters.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Woohoo! Score one for the good guys!

The "good guys" meaning the innocent, who do not deserve this intrusion into their lives, even at the cost of making law enforcement's job a little tougher

200 million internet and phone users in the US, of which only "dozens" of records have been requested.

So, even if the number of requests were 200, the "intrusion" into lives amounts to .0001 % of internet and phone users, or 99.9999% of internet and phone users experienced no "intrusion".

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Woohoo! Score one for the good guys!

The "good guys" meaning the innocent, who do not deserve this intrusion into their lives, even at the cost of making law enforcement's job a little tougher (though by no means impossible, which is why this increased burden is acceptable).

I have to agree, here. Law enforcment agencies should be required to get warrants. I'm sure getting a warrant for a suspected terrorist is only a 1-2 minute phone call to the local circuit court.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
There was still judicial review involved with this provision.

LOL! The whole "Patriot" Act was rammed through Congress in very short order, after 9/11, with only a few brave people in Congress actually having the guts to vote against what was obviously an emotional response to a problem which requires logic to solve.

[itai195]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
If this ruling stands, you could visit a website and see discussions on how this group was going to bomb your kids' school, and law enforcement won't even be able to obtain the names of the participants.

That's not true, they can always pursue traditional means. The debate here is over the fact that the USA Patriot Act requires secrecy, disallows judicial review, and bars disclosure.

[chris v]

1. They attack us because they hate our freedoms.

2. No freedoms=no attacks.

Done. America safer.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by chris v:
1. They attack us because they hate our freedoms.

2. No freedoms=no attacks.

Done. America safer.

Now you're just being ridiculous. Most of the Patriot Act, IMO, is a good idea. This was simply one part of it that I didn't agree with.

As for the whole of it. A temporary measure (and the PA is temporary), that 99.99% of Americans wouldn't even notice, is hardly "no freedoms". Quit blowing things out of proportion. Overall, it's worked and is working.

If a Democrat had drafted the damned thing (and some of them did help), you guys would be singing their praises.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
...If a Democrat had drafted the damned thing (and some of them did help), you guys would be singing their praises.

[itai195]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
If a Democrat had drafted the damned thing (and some of them did help), you guys would be singing their praises.

I don't think this is really a partisan issue, as evidenced by the way folks of all political stripes have posted in this thread in support of the decision.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by itai195:
I don't think this is really a partisan issue, as evidenced by the way folks of all political stripes have posted in this thread in support of the decision.

This decision, yes, but not the PA as a whole.

[chris v]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Now you're just being ridiculous. Most of the Patriot Act, IMO, is a good idea. This was simply one part of it that I didn't agree with.

As for the whole of it. A temporary measure (and the PA is temporary), that 99.99% of Americans wouldn't even notice, is hardly "no freedoms". Quit blowing things out of proportion. Overall, it's worked and is working.

If a Democrat had drafted the damned thing (and some of them did help), you guys would be singing their praises.

Don't lump me in with "those guys." I haven't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1988.

From what I understand, the whole idea behind the constitutional system was to guarantee that no majority stepped on the rights of even 0.01% of innocent civilians. But, "In light of the events of 9/11..."

*chug!*

oops, wrong thread. Can this one be about drinking, too?

[finboy]

Originally posted by smacintush:
It's yet another example that our system of checks and balances works.

Yep, and all the hype about Evil Ashcroft and his minions is shown to be just that.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by finboy:
Yep, and all the hype about Evil Ashcroft and his minions is shown to be just that.

Just because he got one of his toes stepped on? This is going to be appealed, and he may yet "win," although if he does, we'll all lose.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by itai195:
That's not true, they can always pursue traditional means. The debate here is over the fact that the USA Patriot Act requires secrecy, disallows judicial review, and bars disclosure.

Traditional means do diddley squat in these situations. What good is a subpeona or warrant if it has to be "announced" to the thug(s) in question?

"Listen, Mr. Bomber, we are now going to obtain your name and begin looking into you" won't do a whole lot of good.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by KarlG:
The whole "Patriot" Act was rammed through Congress in very short order, after 9/11, with only a few brave people in Congress actually having the guts to vote against what was obviously an emotional response to a problem which requires logic to solve.

When you wrote to your congressmen voicing your disapproval, what was their reply?

[spacefreak]

dp

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Just because he got one of his toes stepped on? This is going to be appealed, and he may yet "win," although if he does, we'll all lose.

How do you lose? Unless you are openly planning terror activites on the web, you and the other 99.9999% of the population should have nothing to fear.

Do you bitch about cameras in stores and supermarkets that watch your every move? Do you bitch at patrolling police officers who walk city streets?

[itai195]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
"Listen, Mr. Bomber, we are now going to obtain your name and begin looking into you" won't do a whole lot of good.

Why not?

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
When you wrote to your congressmen voicing your disapproval, what was their reply?

I didn't get one. I write my representatives regularly. Most of the time I get a reply.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Stop the presses! The legal eagles over at Volokh.com are pointing out that the provision struck down isn't even from the Patriot Act. It is actually from an Act that Senator Leahey (D-Vt) wrote in 1986.

As I noted in my post below, a recent decision of the Southern District of New York struck down part of a 1986 law known as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. How does the press report the decision? No mention of the 1986 law, of course. Instead, the press is reporting that the court struck down a major part of the Patriot Act, in a blow to the Bush Administration's overzealous response to terrorism. As I trace the history of the statute, this is quite inaccurate: the basic law was implemented in 1986, almost 20 years ago. To be fair, the Patriot Act did amend some language in this section; just not in a relevant way. As best I can tell, the court's decision does not rely on or even address anything in the Patriot Act. (See page 14-22 of the Court's opinion for the details of the statute's history.)

They blame the media for this misinfomation, but really, the blame probably goes back to the ACLU. If you look at their Press release, it is clear that is where the press is getting its (mis)information. As critical as I am of the media, legislative history of complex statutes is difficult. The law professors can do it easily, but a layman can't. But the ACLU really should be a little less dishonest about their case.

[bamburg dunes]

Rushdie has come out and spoken against certain parts of the Act too, particularly the one in which our reading habits can be monitored.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...lm/3703050.stm

In any case, I'm sure the FBI or any Governmental body could easily by-pass the law if they so desired. The problem would be one if a case went to trial and evidence that was gathered had been obtained by illegal means. All this Act does, in some way, is to legalise such behaviour.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Just great. Now people can buy bombmaking materials and kits without fear of detection, and murderous cells can plot, plan, and communicate anonymously.

Dude.. if you really hate the constitution, and the rights it affords that much: why don't you just leave the US?

Honest question. If you hate the constitution, why live here?

A country like North Korea is your ideal. It's got a strict government, censorship, and already imposes the Patriot Act. Heck that's where the US actually got the idea. It's modeled after NK laws to prevent political uprising.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
You don't know what you're talking about.

This is about the FBI being able to get a name from an ISP of an account holder (ex. IP address) who is engaged in possible terror-related activities.

With this ruling, you and others can use or host a phpBB forum and openly plan an attack, and the FBI cannot get any of the participants name from ISPs, even with the FBI "secret" subpeonas.

Imagine me and other conservatives here on this forum and planning how we are going to find and kill each liberal poster on MacNN. Sure, we'd get banned, but we'd just set-up our own forum and discuss your identities and addresses, debate which methods of torture we would use before killing you and your families, set the dates, times, and travel plans, etc.... and there is not a thing you or the FBI could do to get our names.

That, my fellow loungers, is bullsh-t.

What the hell are you going on about? These matters could still be brought before a judge to gain access. This is just saying that the FBI can't get it 'cause they want to. They have to get the proper authorization first. If it's a valid concern, they can get the information you are talking about.

Before this, the FBI could basically demand all pieces of information from every server in the U.S. and use that info however they wish. That is a huge invasion of privacy.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Xeo:
Before this, the FBI could basically demand all pieces of information from every server in the U.S. and use that info however they wish. That is a huge invasion of privacy.

Huge invasion of privacy? "Dozens" of records requested out of over 200,000,000 internet and phone users (0.0001%) is a "huge" invasion of privacy?

Get real.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Dude.. if you really hate the constitution, and the rights it affords that much: why don't you just leave the US?

Honest question. If you hate the constitution, why live here?

A country like North Korea is your ideal. It's got a strict government, censorship, and already imposes the Patriot Act. Heck that's where the US actually got the idea. It's modeled after NK laws to prevent political uprising.

Pulling more crap out of your ass, I see.

I've laid out my chief concerns regarding this overturned provision. Nowhere have I stated that I hate the Constitution. And I highly doubt that the overwhelming majority of Congress who passed the act in the first place hate the Constitution, either.

Grow up.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Huge invasion of privacy? "Dozens" of records requested out of over 200,000,000 internet and phone users (0.0001%) is a "huge" invasion of privacy?

Get real.

Ok, first my point and then a legitimate question.

Point: If the FBI has unlimited access to EVERY server on the internet regardless for reason, it is a huge invasion of privacy. You're basically telling me, oh, just trust that they will only use the power for good. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Question: Where did your statistics come from?