ACLU Sues FBI Over ISP Records

An anonymous reader writes "One of the provisions of the infamous USA PATRIOT Act is the ability for the government to force companies that hold personal information, specifically in this case, ISPs, to turn over their records without a court order. MSNBC is reporting about a lawsuit filed by the ACLU in secret because of another provision in PATRIOT that prevents public disclosure of these matters. The gag order was dropped when the Justice Department agreed to not take any action against the ACLU."

And now..

[Ckwop]

USA == Land of the not so free.

Re:And now..

[the_mad_poster]

I keep hoping it's temporary. Congress ran a bill through on fear and faux patriotism, and now we, the people, are paying for it. You have to expect that every now and then a huge, lumbering, monolothic entity like the U.S. government is going to fuck things up. That's why people challenge them.

It's not time to panic yet. When we can't challenege them anymore (and the gag was a BIG step in that direction) or court cases like this start being lost, then we panic.

Re:And now..

[Skjellifetti]

It is likely temporary. The US has seen several of these kinds of idiocies enacted at various times. They last a few years and then are repealed or allowed to expire. That's the good news. The bad part is that each time they are enacted, people with a legitimate grievences and right to dissent are forced to pay a price they should not have had to.

• The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 [bartleby.com]
• Lincoln and Habeas Corpus 1861-1865 [msn.com]
• Espionage and Sedition Acts of 1917 [pbs.org]

Re:And now..

[name773]

maybe the FSF should relocate its headquarters

What does this mean for Slashdot?

[writertype]

So would Slashdot turn over identifying information to the FBI et al if it was requested? What's the site's position on this?

Re:What does this mean for Slashdot?

[Raindance]

It wouldn't be a question of whether Slashdot would decide to turn over requested information to the FBI or not.

They would. I can't imagine they'd feel good about it, but anyone would in that position.

However, the *real* question is, what data could they turn over, if requested- i.e. what do they collect, and what pre-emptive measures do they take against this FBI action (for instance, they could only keep certain data for 24 hours before deleting it... or 6 hours. Or whatever).

RD

Re:Surveillance vs. Records Retention

[CountBrass]

What utter, utter rubbish.

The Government has no, zero, nada right to conduct surveillance of me! Who the fuck do they think they are?

The problem is that people seem to be forgetting that Governments are there to serve the people- not the other way around.

It's Governments that need to be put under surveillance- NOT the public. The problem is that acts like Patriot turn that completely around- and then you get people like the parent poster *accepting* the basic premise of such legislation! Now *THAT'S* scarey.

Re:Surveillance vs. Records Retention

[persaud]

I won't defend the government or anyone's right to conduct surveillance of anyone, including themselves. However, surveillance (i.e. observation) is an inevitable sensory by-product of mobility. Unless you are stationary beneath a big rock in a dark cave, you are making sensory observations and are the subject of sensory observation.

Given that observations will occur and given that crimes will occur, historical observations (even if limited only to fading human memory) will become evidence in the prosec

Re:Surveillance vs. Records Retention

[Snoopy77]

Theoritically the government only has the rights that the people allow it to. And to a certain extent this is the case here. The PATRIOT Act (it is actually an acronym) gives the government the power to conduct surveillance. Was there a huge uproar when the Act was introduced? Did letters and emails flood Congress opposing the Act? Were representations made to those ellected to represent you?

From a human rights and constitutional point of view certain parts of the Act can and should be challenged, but it seems so far that this has not been pursued vigorously.

Re:Surveillance vs. Records Retention

[AEton]

Was there a huge uproar when the Act was introduced?

Well, yes and no. 26 October 2001 was the day President Bush signed the PATRIOT Act into law, and as the poster above has mentioned it followed the anthrax scare that began around 4 October 2001 (not to mention the 11 September World Trade Center attacks), used by Bush to political advantage in his signatory speech:

The changes, effective today, will help counter a threat like no other our nation has ever faced. We've seen the enemy, and the murder of thousands of innocent, unsuspecting people. They recognize no barrier of morality. They have no conscience. The terrorists cannot be reasoned with. Witness the recent anthrax attacks through our Postal Service.

Our country is grateful for the courage the Postal Service has shown during these difficult times. We mourn the loss of the lives of Thomas Morris and Joseph Curseen; postal workers who died in the line of duty. And our prayers go to their loved ones.

I want to assure postal workers that our government is testing more than 200 postal facilities along the entire Eastern corridor that may have been impacted. And we will move quickly to treat and protect workers where positive exposures are found.

But one thing is for certain: These terrorists must be pursued, they must be defeated, and they must be brought to justice. (Applause.) And that is the purpose of this legislation. Since the 11th of September, the men and women of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been relentless in their response to new and sudden challenges.

We have seen the horrors terrorists can inflict.

Most disturbing is that most supporters of the PATRIOT Act accept the possibility that it might infringe (it does [aclu.org]) on citizens' liberties with the reasoning that the government will only go after terrorists who don't deserve rights anyway; that FBI agents will only issue writs - erm, letters - of "national security" (one-page forms that require a court clerk to okay a warrant to search someone's home or workplace and that issue a gag order so that no one can tell the target they've been searched) against terrorists; that the government is never wrong; and that, after all, even if they do monitor people's Internet traffic, they'll only do it to the real threats (which in this case might mean "people conversing in Arabic on the Internet").

The reason there's little opposition from some quarters is that most people think the Act doesn't affect them much; others' civil liberties simply don't come into consideration, particularly when those others constitute a significant minority of the population (say, Arab-Americans, hundreds of whom under provisions of the PATRIOT Act have been detained without access to legal counsel or their families or the outside world for up to a year and released with no remuneration except a "sorry about that" letter from the State Department; and nobody-knows-how-many more of whom remain incarcerated indefinitely). Our legislative system is one where fifty-one percent can pass a bill. (Well, it might possibly require more than that in the Senate because of filibusters and cloture votes and the possibility of Presidential veto - but we definitely operate on a majority rather than a unanimity system for reasons of expediency.) The effect is that the inalienable rights of a minority can be, well, alienated by even a well-intentioned majority only seeking to preserve its own interests.

The fact that you haven't seen much public outcry about the PATRIOT Act (notwithstanding the hundreds of villages and townships that have passed resolutions at least symbolically refusing to cooperate with its provisions, and ignoring the national tour that John Ashcroft had to make - abandoning his duties as Attorney General for a PR campaign - to try to boost the Act) means that many people simply don't care bec

Re:Surveillance vs. Records Retention

[Jim Starx]

The analogy does not hold. A parents job often includes protecting a child from himself (drugs, peer pressure, etc). The government is NOT supposed to protect someone from themselves. Governments serve the people, parents don't "serve" their children, at least not in the same respects. The government will need to invade people privacy from time to time, thats what search warrents and the like are for. But they shouldn't be allowed to do it in secret. And there should be definit limits to that power. You have to draw the line somewhere. The patriot act goes well past where I would draw it, indeed where I think most americans would draw it.

Re:What does this mean for Slashdot?

[nacturation]

Slashdot's official position, now uncensored by the government, is:

We at [REDACTED] the [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] due to [REDACTED]. [REDACTED]. Furthermore, [REDACTED].

Thank you,

[REDACTED]

What country is this?

[sg3000]

> The American Civil Liberties Union is challenging the FBI's use
> of expanded powers to compel Internet service providers to
> turn over information about their customers or subscribers.

> People who receive the letters are prohibited by law from
> disclosing to anyone that they did so. Because of this legal
> gag order, the ACLU was forced to reach an agreement with
> the Justice Department before a heavily edited version of the
> lawsuit could be unsealed.

"PATRIOT Act"? Damn you, Orwell and your Newspeak!

So the ACLU was suing to protect Americans' privacy from the government prying into ISP customer data. But no one knew about it, since there's another law that prevents the ACLU from telling the public. So they're basically fighting for our freedoms in secret?

It reminds me of that light from the classic show, "The Prisoner" [imdb.com]: "Why don't you just lock us all up and be done with it?"

I call upon the self-proclaimed conservatives who never tire of claiming they're against "big government". Stop for a minute punctuating every sentence with "terrorism," and "support the troops; we're at war!" like some sort of right-wing Speak and Spell. Remember this on election day: Bush believes the PATRIOT Act should be renewed and celebrated [msn.com]. There's your big government, pal.

Sheesh. Someone get me a valium.

Re:What country is this?

[TedTschopp]

As with most real conservatives, we disagree with the sitting president.

What a horrible choice is left to us come November.

Ted

You may find the following website useful

[Ryvar]

Here [johnkerryi...anyway.com].

--Ryv

Re:You might find the following excerpt helpufl

[sabNetwork]

Gore would have known about the attacks months beforehand, as published in the PDB, and taken action, instead of allowing the attacks to occur to create a reason to invade Iraq.
--

Re:You might find the following excerpt helpful

[bonkedproducer]

Listen! I am so sick and tired of this NO WMD shit - did you spend months of your lives in Saudi Arabia enforcing No Fly Zones under Clinton? NO!

Did you watch as daily the number of missiles fired at US and UK pilots by the Iraqi's increased to roughly 40 or 50 shots a day - the only thing keeping them from being successful shootdowns being the skill of the pilots, and effective countermeasures (including ones you can't read about at JANE's yet)? NO!

Did you bust your ass filling chaff and flare containers

Re:You may find the following website useful

[tordia]

Russ is going to have himself a heck of a fight just to get reelected to the senate this year, though I'll for sure be doing my part to make sure that's not the case. Silly Republican candidates trying to convince us progressive Wisconsinites that Feingold is out of touch with the common man.

I've twice voted for Nader, but Feingold is one of the few democrats that I'd have no qualms about voting for in a presidential election.

While Russ stands for the common man, it's too easy for the other side to portray him as the worst four letter word in politics... liberal.

I can't tell you how many times I had hoped for a ticket made up of Feingold and Wellstone.

sigh...

This country needs more Feingolds

[DunbarTheInept]

I'm a 'third party' swing voter (meaning I haven't found a party I can entirely agree with enough to become a card-carrying member - No, don't go posting a link to the Libertarians as if I've never heard of them. I have, and I don't agree with them enough to support them, although they do resonate with me on some issues and I have voted for their candidate on several occasions.)

Anyway, the point is that I often ignore the Republican vs Democrat issues, knowing full well that I'm voting for neither one, and that on the issues that matter most to me, they aren't that different from each other.

But I've been a major fan of Feingold ever since the Communications Decency Act (part 1). He voted that down (even though it was just a rider on a larger telecom bill), for a number of good reasons he cited in his statement about his vote. Most importantly he said it was wrong to enact laws that define stricter standards of free speech for new mediums as opposed to existing ones. Why is it that things a newspaper can get away with in print should be disallowed for an individual to say online? The fact that the new medium of the internet is quicker, more open, and turns everyone into a publisher, shouldn't be a reason to get stricter on it - just the opposite, really." Feingold was the ONLY SENATOR to oppose the bill. The ONLY ONE. The vote was 98 in favor, 1 abstain, and 1 against. Feingold was that single voice against it (and the supreme court ruling that declared it unconstitutional afterward vindicates his stance.)

That took courage. That took guts. I became a big fan of his on that day and started paying more attention to his voting record. I don't agree with every vote, but the ones that are really important, on issues where congress was trying to move the country to a more totalitarian format, Good Ole Russ was there as the (usually) lone dissenter - saying that no issue is more important than the freedoms of our citizens down the road, that selling away our future rights to take care of an temporary problem is not good policy, even when that temporary problem is something as big and momentous as a major terrorist act killing thousands.

He was also the lone dissenter in the Patriot Act. Again, a very brave thing to do given that opponents can use that to paint him as a traitor, and they probably will try that tactic.

I've sent him a letter (on dead trees, since that tends to get more notice), stating that as long as he keeps it up with this kind of stance against selling out freedom to gain temporary security, that he will continue to have my vote (Yes, I live in Wisconsin so I can do that). The letter also stated that I don't agree with him on lots of his other votes, and that I am not a Democrat, but that no issue is more important today than this one, and so the fact that he's the only one in office with the guts to stand up to these bills means he has won me as an ardent supporter. (And I closed with the famous Ben Franklin quote about giving up freedom for safety and deserving neither.)

I was pleasantly surprised to get a snail-mail reply to this letter, and some of the things in the text of the reply make it clear that it was not just a form letter, as it made explicit references to the fact that I said I am not a member of his party but support him anyway. It was not written by him, but by a staffer (and it was honest enough to say so explicitly), but the gist of it was that the senator had received a lot of similar letters in response to his patriot act vote, too many to answer them all in person, but that the senator's standard response to all such letters was to let people know that he does plan to continue this trend of voting, no matter the consequences.

Re:What country is this?

[MooseByte]

"As with most real conservatives, we disagree with the sitting president. What a horrible choice is left to us come November."

As an independent, I'll make a deal with you real conservatives (since I'm a fiscal conservative myself) - if you help us remove Bush/Cheney/Rove this November, I'll in turn vote for whatever *intelligent* *clear-thinking* *moderate* Republican candidate you field in 2008. Better yet, dump the fundamentalist extreme right (the American Taliban) from your party and I'll KEEP voting for you.

I'm dead serious. This admistration is a train wreck in every regard. Even current Republicans must realize the lasting damage that is being done to your own party, not to mention our standing in the world.

A GOP government that noses its way into your private lives, delivers Big Brother to our doorsteps? Gives us insanely huge spending bills and deficits? Stumbles into a needless war? Lies, lies and lies again, baldface lies on critical issues?

If you voted against Clinton, how can you NOT vote against Bush? Clinton got a blowjob. Under Bush WE'RE all taking it in the ass. (Now there's a clever entendre....)

Dude, I want my country back.

Re:What country is this?

[XryanX]

"Clinton got a blowjob. Under Bush WE'RE all taking it in the ass."

This reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw a few months back: "Clinton screwed an intern, Bush screwed the whole country."

Re:What country is this?

[2nd Post!]

What kind of conservative are you? If you're for small government and for personal liberties... are you a libertarian?

Vote your conscience then. Vote for what is right. If everyone did that, don't you think the world would be a little better?

Re:What country is this?

[AJWM]

John Kerry is "Bush Lite". Conservatives shouldn't have any trouble voting for him.

So sayeth the official party line.

The truth is that Kerry's voting record in the Senate is even further left than Ted Kennedy's. Conservatives may not like Bush, but they'd definitely not like Kerry. Conservatives screwed themselves in '92 by voting against Bush the Elder (pissed at him for reneging on his "no new taxes" pledge) and letting Perot split the vote, with Clinton winning the election (with less than half the vote).

Re:What country is this?

[the_mad_poster]

I think Bush has managed to invent a whole new direction to move in. The man has pissed away an obscene surplus projection, put rocket boosters on the deficit, instituted a recovery plan that would make a first year economist trainee weep, started two wars, failed to justify one of them, shoved a law that puts Orwell's work to shame through a pants-pissing Congress, attempted to revitalize the career of the man who defined "creepy Big Brother [fcw.com]" with a program that can only be described as "conceived from the bowels of hell", can't do anything without Ashcroft, Cheney, or Rice holding his dick to guide him...

All this and he managed to stonewall an investigation into one of the biggest intelligence disasters in history, roll back a dozen years of progress on diplomacy, environmental issues, and civil rights, AND he took more vacation time his first year in office than any healthy president in history.

Yes... I think Bush has redefined the political spectrum.... in a very bad way. I have never cared about politics before, but I am now a registered voter and I've looked deeper into the issues in the last few months than I had in all my previous years on this planet combined. Way to go Georgey....

Re:What country is this?

[nacturation]

Go go, George Bush: "President Bush has been pushing Congress to renew all of the Patriot Act before it expires next year, arguing that it is one of law enforcement's best tools in preventing another catastrophic terrorist attack."

Maybe I haven't been following too closely, but wasn't all the information already there before 9/11? Come to think of it, law enforcement's best tool to prevent crime is to lock everybody in their homes... oh, wait... where's the dele

Re:What country is this?

[FooGoo]

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that it's law enforments job to prevent crime. They are first responders which means your already dead by the time they get there.

Re:What country is this?

[drew]

while i'm no big fan of george bush, most people seem to have forgotten that the patriot act wass passed overwhelmingly in an evenly divided house and all but unanimously (1 dissenting vote) in an evenly divided senate. so dubya is hardly the cause of our problems (at least wrt patriot). bill clinton has spoken very favorably of patriot also, and iirc tried to pass something similar after the oklahoma city bombings. apparently there wasn't quite enough public outrage after that one to push it through....

Re:What country is this?

[whovian]

it is one of law enforcement's best tools in preventing another catastrophic terrorist attack.

I call bull$hit. It's a logical fallacy they are touting there. Just because there hasn't been an attack doesn't mean there won't be one. Not needing a court order to investigate crimes is yet another way for "the law" to bypass the law.

If my vote is effectively futile, here's hoping someone on the inside will help turn things around.

Re:What country is this?

[Erwos]

"Maybe I haven't been following too closely, but wasn't all the information already there before 9/11?"

Yes, but the "problem" is that the FBI and the CIA are not allowed _by law_ to cross-ref their information, since the CIA cannot operate inside US borders. Ditto for the NSA.

So, yes, we had all the right information in collective knowledge, but it wasn't being shared to put together the "ack, 9/11 tomorrow!" warning. Whether that's good or bad is up to your particular opinion, I suppose. But it's rather

Re:What country is this?

[kevlar]

Woah there, Tiger. You may believe that the Patriot Act is G.W's tyrrany and that Conservatives are "evil", but I assure you, there are very few people in Congress right now who are opposed to it, regardless of party affiliation.

I personally am opposed and I am very conservative. I also do not believe that Bush is the greatest President either, nor Reagan, etc, but that won't stop me from voting for him in November. Why? Because John Kerry firghtens the hell out of me on so many different levels, and I

Re:What country is this?

[MooseByte]

"Taking on Saddam Hussein is not an easy thing to do. In fact, attacking Saddam has already knocked one President out of office and it may very well knock another out. The Bush Administration was fully aware of this when they made the decision to invade."

Bullshit.

First of all, Bush Sr. was immensely popular after the Gulf War. It was his utter failure on domestic policies afterward that canned him. (I served in 'Shield/'Storm and felt honored to do so.)

The current Bush administration believed their own blowback when they made the decision to invade. I *GUARANTEE* Dubya is sitting back with a blank stare at times, muttering about how Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and others had promised him Iraqi greeting of flowers and chocolates, guaranteed reelection, a spot in history as the Great Architect of Middle East Democracy. (*gag*)

Why else would his idiot handlers have paraded him around in front of their "Mission Accomplished" banner after his carrier landing? Even his own staff were convinced it was easy and over. And I can guarantee that photo op will be haunting him in the months ahead.

Too bad reality refused to comply with their comic book pipe dreams.

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." - George W. Bush, September 2001

Re:What country is this?

[unsinged int]

I am convinced that if Congress re-ratified the Patriot Act, Kerry would _NOT_ veto it.

Bush is asking for it to be made permanent, hence if Congress passes it, he will sign it.

Kerry has said publicly that he's uncomfortable with at least some portions of the act, hence he might sign it.

Therefore, if you oppose the act (as I do), logically you should vote for Kerry. Of course you may have other issues that trump your concern for the act, and you're entitled to those opinions, but please don't base your decision to vote for Bush on assuming Kerry would sign the act.

Re:What country is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my good lord.

OK: a) Iraq had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with 9/11 or Al Qaeda.

Osama Bin Ladin, and the vast majority of the hijackers were ***Saudis***. NOT ONE was Iraqi.

As for WMD's, we knew damn well he had no nukes, because we would have remembered that when we SOLD HIM all his weapons.

b) Saddam Hussein was helped into power by the same crew that just bombed him out. This is not conspiracy theory; its history.

When Hussein gassed the Kurds in his country, we *vetoed* a UN motion to censure him, and *increased* our military support to him.

c) Al Qaeda's biggest claim against is, is that we hate and despise all Arabs and will do anything to control their oil.

So, what do we do? We commit an unprovoked invasion on an Arabic country that has no WMD's and no link to Al Qaeda.

In the process, we kill about 10,000 Iraqis.

So in the Arab mind, we have not only proven Al Qaeda right; but, figuring each one has at least one relative, we have just created at least 10,000 more potential recruits for Al Qaeda.

d) It's convenient for us to think, that Islamic countries hate us because they're irrational.

But the uncomfortable historical fact, is that we have been pushing them around, selecting their leaders, and invading them when they try to run their own affairs, since oil was found in the Middle East.

Saudi, Syria, and Jordan all undemocratically oppress and even murder their people. But they have our full support. Turkey has killed more Kurds than Hussein, but don't expect us to even slow our military aid to them.

Until we stop lying to ourselves, and realize why people hate us, we will continually be surprised.

Is this..

[patrick.whitlock]

going to limit the ability of the RIAA to get the names of people downloading misic. i mean if the gov't can't do it, then why should the riaa be able to?

Re:Is this..

[BdosError]

This stops them from getting the information without due process. Didn't this already happen to the RIAA? (I think, maybe it was in Canada) I don't think they can get the information without actually filing a lawsuit now.

Re:Is this..

[bee-yotch]

It was the CRIA and they were actually denied getting the information from the ISP's at all because the Judge failed to see how putting MP3's in a shared folder on your computer differs from that of having a photo copier in a library surrounded by copyrighted material.

This case doesn't really have anything to do with what happened in Canada though, because Canada doesn't have a PATRIOT act.

Misunderstood

[ParadoxicalPostulate]

I believe that you misunderstand the situation.

The ACLU is not challenging the FBI's ability to request ISP customer data from suspected criminals or other shady figures.

What it is challenging is the fact that under the PATRIOT Act of 2001, the FBI can now do this "without a judge's approval."

"The ACLU lawsuit contends that the USA Patriot Act...expanded the FBI's power to use national security letters by deleting parts of an earlier law requiring that there be some suspicion that the subject of the probe was linked to spying or terrorism."

Thus, in the past the FBI had to go to a court and get approval before they received authorization to access all this data. Now, however, they don't need to show any reasonable suspicion. That's what the ACLU is arguing.

USA PATRIOT, not USA Patriot

[syntap]

Kudos to /. for recognizing that PATRIOT is an acronym... you rarely see it properly noted as such.

Providing
Appropriate
Tools
Required to
Intercept and
Obstruct
Terrorism

or the "real" meaning...

Providing
Americans with
The
Real
Incentive to
Overlook
Tyranny

No big Change

[Lehk228]

force companies that hold personal information, specifically in this case, ISPs, to turn over their records without a court order.

As opposed to the warerant-mill judges the FBI already have who give 'em out like candy, this just made it official, the FBI has been using the constitution for toilet paper for decades

These are the true defenders of our freedoms.

[Alexis Brooke]

Thank God for the American Civil Liberties Union. For everyone who hasn't done so yet, I recommend visiting the ACLU website [aclu.org] as well as the Electronic Frontier Foundation [eff.org] and donating, even if it's just a small amount. Help keep America free.

thank you ACLU

[SoupGuru]

Maybe you don't agree with a lot of their suits or think they waste resources and time on foolish pursuits, but this time they hit the nail on the head. Hopefully we'll open up the little breach in the PATRIOT dam that'll grow big enough to topple it.

And don't forget:
"President Bush has been pushing Congress to renew all of the Patriot Act before it expires next year..."

Vote.

Re:thank you ACLU

[painandgreed]

And don't forget: "President Bush has been pushing Congress to renew all of the Patriot Act before it expires next year..."

Vote.

...and do what? Vote out a guy that is in favor of it and vote in the guy who made it law? He voted for it. Kerry is not against the Patriot act. His only public grief with it is that Bush's appointee is utilizing it instead of his appointee.

Head over to JohnKerry.com if you don't beleive me:

FACT: You can sum up the problems with the Patriot Act in two words: John Ashcrof

Proper rebuttals to the DoJ

[TWX]

Amendment IV

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.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


So far, We've seen media-described breaches of all of these in the DoJ, FBI, and Military holdings in the military base in Cuba.

Why do we still have this president again?

Re:Proper rebuttals to the DoJ

[Nevo]

Um, the president didn't pass the PATRIOT act. The congress did.

(Not to say that your question is totally without merit, but let's not forget who does what here.)

Re:Proper rebuttals to the DoJ

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

True but misleading.

Who proposed the bill? Who wrote it? Who told Congress that they had to pass it right away without taking time to read it?

Re:Proper rebuttals to the DoJ

[MoneyT]

PATRIOT also passed with only what 3 no votes total? If he had vetoed it, it would have gone through anyway.

Re:Proper rebuttals to the DoJ

[Hatta]

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer...

Funny how it doesn't say "No citizen"

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...

Again, it's odd how it says "all criminal prosecutions" and not "criminal prosecutions of citizens"

You might have a point about amendment 4, depending on how you define "the people" The point is, rights are universal. They are NOT granted by the constitution. And so they apply to everyone, just for being human.

Re:Proper rebuttals to the DoJ

[Paul Jakma]

The reasoning they're employing is that those folks are POW's rather than criminals. One could argue all day about fair trials, and they'd only say "we have no intention of even charging them with a crime; we're holding them as POWs till the war is over". Crappy, but technically valid.

No, because POWs have rights as prescribed by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Which rights those at Guantanemo are not afforded (eg free association, same standard of barracks as is norma

Re:Proper rebuttals to the DoJ

[Danse]

One could argue all day about fair trials, and they'd only say "we have no intention of even charging them with a crime; we're holding them as POWs till the war is over".

Yeah, but who exactly have we declared war on? Terrorism? We've declared war on a tactic? How the hell will such a war ever have an end? Seems pretty much like the War on Drugs to me. It will go on forever. If there is no declaration of war and no specific enemy, then how can these people be POWs? How can the administration be jus

Re:Proper rebuttals to the DoJ

[Jim Starx]

except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger (emphasis mine)

"In times of war" only applies to the military, not civilians.

Card-carrying member?

[Lurkingrue]

And about time this is happening, too.

I'm always amazed at Americans who consider being a "card-carrying member" of the ACLU a bad thing.

Sure, you may not agree with some of the individuals they protect, but it is comforting to know that there is an organization that will protect the rights of anyone, irrespective of personal opinions/feelings/politics.

The USA is supposed to be a country based on the Constitution, and was founded with the belief that every individual has natural rights that need to be protected -- against the government, against the majority, against those in power. These ACLU folks are every bit as patriotic as the folks in the armed forces doing their duty overseas that the current presidential administration loves to trumpet about. To see true patriots go up against the so-called "PATRIOT Act" warms my heart.

Re:Card-carrying member?

[thefirelane]

The problem is that the ACLU selectively defends the constitution. They don't defend the rights of gun owners for one.

This means they are really no different than anyone else. Everyone agrees they like the constitution, they just can't agree on which parts are important to protect and which aren't.

If the ACLU would say, we want to protect everything, they would get a lot more respect from me. I support a lot of what they do now, but I think that point needs to be addressed

Re:Card-carrying member?

[Lurkingrue]

See my post below -- I agree that the way that the 2nd amendment is ignored or distorted is unconscionable. In spite of this, I'll gladly support a group that defends 95% of my enumerated rights, and work on the other 5% through different channels and organizations.

Hmm, it's a little bit scary.

[wookyhoo]

Does anyone else find the fact that they can't even share the details of the lawsuit with us incredibly scary?

Whether the rest of the PATRIOT act remains or not, we should at least have the right and opportunity to free and open public debate about it.

Hide all the details when you're looking for information, sure, but don't hide the details and criticisms of the act. That is exactly the sort of thing that we all have a right to know.

Re:Hmm, it's a little bit scary.

[Flexagon]

Absent the pre-PATRIOT safeguards, yes.

Further, this quote from the referenced article:

An FBI guidance document to its field offices acknowledges that the Patriot Act "greatly broadened" FBI authority to use these letters in relevant investigations. But the document says that FBI supervisors must exercise care in their use, particularly because that part of the Patriot Act is set to expire in 2005 unless renewed by Congress.

tells me that the supervisors are being told to be nice particularly to achieve

good

[Vlion]

I think that this is a good move.
It is unfortunate that the P.A. even was passed.

I spent some time studying the US constitution this semester, and although I havn't looked at the P.A., I suspect that it breaches the writ of habeus corpus in the US constitution.(Its not even in an amendment- its in the original document)

Writ of Habeus Coprpus: A summons to a gaoler demanding that they present themselves and their prisoner to the judge, so that the gaoler can give an account of why the prisoner is being held.

Detainees

[ParadoxicalPostulate]

Well, I know for a fact that there were several thousand detainees in the Tri-State area about a year ago who were being held for months without even being charged. I think that qualifies as a violation of habeas corpus.

Then there was an additional throng who had been ordered deported two or three months previously, but who were still being held.

I agree with MOST of that. Data on disagreement:

[Ungrounded Lightning]

As long as we are the freest nation in the world (with shit like the PA being passed that won't be too long) we will also be the most violent, the most dangerous, and the most open to attack by individual nuts.

Actually we AREN'T the most violent, most dangerous. Risk of death from violent crime among every major racial/ethnic group in the US is typically lower than it is for the same ethnic group in their country of origin. Lower for whites of English descent than in England, for blacks of African desce

The Justice Department has already ...

[burgburgburg]

used the Patriot Act in a number of non-terrorist cases. That the FBI would use these NSLs against anyone/everyone they want to comes as a surprise only to those who haven't been paying any attention at all.

Since the current administration views the Presidency as answerable to no entities, domestic (judiciary, congressional, public) or foreign, they will keep attacking the Constitution as long as they are in power. And they will do this with a free conscience becasue they are incapable of even imagining that anything they do is wrong. After all, God put them in place to do it all.

Re:The Justice Department has already ...

[doormat]

Yes, in fact the "Justice" department encourages the use of the PATRIOT ACT against anyone and anything. The idea is to make it so entrenched in the way they do business, that to repeal it when the terrorist threat goes away (or at any time really) because a very big issue of public safety.

An example of this was the G-Sting operation in Las Vegas, the feds used the PATRIOT ACT against owners of strip clubs.

Re:The Justice Department has already ...

[PatientZero]

I looked this up as I was curious. I, like many here, believe the PATRIOT Act to be a travesty and completely misses the point. Of the many articles covering the story, one ("Berkley opposes use of Patriot Act in case") [lasvegassun.com] tells of a representative that feels the PATRIOT Act shouldn't be used in cases not involving terrorism.

Rep. Shelley Berkley wants answers on why the federal government used laws meant to curb terrorism to pry into financial records tied to alleged political corruption in Southern Nevada.

Another article ("Feds: Patriot [sic] Act not used in probe") [lasvegassun.com] purportedly refutes her allegations. Reading from the top, I am again reminded of why I so very much love the news industry and the DoJ.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Dan Schiess told a U.S. Magistrate that the Patriot Act was not used to collect any of the nearly 120,000 intercepted communications the FBI garnered in the course of an investigation that resulted in the indictments of Clark County Commissioner Mary Kincaid-Chauncey and former commissioners Lance Malone and Dario Herrera.

"I'm 100 percent certain and have no doubt that the Patriot Act was not used for any of the intercepts in this case," Schiess said Monday during a status check hearing on the strip-club indictments.

See? It was all a big misunderstanding that was blown out of proportion by tree huggers and ACLU lovers. Clearly, the DoJ is following both the letter and intent of the PATRIOT Act. I feel much better now.

Continuing with the article...

The FBI has said the U.S. Patriot Act was used to obtain financial information in the political corruption investigation.

To quote Jack Valenti, un-fucking-believable. What part of "the U.S. Patriot Act was used to obtain financial information" leads to the conclusion "Patriot Act not used in probe"? Sure, it wasn't used to intercept communications. I'd also bet it wasn't used to wipe their asses either, but that doesn't mean it wasn't used for other purposes!

Given that the average American with a thirty-second attention span reads the headline and maybe the first one or two paragraphs, they'd be left believing the DoJ's claim that it wasn't used in the probe. Period. Which is not true. No wonder people think all is well and we'd be okay if it weren't for some disgruntled Arabs on the other side of the world.

facism calling...

[calix]

Let's disregard the whole argument "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" routine. Consider for a moment that you haven't done anything wrong, but your ISP's records are requested by the FBI via an NSL. So, there goes your privacy. Maybe you cruised a pr0n site or two, maybe you shared some freely-distributable music. Does the fact that the FBI can investigate you without cause scare you? It should.

From the other side of things, it's nice that the government can just barge right in to grab the information that's needed... but... I wonder; if the FBI can demand such information without reasonable suspicion, and without court order, what's the point? To make it faster? More secret? What is it about obtaining a warrant that takes so long that it warrants (pardon the pun) circumventing judicial approval? From what I understand (and please feel free to enlighten me), as long as there's reasonable suspicion, there should be no roadblocks to obtaining a warrant. So what's the point of this portion of PATRIOT? Looks like more government power to me.

Re:facism calling...

[ParadoxicalPostulate]

You know when I was in middle school they used to always talk about "checks and balances" in the United States government.

The PATRIOT Act is literally bypassing the need for judicial approval in order to get private information about (presumably) law abiding citizens.

So, essentially, its undermining our pretty little system of "checks and balances."

Pop Quiz

[l0ungeb0y]

Name the country that used the following law enforcement tactics

- Authorizes the use "Secret" Search Warrants that may be carried out without the recipients knowledge and prevent the recipient from discussing said warrant and search with anyone including legal council, which do not define the nature of the search in any means.

- Makes it a Federal Offence to discuss any "secret action" taken by law enforcement by any knowledgeable party.

- Where National Security reasons apply allows suspects to be secretely detained only on law enforcements "reasonable" suspicion and to be held indefinitely without any formal charge nor the ability to seek council or contact anyone to infomr them of their detainment.

- Allows for Court proceedings to be held in secret and all records thereof to be sealed from the public.

Select the answer from the Following List

A) Soviet Russia (USSR)
B) Nazi Germany
C) United States of America
D) All of the above

Re:Pop Quiz

[NixterAg]

Name the country that, if you were a citizen of said country and made your comment, would not put you in prison (or just put a bullet through your skull):
A) Soviet Russia (USSR)
B) Nazi Germany
C) United States of America
D) All of the above

If you didn't answer C then you are simply a reactionary fool.

Listen, I'm all for fighting for privacy, security, and equal rights, but can we please keep the knee-jerk paranoid comparisons out of the discourse? It doesn't serve any purpose but to delegitimize you arguments in reasonable minds.

Re:Pop Quiz

[IthnkImParanoid]

but can we please keep the knee-jerk paranoid comparisons out of the discourse?

Ahh, but should we then keep the knee-jerk "USA is still really free" comparisons out of the discourse as well? Grandparent pointed out that we no longer have 4 freedoms that are arguably essential to keeping this country free, but you pointed out we still have one, so we shouldn't be worried at all? Did I understand your argument correctly?

I don't think anyone (including grandparent) believes this country is as oppressive as the USSR or Nazi Germany, but when we are having our essential freedoms limited, perhaps we should do something before our country goes that far....

Re:Pop Quiz

[NixterAg]

I think you totally missed the point. When discussing the erosion of freedoms, it's important that the line items themselves be discussed. Comparing the United States to Russia or Germany is not meant to promote the discourse, it's meant to incite anger or to play to an audience (or to get mod points from others with equally idiotic worldviews). We have to keep things in perspective. Russia and Germany killed millions to keep their leaders in power and to grab more. Here in the USA, when a new President is ELECTED to office, power will change hands with a handshake, as its been done since George Washington passed power to John Adams.

In our world, Russia/Germany and the United States are actually on completely opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to the freedoms its citizens have. The very fact that we can have this discussion without fear of governmental retribution is evidence of that.

Re: missed points all around

[rhizome]

Keep in mind that the governments of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany are no longer in power. The US can't say the same, so for the posters who have been flying off the handle: of course it's not the exact same because the US isn't finished yet! Among other things, the government is trying to drum up support to make the PATRIOT Act *permanent*. Is this a good idea given the history of nationalized secrecy? THIS is the major point of the original poster, for United Statesians to keep their eyes open and realize the histories of the path that the US Government *may* be going down.

And let's not even get into the absurdity of the Bush Administration's cynical attempts to invent exceptions to the Geneva Convention, since this thread is already in severe danger of going Bozon-nuclear.

While the USSR and Germany were leftist movements and the US is rightist, the government's promises are the same: that the citizens will be safer and better off if they let the government do what they want. Secrecy only benefits those with the secrets.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

History repeats...and repeats...

[Anonymous Coward]

1933:
Reichstag burned
Attack blamed on communists.
Enabling Act is imposed giving special powers to Hitler.

2001:
Twin Towers destroyed
Attack blamed on terrorists.
Patriot Act is imposed giving special powers to Bush, et al.

ACLU site has more information...

[briaydemir]

Check out the ACLU's page [aclu.org] on the challenge. There's info on the (redacted) complaint itself [aclu.org], a press release [aclu.org], and related cases and efforts.

Young Bull, Old Bull. Wisdom.

[Tackhead]

I like this part...

"But the document says that [...] supervisors must exercise care in their use, particularly because that part of the Patriot Act is set to expire in 2005 unless renewed by Congress."

Once upon a time, a young bull and an old bull were standing on a hill, overlooking a valley full of cows.

The young bull said to the old bull, "Hey, old bull, let's run down into the valley and maybe we can fuck one of them cows!"

The old bull turned to the young bull with a wizened eye and said "No. We walk down. We fuck 'em all."

Upon hearing this, the young bull was enlightened.

200 years down the drain

[t_allardyce]

Im neither a lawyer or an american, but even i can see that this whole thing is totally unconstitutional to the point where you have to wonder: if bush came right out tomorrow and said "the bill of rights is null and void" would there be mass protest? or would there be a little poll on the cnn website?

Thank you ACLU

[macdaddy]

I know some folks don't like the ACLU's stance on everything (see my sig) but you've got to give them credit for doing things like this. This is why I believe we should all support their efforts. Sure they sometimes defend someone we'd frankly like to see get the needle for saying something about race or something that's pro-Nazi. Few folks understand that to defend the 1st Amendment you have to defend all violations of that amendment, even those that you yourself don't agree with. This quote comes to mind:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym S[tephen] G. Tallentyre.

The stigma about being a card-carrying member of the ACLU is just that, a negative stigma. It's not something to be ashamed of though. Would you be ashamed of being a card-carrying member of the EFF or EPIC? There's nothing shameful about asserting your rights.

Constitution-Friendly "Patriot Act" Possible?

[4of12]

OK, OK, I'm with everyone that decries the abomination and desecration of the Constitution that the "Patriot Act" is.

Let's move on, though.

Beneath the knee-jerk reaction is a reasonable intention: what can be done to better protect a free society from being victimized by terrorists?

Is it not possible to craft legislation that achieves this goal in a more effective manner with less infringement of individual liberties?

[I've been a fan of Bruce Schneier and his observation that more effective and more economical security policies, for computers and for the broader arena, are frequently overlooked.]

What makes Americans vulnerable ...

[second class skygod]

is the widespread belief that a descent into true tyranny is impossible in the USA.

When the average American hears tales of abuse of the Patriot act, he thinks of ACLU bleeding hearts protecting terrorists. At most, he might be able to conjure up government agents using personal data to catch a tax-evader or getting a list of a citizen's favorite pron sites. He concludes that this isn't so bad if it helps combat terrorism.

We've been taught to think of America being "the land of the free" and having a superior political system to the rest of the world. Therefore, many of us have difficulty making the connection between giving the government more power to go after "bad guys" with the possibility of such powers being used to quell political dissent.

I feel that we are firmly on a road that will lead to an dictatorship in the USA. We've given up important rights and more are sure to follow. Eventually, opposing views will be squashed to the point where only certain "approved" candidates will even be allowed to run for office (ala pre-invasion Iraq).

-- scsg

Who is our secret ISP?

[sabNetwork]

The ISP's name was kept secret, but you may be able to deduce it from the redacted brief [aclu.org]

In the following excerpts, I have made the number of asterisks proportional to the size of the censored words:

Plaintiff ***** is an Internet access ************ business incorporated and located ***********. [Long block of censored text] sues on its own behalf and on behalf of its clients.
***** is an Internet access ************ business located and incorporated ** **********.
***** provides a number of Internet related services for its clients.
***** has both paying and non-paying clients.
***** possesses a wide array of sensitive information about its clients. With respect to any particular clients, ***** may possess [long block of censored text].
Some of *****'s clients communicate anonymously or pseudoanonymously.
Some of *****'s clients are individuals and political associations that engage in controversial political speech.
Some of *****'s clients maintain accounts with ***** specifically because of *****'s commmitment to security.

So, we can be reasonably sure that the ISP is NOT:

• AOL
• Earthlink
• Google
• RoadRunner
• Compuserve

It's probably a more obscure provider. Any guesses?

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Cool.

[abh]

Oh, he's probably referring to the fact the ACLU typically forgets all about that second ammendment...

Re:Cool.

[kfg]

troll.

Yeah, but I've previously gone on record as believing that not all trolls are without merit and have garnered a few troll moddings myself.

besides what makes you think the ACLU has a slated view of the bill of rights

Probably statements like this, taken from their website:

If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

It doesn't even really make sense, it's the sort of "logic" that allows you to justify anything.

I think he got the count wrong though. The ACLU only has 8 ammendments in their version, since they leave out the one that everyone else leaves out as well, the most important one really, since it provides the rights that most people argue we don't have.

That would be the Ninth Ammendment.

That one was put in there to appease the Hamiltonians who argued that an explict Bill of Rights would be used to limit rights by falsely interpreting the specific wording, allowing Congress to make law that the Constitution gave them no authority to.

Looks like old Alex and the boys nailed that one dead on I'm afraid.

KFG

Doesn't ignore, just disagrees

[Aexia]

You were saying [aclu.org]?

The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Doesn't ignore, just disagrees

[the_mad_poster]

That's not evidence, that's your interpretation. And it's based on assumption and an inadequate consideration of what the colonies actually were (why on Earth would a colonized portion of land have its own standing army anyway? The country wasn't as old as *I* am when that amendment was written, of COURSE it didn't have a standing army).

Are you beginning to see the problem with stating a position on the issue as unequivocal fact yet?

If you'd like some context, remember this: the colonists weren't fighting

Re:Doesn't ignore, just disagrees

[Lord Kano]

I call bullshit.

In every other part of the "Bill of Rights" the ACLU interprets "the people" to mean just that. For some reason with the 2nd amendment "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." doesn't apply to "the people" in the ACLU's opinion.

The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons

Second amendment rights advocates do not believe this either. The ACLU knows that. They're using verbal gymnastics here. Second amendments rights advocates believe that rights exist independantly of the constitution, the constitution serves to limit the governments ability to infringe upon rights that the people HAVE, not to grant non-existant rights.

LK

Re:They ignore this one

[BdosError]

And like so many gun owners/supporters, you seem to miss the important part: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". Perhaps that was important before the U.S. had a standing professional army, but it hardly applies now.

What about the NRA?

[Aexia]

Why don't you take the them to task for ignoring the other 9/10ths of the Bill of Rights? Seems like the ACLU's up about 8 ammendments on them.

Agreed

[Lurkingrue]

I am a huge supporter of the ACLU, and I have to agree that they pay only lip-service to this part of the Bill of Rights. Clearly, the whole nonesense about the National Guard being the "militia" mentioned is just a convenient gloss-over for those who don't think a repeal of the 2nd Amendment is feasible.

But, I ask you this -- isn't it better to support an organization that does protect the majority of the Bill of Rights vigorously than to let all our rights fall into oblivion? Let's get behind protecting as much as we can -- not tearing down those who don't match up to every one of our expectations.

Sometimes, you have to choose the half-full glass to get anything at all, or choose the lesser of two evils...

Re:Cool.

[the_mad_poster]

Parent is not a troll, mods just didn't get it or disagreed... either don't mod things you don't understand, or leave them alone. You're here to mod for the benefit of discussion, not your own personal agenda.

Re:Cool.

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Troll moderation is right. The ACLU takes care of all the ammendments that the NRA doesn't take care of. It would be a waste of time any money for the ACLU to duplicate the efforts of the NRA.

The reality is that many right wingers have a serious problem with the ACLU, because the ACLU takes on cases that they consider to be "liberal". The ACLU isn't interested in the politics of the situation - they protect Republicans and Democrats alike. They even defend some people who are quite morally despicable, such as racists.

But, those racists have rights too, and they must be protected.

So, when you hear people like this DAldredge railing against the ACLU because they don't take 2nd ammendment cases, what you should understand is that these right wing buffoons really HATE when the ACLU takes on liberal cases, but they don't have a rational reason for opposing the ACLU. This bogus charge that they don't care about the 2nd ammendment is ALL THAT THEY HAVE.

And even the ACLU is being honest about their position. When it comes right down to it, the ACLU doesn't think that the 2nd ammendment was talking about individuals, but state militias. But, this opinion does NOT cause them to litigate along those lines. The ACLU stays out of that conflict to concentrate on areas where there is nobody else fighting for the preservation of rights.

DAldredge, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You're a partisan mudslinger first, and an American second. I doubt that there's any room in there for much appreciation of the Bill of Rights, and the affirmative good that the ACLU has brought to its defense.

Re:Cool.

[nomadic]

Well said. The typical "libertarian" reply that because that the ACLU doesn't litigate over the 2nd amendment that NOTHING they do is worthwhile is illogical and like you said mainly a cover for people who just dislike them because they perceive the ACLU to be liberal.

Maybe, MAYBE you would have a reason not to support them if they actually litigated AGAINST your interests, but if they don't then what exactly is the problem? Any money you would donate would go towards things you would support, none would go against your interests, but because they don't spend money on every case you would want them to you're going to refrain from supporting them? It's stupid, it's illogical, and it's intellectual cowardice.

Re:Duplication

[Profane MuthaFucka]

The ACLU provides abortion and family planning services? That's news to me.

Furthermore, the situation between the ACLU and the NRA isn't nearly the same as between the ACLU and Planned Parenthood. For 2nd ammendment rights, the first name you think of is NRA. Everybody who cares about 2nd ammendment rights belongs to the NRA.

It is a fact that the ACLU was the first organization to argue for abortion rights. Got that right off the link you provided. Therefore, the ACLU isn't duplicating the efforts of other agencies. The other agencies are duplicating the ACLU with regard to their legal actions.

But, as I said before, the ACLU doesn't provide family planning services, those are provided by Planned Parenthood.

In other words, you got nothing.

Re:Life, Liberty, ACLU, Slashdot, and Hypocrisy

[Aquillion]

The ACLU has stood to defend gun control. Nobody can argue against that. They have always been on the frontlines to defend the longstanding constitutional protections for a collective right to bear arms. They have not, of course, stood with the political rabble who wants to distort and politicize that right to its own ends; that is their right. Accusing them of "hypocrisy" for sharing a widely-held and legally accepted interpretation of the second amendment is clearly trolling.

Their full position can

Re:When it comes down to it...

[FooGoo]

Troll? You people amaze me. Everyone gets their panties in a bunch over the cause du jour. I don't come to /. for political news I come here for tech news. If some goverment functionary wants to snoop through my ISPs records to see that I spend 80% of my time online surfing for porn let them have at it.

I am not going to worry about it because the courts will settle it. It's not worth my time. Why do you think the DOJ removed the gag order? Because there was nothing sensitive at risk. It's working the way i

Re:When it comes down to it...

[HungWeiLo]

If some goverment functionary wants to snoop through my ISPs records to see that I spend 80% of my time online surfing for porn let them have at it...I am not going to worry about it because the courts will settle it.

So you also don't mind if they hold you as a "material witness" during the course of their investigation? You don't mind floating the bill for your lawyer? And if you can't afford one (of course the state will provide you with a very competent one to stand for your defense), what about all the time you lose at your job or with your family? Or the unnecessary embarrassment - who's going to hire you from now on? Your name has now been stained unneedingly.

If you want to go through all of that over nothing, be my guest.

Re:Even when it Violates ISP's TOS

[silicon not in the v]

Whoa, I used to live in Toledo (moved to Idaho in 2000). I had read about this back when the uncapping story hit Slashdot. It's interesting to hear from you. I just read your interview with BBR. That is just one example of the FBI abusing their powers, which I think the PATRIOT Act makes too easy.

I'm really torn about this ACLU thing because I hate them and what they normally do. In this case, though, they seem to be doing the right thing. I did a paper about reverse discrimination my senior year in

Re:Seriously...

[SydShamino]

Go read about the secret FBI files kept during the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. Read all about them. There are many, many, clearly documented examples of the government tracking and taking careful notes on the legal activities of citizens. There are also plenty of examples of the government then using those notes to harm those citizens.

Tell us if you think that it is ok for the government to keep secret files on citizens.

My grandfather publically protested shady government construction contracts in the 1960s, and the FBI followed him and harassed him until he lost his business. The work he found to support his family - manual labor installing isulation - killed him. We know he has an FBI file, but my mother is waiting until her mother dies before she fights to read it.

Re:Seriously...

[0x0d0a]

If there was no Patriot Act, you guys would bash the President for not having something in place.

Well, I can't speak for everyone on Slashdot, but I personally would not be complaining about the lack of PATRIOT.

I hope you understand that the Patriot Act passed with only 3 no votes. So even if he did veto it, it would still be enacted. So you all should be bashing your local congress/senate person for voting for it

I can't agree, for a number of reasons.

a) The Bush administration was the originator [ala.org] of the PATRIOT Act. Congress didn't get together and say "gee, it would be really great if judges were cut out of the law enforcement loop...let's make an act allowing this!" That's all Ashcroft.

b) Saying that "because element X also did something wrong, you should not complain about element Y" is not correct reasoning. Perhaps they should be recieving flak that they are currently not; that does not mean that Bush should not be complained at.

c) Just because they voted for it does *not* mean that they would override a veto of it -- that Bush vetoing the vote would not have stopped PATRIOT. There's a significant political difference between the two.

It is interesting seeing a Bush supporter on Slashdot, though.

Re:Seriously...

[0x0d0a]

But you're still missing the point. If its so bad then why the almost unanimous support for it from the House and Senate regardless of party affiliation? If it is so bad, then wouldn't you think some Democrat or Republican senator would rally against it? Even Ted Kennedy voted for it!

You can almost always push something like this through in a time of national fear. In a national emergency, there is tremendous pressure put on legislators to "stand together" with the President and legislative branch. Yes,

Re:*yawn*

[0x0d0a]

even though most of you have never read it, nor have any idea what it actually does.

I'd be willing to bet that the typical Slashdot reader is more informed than the typical Joe on what the PATRIOT Act is and means from the articles here. I am also willing to bet that the typical Slashdot reader opposes (more strongly than the average Joe, at least) the PATRIOT Act. This is an interesting correlation.

As for reading it -- the PATRIOT Act is a very large piece of legal text, and reading the thing in its entirety and original form is not, I think, reasonable to expect everyone to do. It might be a good thing, but I have never read my state's full legal code, even though I am governed by it and could go to jail for violating it.

Re:Something to think about

[tordia]

If the grand parent was referring to the FISA court [eff.org], then yes, in fact, no request has been denied in over 23 years [epic.org].