Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Government The Courts News

FBI Can Inspect Bank Records w/o Court Orders 984

AlexZander writes: "Thankfully, the so-called 'Patriot Act II' was discovered last year and the public outcry that ensued was enough to get the bill tossed out the window. One of the goals of that act, however, has made it into law under the radar of the community at large. However, on December 13th, President Bush signed Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (the relevant section is 374) into law, which among other things, grants the FBI the power to obtain financial information without a court order from a judge. It also expands the definition of 'financial information' to include car dealerships, jewelry stores, insurance companies, and other stretches of the definition of 'financial institution'. Wired News has the story here."

"The best parts about this is that the law prevents the business that gives up the information to the FBI from telling their customer about the request. Oh, that and the new law only requires a "national security letter" from a field agent stating that the information reqested is part of an investigation relevant to national security.

Yikes!"

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FBI Can Inspect Bank Records w/o Court Orders

Comments Filter:
  • Terrorist Clause (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SirChris ( 676927 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:15PM (#7907111) Journal
    Is there any clause in the act that states only when investigating for possible terrorist association or something to that effect?
    • by saunder3 ( 632099 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:16PM (#7907120)
      It is easy for them to define "investigating for possible terrorist association" as anything they want.
    • Re:Terrorist Clause (Score:5, Interesting)

      by PCM2 ( 4486 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:20PM (#7907178) Homepage
      No, that's the thing. There is no such clause. They can examine your records for any reason, and not only do they not have to tell you about it, your financial institution (the definition of which is now extended to to include everything from banks to insurance companies to casinos) is compelled by law to keep it a secret from you.
      • Re:Terrorist Clause (Score:5, Interesting)

        by wwest4 ( 183559 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:32PM (#7907376)
        It's pretty chilling - when you're faced with it, it feels just like it did when armed national guardsment starting patrolling NYC and airports - I got that same surreal feeling of dystopia when I went to a bank for a loan last week, and they recited a disclaimer about non-disclosed release of information to law enforcement if required by a "terrorism" investigation. Given how broad that term is, I think it's plain how easily this can be abused.
      • by Saeger ( 456549 ) <farrellj@nOSPam.gmail.com> on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:32PM (#7907380) Homepage
        So maybe they're legally prevented from verbally informing me if I'm being snooped on, but can they still do what my friendly librarian does by giving me a *wink**wink* along with a complimentary Asscroft bookmark?

        --

    • Re:Terrorist Clause (Score:3, Informative)

      by stevew ( 4845 )
      Yes there is - according to the article, the FBI official has to create a letter documenting that the investigation is for National Security reasons.
      • Re:Terrorist Clause (Score:5, Interesting)

        by rhombic ( 140326 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:59PM (#7907707)
        Please. Here in San Diego, the FBI used Patriot Act subpoenas to investigate council members being bribed by strip-club owners as "potential terrorist links". Say goodbye to several of the amendments...
        • It seems as though this administration is made purely of strict constructionists of the constitution. Bush's administration has completely ignored what all the other presidents have noted as natural laws, like the freedom of privacy. Our many privacies are now being stripped along WITH the freedom of speech. They're saying that they can investigate you and the librarian (or whomever) cannot inform you of your invasion of privacy.

          I remember reading articles before 9/11 how the FBI wanted Library records but couldn't get them easily. This is something they've been wanting to do for some time. They'll use it to find terrorists, and it'll be a good thing. But they'll also use it to invade the civil liberties of many law-abiding citizens.

          The end never justifies the means. It is an invasion of our liberties and a tragedy to the memory of all who have died to perserve those rights to allow the government to do this to us.

          To quote someone noteable on this issue:

          "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
          - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

      • by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @06:15PM (#7907901) Homepage
        /., google news, and other sources should all have ample documentation of how well that clause works to restrict the use of these powers to terrorism investigations.

        Seriously, they write themselves a note that says "Yup, this is for terrorism" and that's it. They don't have to show the note to a judge, they don't have to be held accountable for the veracity of the note, with all evidence inadmissable should the claims of the note prove false. They just have to write it.

        You know, when I turned 18 my senior year of high school, I could write my own sick notes to get out of school, and I wasn't held accountable by anyone. You may find this amazing, but sometimes I wrote myself a note even when I wasn't really sick.
    • by dtfinch ( 661405 ) * on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @06:35PM (#7908168) Journal
      Ever heard the joke that everyone is within six degrees of Kevin Bacon? Insert any known terrorist's name in his place and it'll still hold true for most people.

      Existing anti-terrorism laws are so loose that essentially anyone can be investigated/wiretapped without a real court order.

      The Patriot Act even added a loophole to the wiretap act to render it null when communications pass through a digital switch or router, thus allowing wiretaps with only a search warrant if they do it right.

      And finally there's a special FIFA court which they can all go through to get any and all surveillance approved. Not a single request to that court has been denied in over 15 years.

      The 4th amendment's wording is flexible enough that none of this blatantly violates the constitution. They're just steps backwards from the level of privacy we're all used to, and many bills are worded to hide to extent of of their impact. The law is getting pretty scary in the US these days.
  • by Master Bait ( 115103 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:15PM (#7907114) Homepage Journal
    ...because they hide these kind of crap laws inside dissimilar bills, in this case an appropriations bill. It's time to think about who you're going to vote for in 2004.

    • by cK-Gunslinger ( 443452 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:19PM (#7907174) Journal

      Exactly! We should vote for the candidates who promise to "do the right thing" and "work for us" and kick out those who promise to "screw us over at every opportunity."

      • by Anonymous Coward
        Thank you.

        Now, repeat after me:

        Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

        Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

        Remember, these people are not on your side. They want to keep their job, they like their status in society, they like the perks. They are owned by lobby groups, they love the soft money. They gerrymander to keep their jobs instead of actually satisfying the electorate.

        And the best part of all? It's a two-party system, both parties are equally corrupt in
    • by geoffspear ( 692508 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:26PM (#7907284) Homepage
      It's worse than that. It's an intelligence appropriations bill, which pretty much goes through Congress secretly without debate. The ethics of slipping stuff into a boring bill no one cares about (or even a demogogued "pass this bill or your children will be raped" type thing) are different than sneaking it into a bill that's supposed to be kept secret to protect national security.

      I don't particularly care if they want to keep the details of the NSA's budget secret, but sneaking in stuff that was shot down when it was proposed on its own is just plain evil.

    • by StenD ( 34260 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @06:00PM (#7907719)
      If you're going to think about that, keep in mind that Wired got its facts wrong. According to the bill summary [loc.gov], the 264-163 vote (roll call 649) which was presented as having taken place in June actually took place on 20 Nov, and was to agree to the conference report. Likewise, the Senate voice vote in November was to agree to the conference report. The actual vote on the bill as sent to the Senate, on 27 Jun, was 410-9 (roll call 333). Contrary to thier claims of opposing the legislation, both Rep. Betty McCollum and Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter voted for the bill in June, where section 334 of the bill is essentially identical to section 374 of the conference report. The Senate passed its version of the bill by unanimous consent on 31 Jul, also containing an essentially identical section 354. This was not a provision "slipped into the Intelligence Act at the 11th hour". Rather, it's a provision that politicians are now experiencing "buyer's remorse" over.
    • by jeffkjo1 ( 663413 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @06:06PM (#7907773) Homepage
      Here is the list of House members that voted against this bill. The Senate took a voice vote, so no record is available. Vote Tally [house.gov]
      • by rmassa ( 529444 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @09:00PM (#7909375)
        Just sent to my congresscritter:

        Mr. Ose,

        It saddens me to see that you have voted 'Yea' on the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004:
        http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll649.xml

        As you may know, this bill grants FBI powers to view the financial records of citizens without a court order from a judge, removing the checks and balances so important to our government. There is evidence that the FBI has abused other powers given to it by the much contested Patriot Act:
        http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/projects/libert y/story/7989769p-8926319c.html

        I have spoken to many other citizens in our district who are also unhappy about your vote on this issue. Unless I see active action on your part in opposition of further such laws, I will be encouraging as many people as possible to vote for a candidate who will better represent our interests come election time.

        Feel free to have your staff contact me if you have any questions.
  • More info (Score:5, Informative)

    by pantycrickets ( 694774 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:16PM (#7907124)
    There was a post about this on whatreallyhappened.com [whatreallyhappened.com].. and it linked to a large article about it here [libertyforum.org].
    • by segment ( 695309 ) <sil AT politrix DOT org> on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @06:05PM (#7907762) Homepage Journal
      Liberty forums... A Believable Source [libertyforum.org]? Let's see what they say there...

      The cocksucking jew bastard "STEPHEN SOLARZ" was the same motherfucker who led the charge for us going into Iraq in Gulf War 1 and if you can find a copy of the speech he made at congress..it will scare the hell out of you. We really have a ZOG! (source [libertyforum.org])

      ZOG as in Zionist something something... shit people say things I write are conspiratorial [politrix.org], but man those liberty forums they have the right frame of mind... Run /.'ers

  • by sparklingfruit ( 736978 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:17PM (#7907132)
    I pre-ordered my 21" telescreen yesterday, I bought myself a newspeak dictionary and enrolled my daughter in the Junior Anti-Sex League.
  • by NightSpots ( 682462 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:18PM (#7907151) Homepage
    The story hit earlier, when the FBI started asking for the records of everyone who went to vegas (plane records and hotel records) from Christmas to New Years...

    The details are all over the net, but you can start by reading this [reviewjournal.com], this [foxnews.com], or this [cbsnews.com].
  • by bathmatt ( 638217 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:18PM (#7907155)
    They may be able to read my bank records, but they cant read my mind thanks to my tinfoil hat.
  • by raider_red ( 156642 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:18PM (#7907161) Journal
    So, will a five year long string of $50 withdrawals from Bank of America ATM's all over the country attract their attention?

    It bugs me that they've eroded the 4th ammendment even this much. There should be an expectation of privacy between you and your bank, just as there is between you and your doctor/lawyer/priest/gun dealer.

    I'm all in favor of fighting terrorism, but I don't think John Aschroft & Co. having access to mine and my neighbors bank records will help any.
    • by kippy ( 416183 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:33PM (#7907387)
      I'm playing DA here with an argument that my soon-to-be lawyer friend used.

      The 4th ammendment isn't being violated here because the information in question isn't "yours". It belongs to the financial institution. Since it is accessable to a subset of that financial institution, it weakens any argument that the information is yours since it's available to a number of people besides yourself.

      Let me know what holes to poke in that argument.
      • 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.

        If that information is not mine, who's is it?
      • by pyros ( 61399 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @06:33PM (#7908143) Journal

        I'm playing DA here with an argument that my soon-to-be lawyer friend used.

        The 4th ammendment isn't being violated here because the information in question isn't "yours". It belongs to the financial institution. Since it is accessable to a subset of that financial institution, it weakens any argument that the information is yours since it's available to a number of people besides yourself.

        Let me know what holes to poke in that argument.


        The information is mine because it is only about me and it is not public. The employees of the institution retaining the information about me are under legal restrictions about what they can do with that information, which to me means the information is not theirs.

        I think a better response would be to ask him what he thinks has changed about the nature of the information, it's storage, and the criminal investigations that this information should no longer be protected by the 4th amendment. I mean, a judge had to be convinced that the information was relevant to the criminal investigation of an individual before this law was passed. What changed? The fear of terrorism. But this bill doesn't limit the power to terrorist investigations, so what is the purpose of changing the status of the information in regards to the 4th amendment?

        What is his reason for asking citizens "why not" when they don't want to grant law enforcement more power rather than asking the law enforcement agency "why" when they ask for more power?

      • by Python ( 1141 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @06:39PM (#7908213)
        So, using your friends "logic", all mail is not private, afterall the information about it is in the hands of the US Postal Service, e-mail is not private, ISP handle that, medical records are not private because, again, someone else has access to that, video rental and library records are public information, and so on. In fact, using your friends logic everything about a persons life, except for those thoughts they choose not to share with anyone, including their family, is not private.

        So, since I'm confident that you friend, and the majority of people in the USA are not going to let just anyone go through those records, its safe to say that people expect, rightly, for this information to be private. In short, the flaw is inherent in the first supposition, the very word PRIVATE. Just because one other person has access to some data does NOT suddenly make that not private data. Thats absurd, the definition of private is not "Only one person has access to this information". Thats closer to a secret, but even the word secret doesn't require there to be only one party TO the secret.

        You'd think a freaking lawyer would understand the importance of understanding the meaning of words. Private does not imply lack of access. I suggest you ask your lawyer friend to buy a dictionary and to look up the word "private", consider a new profession, something perhaps along the lines of PR perhaps, where its not so important that you get the words right.

        Regardless, you friends flaw lies in the presumption that for something to be private it can not be between more than one party. That is simply not the case, either in terms of the very definition of the words or even, in your friends OWN domain, according to lots and lots of case law. I sure hope your friend is not close to taking the bar. He or she really needs to study some more it would seem.

        Finally, the real test of your friends opinion on this can be tested by simply asking him, or her, for a copy of all their phone records, financial records, e-mails, web logs, video rental records, library records and travel records - and then posting them on the Internet. If they handly turn them over, then your friend is something far worse than hypocrite, had they refused the request to had over their private details of their lives, but rather a real fool.

        Have fun stealing their identity though!

    • Eroded? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:39PM (#7907474) Homepage
      It bugs me that they've eroded the 4th ammendment even this much.

      When they blast passages through the mountains with dynamite to build roads, you don't say they "eroded" it.

      Slippery slope? The slope is a smoking crater. The rubble is being loaded into a dump truck and hauled away, and they weren't planning on noticing.

      Everyone got mad when the Mayor of Chicago bulldozed an airport in the night, despite public outcry. Now the President and Congress are doing the same thing with the Bill of Rights. And yeah, I'm pissed.

      • Re:Eroded? (Score:5, Informative)

        by cant_get_a_good_nick ( 172131 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @08:15PM (#7909033)
        Everyone got mad when the Mayor of Chicago bulldozed an airport in the night, despite public outcry. Now the President and Congress are doing the same thing with the Bill of Rights. And yeah, I'm pissed.

        And Daley used the terrorism angle too, stating that it could be a launching point for attacks against downtown buildings. Most experts thought it would have the opposite effect - you're rermoving some radar and traffic controllers closest to downtown, and normal flightplans places planes pretty closely anyway. He later recanted this, essentially saying he just wanted to do it and get it over with. It was slated to close, it's lease with the Park District ending, but he wanted to fastforward a few years. Silly thing is, it's in a horrible spot for a park, isolated from the rest of the lakefront and probably won't ever be really used.
  • Yay democracy! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sssmashy ( 612587 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:19PM (#7907167)

    The provision granting increased power was little more than a single line of legislation. But Dempsey said it was written in such a cryptic manner that no one noticed its significance until it was too late.

    Isn't democracy grand? I wonder how many more infringements upon freedom and privacy intelligence agencies can sneak past our apathetic, uninformed legislators.

  • by Lane.exe ( 672783 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:19PM (#7907173) Homepage
    Around the time Saddam's captured mug was being paraded around TV like a trophy? You know -- people are used to being fleeced by illusionists in Las Vegas this way. Maybe we ought to send the Bait-and-Switch Administration out there... any place but Washington.

  • by MarcQuadra ( 129430 ) * on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:21PM (#7907208)
    Anybody interested in founding a savings and loan? How about one with a person offshore holding the money? I'm really sick of my account being flagged for 'suspicious activity' (I do LOTS of $100 cash transfers and wire transfers). Can I do my banking somewhere where Uncle Sam can't get in the way?
  • by IvyMike ( 178408 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:22PM (#7907216)
    Did the FBI fail to stop 9/11 because: 1) They didn't have this law? 2) They were still fighting the cold war and largely unprepared to fight Islamic extremists? I vote #2. But instead, we give these guys #1.
  • Silly. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ActionPlant ( 721843 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:24PM (#7907239) Homepage
    So I'm ignorant and am not exactly sure what the FBI can determine from my financial records, but I'm still annoyed over this. This seemingly recent trend of similar bills should be cause for alarm. I know we're a republic, but it's still a democratic republic, dammit. I consider one of my personal best interests the right to privacy. I'm not a politician, so why am I subject to the same scrutiny?

    Damon,
    • Re:Silly. (Score:5, Informative)

      by gerardrj ( 207690 ) * on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:40PM (#7907479) Journal
      Well, that's a very arguable topic. Do you REALLY have the right to "privacy". Certainly no such right is enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

      What right you are granted in the fourth amendment is The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...

      Now... some in the government seem to think it is reasonable that if you are even thought casually to be a terrorist, that ANY search of your, your property or information is reasonable. This is called the security over freedom camp.

      There are those that argue that the right to privacy is one of the non enumerated rights you hold via the 10th amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. If I may paraphrase that to my understanding:
      "Unless the Federal Government by way of the Constitution or the States via laws or State Constitution retain a right exclusively from the people, the people maintain the right."
      This argument is that people hold all rights until a state law or Constitutional amendment take the right away, thus unless the government specifically takes away your privacy, then you have it.
      The slippery slope here is that the government does not retain the right to torture small children, thus you by default have that right via the 10th amendment. I personally agree with this last point and point out that the state does have the right to make such acts illegal and arest, try and punish you for such acts, but this does not diminish your right to commit the acts.

  • by Alain Williams ( 2972 ) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:24PM (#7907250) Homepage
    I suppose I wouldn't mind iff I really trusted these government organisations and everyone that works for them.

    The temptation to just have a peek at: your ex's/neighbour's/brother's_business_rival's/... records will be more than some people can resist.

    Quite appart that there should be a right to privacy.

  • Welcome (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tom ( 822 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:26PM (#7907279) Homepage Journal
    Welcome to the land of the free.

    Please put your civil rights into the bin on your left and leave your fingerprints at the office up ahead. DNA sampling is still in preparation, and we'll come to the firstborn son thing eventually.

    Now come on in, we ain't got all day and I've gotta strip search that hot lady behind you, she sure looks like a terrorist.
  • by Fortunato_NC ( 736786 ) <verlinh75.msn@com> on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:27PM (#7907287) Homepage Journal
    Most every car dealer either arranges financing for their customers, and many are actual lenders. You know those "Buy Here, Pay Here" lots you pass on the way to work every morning? Those are cash cows, that border on usury. They sell a $1000 car for $3000, financed through them at 14-18%, and if you miss a payment, they drag it away with a tow truck and sell it to someone else.

    Car dealers pull tons of credit reports, too. Some dealers won't let you test drive a car without pulling your credit. These guys are savvy financial operators, from the lowliest used-car dealer to the biggest multi-dealership operations.
  • by gorbachev ( 512743 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:27PM (#7907294) Homepage
    Remember who voted for this bill and who signed it next time you vote.

    Proletariat of the world, unite to vote
  • Yeesh. (Score:5, Funny)

    by American AC in Paris ( 230456 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:27PM (#7907306) Homepage
    It also expands the definition of 'financial information' to include car dealerships, jewelry stores, insurance companies

    ...yeah, because if there's one thing we know about the archetypical terrorist, it's that they frequent frickin' jewelry stores.

    Y'know, so they can maintain their secular lifestyles of lavish excess. Their jihad-oriented faith demands bling-bling.

    This way, they can crush the infidel Western capitalists in style.

  • by anomaly ( 15035 ) <tom.cooper3@gmail.DEBIANcom minus distro> on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:30PM (#7907348)
    1. Carp about it on a geek forum
    2. Ignore it - after all no one really cares how much money you spend on chewing gum from chewinggum.com
    3. Find out how your congressperson voted on this issue, and call their office, then write a letter to them about it. When you get the standard form letter back from them, go see them to discuss this issue. If that doesn't get you what you want, use your geek skills to build a community forum site and use that to attract folks who can develop a coordinated campaign to contact congresspeople all over the US to get this law changed.

    Democracy can work. If this is really a big deal to you, then invest your time figuring out how it can and should be undone rather than whine about it here.

    Respectfully,
    Anomaly
  • by Yet Another Smith ( 42377 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:31PM (#7907358)
    One of my brother's coworkers noticed that 15 GOP representatives bucked the party line and voted against the bill on principle.

    • John J. Duncan, Jr.
    • Walter B. Jones, Jr.
    • Roscoe G. Bartlett
    • Frank D. Lucas
    • Richard W. Pombo
    • C. L. (Butch) Otter
    • James A. Leach
    • Mike Pence
    • Zach Wamp
    • Donald A. Manzullo
    • Mike Simpson
    • Cliff Stearns
    • Ron Paul
    • Jeff Flake
    • Timothy V. Johnson


    He went to PayDemocracy and set up a campaign to collect donations.

    When this conference report came up for a vote, the vote broke down pretty much by party lines. What's remarkable, though, is that fifteen House Republicans broke ranks with their leadership to vote against the bill. That's remarkable because, in these times, voting against an intelligence appropriations bill, no matter how flawed, is something that could easily be used against them by an election-year opponent ("Congressman X voted against funding the War on Terrorism!"). Also, the House Republican leadership is known for pushing hard for loyalty within their caucus, so it's likely that these fifteen Members are feeling a lot of heat at the moment because of their vote.


    That's why I started this "$15 for the Fifteen" campaign -- to send them a message that there's a constituency out there that wants to thank them for doing the right thing. We need to encourage acts of political courage like this, and the best way to do that is to show the politicians that there are people out there who will rally to their cause and back them up if they stand up for individual liberty. In our system, the way to be heard is with money -- so give $15 for the Fifteen and help make a statement that we're ready to support anyone who's got the backbone to defend our civil liberties!
  • Savings Account (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tds67 ( 670584 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:32PM (#7907374)
    Even before this, I was surprised to find out I couldn't have a savings account and do more than six transactions a month on it, because the federal government said so. I had to close it because I had weekly payroll direct deposit going to it, and I was also transferring some funds out of it to a checking account to pay bills from. This added up to more than six transactions per month, so the bank was obligated to send me a warning and then close the account if I didn't change my behavior. So it comes as no surprise to me that this is happening; the feds have had their nose in my banking for quite some time now.
  • USPS? (Score:5, Informative)

    by cperciva ( 102828 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:35PM (#7907425) Homepage
    The part which I find the most scary about this hasn't been mentioned yet: The US Postal Service counts as a "financial institution" for the purpose of this act.

    As a result, an FBI agent can walk into the USPS, without a warrant, and demand a detailed listing of all the mail you receive.
  • by sabaco ( 92171 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:36PM (#7907431) Homepage Journal
    I'm so sick of hearing "if you are innocent... why do you care?" It's called the 4th amendment - our founding fathers didn't want the government to be able to search us without judicial review - without proving they had SOME case - and without our knowledge.

    I'm innocent but I still don't want my rights violated. I don't want to be randomly searched, spied on, etc. I don't want the FBI or anyone looking at my medical records, bank records, etc. And I believe that for any person in the U.S., if the government or FBI didn't like you, they could put together "proof" that could get you locked up for life - not that they need any proof anymore.

    If my home was searched, they'd find maps, atlases, sharpies, box cutters, CD-RWs, and a long list of other "terrorist equipment". I have books talking about how to protect your privacy, so I must have *something* to hide. I have books of a highly libertarian slant - I must be plotting to overthrow the government! I have a poster of the empire state building on my wall. The poster is there because I think it's a beautiful building, but the FBI could use it as "proof" that I planned to blow it up.

    My financial records show I frequently buy computer equipment - I must by a computer terrorist! I make a cash deduction of $100 about once a week - I must be buying drugs! I wrote a check to a person with a foreign sounding name - he must be a member of my terrorist unit!!

    Government abuses have run rampant the last couple of years - anyone who's opinions differer from the government can have their right to travel violated.

    There has been NO terrorist activity in the U.S. since 9/11. 9/11 was a horrible tragedy but it sickens me that republicans have turned it into an excuse to create a police state. Let's face it - the terrorists won. The U.S. has lost or is in the process of losing all the freedoms they hated us for.
  • Where can I find (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ed333 ( 684843 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:36PM (#7907433)
    a free country? Please tell me 'cause America's not it, and I for one don't intend to wait until the government comes to take even more freedom away!! Where can a person go to just be left alone?
  • by fermion ( 181285 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:37PM (#7907441) Homepage Journal
    I wonder what this is going to do the domestic banking industry, and the US economy in general. We already have the wealthy funneling money to offshore accounts so it can be hidden from the IRS. We already have corporations leaving the US and reincorporating in foreign countries. One reason that this has not happened more is that US government is a often a more secure place to bank and operate a business than say, Bermuda.

    But this laws says that all bank transactions of a business are public property. It would take only a few corrupt FBI agents to destroy a company by exposing it's banking records. No foreign company will want to bank in the US because it will afraid that the FBI will funnel sensitive information to US corporations. It has been done before.

    And, as if the tinfoil wearing folk do not already have enough encouragement, this is the best reason of all to keep your money in you mattress.

    In summary, if the money and business begin leaving the US in even greater numbers, I cannot blame them in the least. I thought some of the actions of US corporations over the past were quite selfish, but now I am not so sure. I cannot imagine a responsible firm using US banks anymore than is absolutely neccesary

  • Anything new? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BrookHarty ( 9119 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:37PM (#7907443) Journal
    Most federal judges will grant the FBI warrants over the phone within minutes. This just clarifies what the FBI can go after on finacial investigations. If the FBI wants to investigate someone they will, warrants or not. Dont kid yourself, not everything every police agency does is above board. But the majority of FBI agents are hard working, family people who worry about personal rights also.

    The only thing that pisses me off, is they include this as a rider to another bill so it gets passed. A few things I'd like to change are.

    1. No riders.
    2. No fancey names like Patriot Act. (Protect the Children Act, etc..)
    3. Daily updates on bills that are voted on, educate the people.
    4. Stats on which way your congress critter is voting on issues.
    5. Balanced Budget Act.

    I work a 60 hour week, and with my personal life, I barely have time to see what my elected officals are doing. I'd also like to change the way we vote. Instant Runoff voting.(IRV) [fairvote.org] This would make it easier for 3rd/4th parties to run and take office. And you dont have to worry about wasting a vote.

  • by jalefkowit ( 101585 ) <jason@NosPam.jasonlefkowitz.com> on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:43PM (#7907514) Homepage
    When this first went through Congress, I got so frustrated by the lack of any way to take direct action that I decided to do something about it myself. So, I launched the "$15 for the Fifteen" campaign to fight back:

    $15 for the Fifteen [paydemocracy.com]

    When the House voted on the measure, fifteen House Republicans broke from their party to vote against the bill, specifically because of their concerns about the stealthily inserted PATRIOT language. I'm a Democrat, but I thought that kind of principled stand was what we needed more of, not less -- and I thought it was a shame that the most likely outcome for these guys would be a world of hurt, since the House GOP leadership (especially Majority Leader Tom "The Hammer" DeLay) is famous for demanding loyalty above all else.

    That's what "$15 for the Fifteen" is all about. It's a chance for people who want to express their opposition to this PATRIOT expansion to do so in the way politicians pay the most attention to -- in cash :-)

    The idea is that you put fifteen dollars into the campaign fund -- one dollar for each of those Republicans who voted the right way -- and when the campaign ends, the total funds raised will be split equally between all fifteen of them, and each one will get a letter with his share explaining that this money comes from citizens who want to thank him for doing the Right Thing on this bill. It's not general support, it's support on this issue -- which means your $15 doesn't disappear into some non-profit's general fund.

    (I should mention that it wouldn't be possible to run a campaign like this without PayDemocracy [paydemocracy.com], a great service that I used to put it together. I have no affiliation with them, and I'm not getting a penny of your contribution.)

    If you want to do something concrete to send a message to the politicians that there are people out there who are watching them on this issue, and that will support them if they do the right thing, come join me -- it doesn't take many $15 contributions before we have a serious chunk of change, and that will really get their attention. It's less than the cost of a CD, and it's a first step towards making sure that things like this don't happen again. Not too bad for $15, don't you think?

  • Vote Libertarian (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @06:00PM (#7907726) Journal
    Democrats and Republicans BOTH do the WRONG stuff for the Right reasons. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and this is just one one of many cases where the the wrong thing was done under the reasoning of protecting the population from themselves.

    America, has become, the "Land of the sheep, home of the terrified". People are scared that they may lose all the comfort provided by the Welfare loving Democrats or the Military Spending of the Republicans.

    ENOUGH is ENOUGH. It isn't the Government's responsibility to do anything but to Provide COMMON defense and PROMOTE the general welfare. THAT IS IT.

    The fact that all these laws have been passed is PROOF that the terrorists have achieved their goal, to TERRORIZE. People are SCARED, and the MEDIA feeds the fear.
    • Re:Vote Libertarian (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mabu ( 178417 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @06:05PM (#7907764)
      That's all fine and dandy but the problem with the Libertarians is that they do not have a realistic plan for running the country. They have this idealistic notion involving minimizing governmental power and control, but you start asking the Libertarian candidates how they'll handle situations that need to be mandated on a national level (pollution & environmental, business monopolization, utility regulation, transportation, etc.) they give you a bunch of double-talk that indicates they have no plan, nor a solid idea of what they're doing. Libertarians, for the most part, have a very narrow, unrealistic agenda that while most Americans seem to find appealing, would end up creating unworkable policy that would make the country even worse.
  • by mabu ( 178417 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @06:10PM (#7907834)
    With all those personalized credit cards they have now. If you're a pet owner you can get a Yorkshire Terrier picture on your credit card; scuba divers have their DAN credit cards, etc. I think Citibank should come out with the "Terrorist VISA" card, perhaps with a picture of Saddam or Osama on it, maybe a burning US flag or something. Of course, all the terrorists will apply for the new Citibank Terrorist VISA and then we'll know exactly who they are!
  • by Facekhan ( 445017 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @06:12PM (#7907856)
    "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."

    I don't recall seeing any mention whatsoever granting specific powers of any kind to the FBI in excess of what is stated in the constitution. Of course no one really cares about such details when guys with guns and facemasks to hide their identity are dragging you out of your house in the middle of the night for extrajudicial executions. We are not too far from it now.
  • by gordona ( 121157 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @06:12PM (#7907860) Homepage
    Nearly everyone is missing the fact that December 13, the day that Bush signed this bill, was a Saturday AND the day that the capture of Sadaam Hussein was announced. Does anyone smell a rat here, besides the one in the hole that the US (or the Kurds) discovered? What a great way to keep the news of the signing a bill that further pecks away at the Bill of Rights than to do it on a weekend and when another really big news item is released. The media appears to be complicit in publicizing only what the administration wants the public to know.
  • Fnord! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mkro ( 644055 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @06:13PM (#7907876)
    I'm currently re-reading the ultimate conspiracy (and so much else) novel of all times: The Illuminatus! Trilogy.

    The following quotes fit all too well:

    "...When communism replaces fascism as the number one enemy, your small-town conservative will be ready for global adventures on a scale that would make the heads of poor Mr. Roosevelt's liberals spin. Trust me. We have every detail pinpointed. Let me show you where the new government will be located."

    Drake stared at the plan and shook his head. "Some people will recognize what a pentagon means," he said dubiously.

    "They will be dismissed as superstitious cranks. Believe me, this building will be constructeed within a few years. It will become the policeman of the world. Nobody will dare question its actions or judgements without being denounced as a traitor. Within thirty years, Mr. Drake, within thirty years, anyone who attempts to restore power to the Congress will be cursed and vilified, not by liberals but by conservatives."

    (...)

    "To crush the opposition, we will need a Justice Department equivalent in many ways to Hitler's Gestapo. If your scheme works - if the Mafia can be drawn into a syndicate (...) we will have a nationwide outlaw cartel. The public itself will then call for the kind of Justice Department that we need. By the mid-1960s, wiretapping of all sorts must be so common that the concept of privacy will be archaic."

    I'm waiting for George W.B. to start building the pyramid-with-the-eye on the top of the White house any day now :)
  • by Unregistered ( 584479 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @06:18PM (#7907940)
    As long as the supposed terrorist threat is enough that people will allow this stuff to happen, the terrorists are winning.

    Don't vote for any representitive who voted for this law. If enough people do, they'll get the picture. The new guy may not be any better, but at least he'll be worried about re-election. The to parties are so similar it doesn't really matter weather a republican or democrat gets electd, so vote against incumbants that sign this shit.
  • by Nevo ( 690791 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @06:18PM (#7907950)
    I just did.

    Easy lookup at http://www.senate.gov.

    Remind them that election time is just around the corner and you'll be considering his/her reaction to this issue when you hit the voting booth.
  • by Average ( 648 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @06:25PM (#7908045)
    It seems like everything to do with the war on terror is focused on 'follow the money'. Why? I mean, I understand that Bush, Cheney and everyone they've ever personally known have been cash fetishists. Therefore they assume everyone that they oppose is after their cash. Is that what it's about?

    Sep. 11 budget?

    19 airline tickets, bought ahead online.
    Motel room, rental cars.
    (maybe) an efficiency apartment in Florida to sit around a table and plot evil for two months.
    Boxcutters.

    Total cost? $8000? I could slap that on my MasterCard.

    Terrorism is not at all $$ expensive. That's sort of the point. So what do they think they'll find by all this new power?

    Common criminals, mostly drug runners, whose assets they can seize.
  • What to do (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Unregistered ( 584479 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @06:30PM (#7908096)
    Buy firearms and lots of ammunition. As long as the population is armed, the government can't have complete control. If you want freedom, be prepared to fight for it because soon you may have to.
  • by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @06:35PM (#7908160) Homepage
    If you were to browse http://www.tsaunion.com you might find a story about a Federal Security Director who was fired for refusing to break the law. (He was ordered to perform acts that were discriminatory against women and minorities... he got his orders on AUDIO TAPE and was fired for refusing to carry out orders.) As he is even now trying to attain justice but efforts by investigators are being blocked in the name of "National Security."

    So you see, "National Security" is a very broad definition when you can include illegal behavior of government employees and organizations.
  • by sjames ( 1099 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @07:17PM (#7908570) Homepage Journal

    Apparently, section 374 of The bill [loc.gov] is the relevant section.

    They accomplish this treachery by patching bits and pieces of the "Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978" without making any explicit references whatsoever to what the patching will do. It doesn't halp that some bills have sections that patch a patch for a patch, so that it's nearly impossible to figure out what the final result will actually say, much less what it means.

    Forget line item veto, what we really need is an all or nothing law, so that a bill may repeal or replace in full an existing law but may never simply modify. Any replacement may NOT include any other text by reference, only by explicit copy.

    That might actually fix some small part of the non-sense.

  • by cant_get_a_good_nick ( 172131 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @07:46PM (#7908818)
    The thing that scares me the most about this is the current administation's readiness to be flexible about the definition of terrorism. Have a protest on the street? Hmm, that's blocking street traffic, affecting stores. Economic terrorism. (This was a law they were trying to get passed in Oregon). Any organization in your protest take in any money from outside the US? You just became an international terrorist organization, in the eyes of the Bush administration. Very scary, especially since the other Bush administration (Jeb down in Florida) came down hard on peaceful demonstrators in Florida. Guilt by association... the protests had avery small subset people who were anarchists, and had some violent leanings. I don'tapprove of violence, and neither did many of the other protesters, who were in many cases elderly. But everyone was cuffed, and the police superintendent basically said "tough, if one's violent, they're all violent, and they should all be treated hard". Hmm, guilt by association, I wonder if we should bomb Rumsfeld since he was Saddam's friend in the 80's, or bomb Bush Sr., because he helped train Ossama.

    I'm usually pretty passive as far as politics go. I vote, but that's about it. But I'm scared of the times we live in. It's time for action. This administration has led us down a scary course, but most americans are too passive. It's our responsibility to show them that their vote matters, that this administartion does thigns that affect their daily life. make people want to vote. start talking about politicians, and more importantly what we can do about them, instead of throwing up our hands and say "well, thats' in washington"

"jackpot: you may have an unneccessary change record" -- message from "diff"

Working...