| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/4 |
| 2007/9/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48049 Activity:very high |
9/12 Actual history of the Patriot Act, for those who think that GWB
had nothing to do with it:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot
"When the legislative proposals were introduced by the Bush
administration in the aftermath of September 11th, Attorney General
John Ashcroft gave Congress one week in which to pass the bill --
without changes. Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, managed to convince the Justice Department to
agree to some changes, and members of the House began to make
significant improvements. However, the Attorney General warned that
further terrorist acts were imminent, and that Congress could be to
blame for such attacks if it failed to pass the bill immediately."
Yes, Congress passed it, after the usual intimidation and fearmongering
from the White House, but is it Bush's baby.
\_ Cute and all but that isn't how legislation is created or passed.
It requires a sponsor and Congress does not have to convince the
Justice Department or the AG or anyone else of anything. The
legislature makes the laws. Period. If they don't have the guts
to deal with their job, they need new jobs. "Oh no mean mr. bush
scared us so we abdicated our constitutionally granted power and
just fell over like so many pansies in the wind, boo hoo, you're
so mean mr. bush! it isn't our fault! vote for us and we'll fix
it and we'll end bush's war, too!!" riiiiight.
\_ I agree with you that Congress abdicated their responsibilty
here, but the true author of the legislation was the Justice
Department. We do need to flush most of Congress and get a new
one. Feingold, we can keep, the rest need to go.
\_ So now I know where you get all your incorrect assumptions. You read
wacko sites like http://epic.org. Apparently, you're also one of those
people who sees everything in black and white. Either GWB was the
primary person behind the Patriot Act, or he had nothing at all to
do with it.
\_ Please tell me this is intended as sarcastic. Do you seriously
think of EPIC as a wacko organization? Do you think the EFF is
a wacko organization? -dans
\_ you're an idiot.
\_ Oh man, you really got him that time! Zing!
\_ Maybe you should re-evaluate your extremist views, dans.
The June 1995 issue of WIRED magazine quoted a member of the
Electronic Frontier Foundation as saying that EPIC "made
everybody else at the table look moderate. It's the old
good-cop-bad-cop routine."
\_ In 1995 the EFF was radical. They realized there was
a damn good chance important rights were going to be
stomped on and acted quickly to fight that. That was
12+ years ago, when almost noone had any concept
of digital privacy and rights. Then there was this
whole thing called the .com revolution and now, and
while the EFF may not be mainstream it is far from
extremist.
\_ Anyone who does not support the Patriot Act is
an extremist. EFF does not support the Patriot Act.
Therefore EFF is extremist. Q.E.D.
\_ Nice strawman. |
| 4/4 |
|
| www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot -> www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/ request (pdf) for the documents nearly eight months ago, just as Congress announced it would hold hearings on sunsetting PATRIOT Act powers. The hearings ended in June, and Congress is expected to vote on a finalized PATRIOT renewal bill within days. American Bar Association to Members of Congress considering Patriot Act renewal states that the ABA is "concerned that there is inadequate Congressional oversight of government investigations undertaken pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to ensure that such investigations do not violate the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution." letter (pdf) to the Senate Judiciary Committee highlighting the need for the Attorney General to report to Congress on potentially unlawful intelligence investigations. In a closed meeting yesterday, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence did not reach consensus on legislation that would reauthorize sunsetting provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and increase the FBI's investigative powers. statement to carefully consider each sunsetting provision of the USA PATRIOT Act before voting to reauthorize, and not to expand the FBI's investigative powers unless the agency can show a need for more authority. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act, or USAPA) introduced a plethora of legislative changes which significantly increased the surveillance and investigative powers of law enforcement agencies in the United States. The Act did not, however, provide for the system of checks and balances that traditionally safeguards civil liberties in the face of such legislation. Legislative proposals in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were introduced less than a week after the attacks. President Bush signed the final bill, the USA PATRIOT Act, into law on October 26, 2001. Though the Act made significant amendments to over 15 important statutes, it was introduced with great haste and passed with little debate, and without a House, Senate, or conference report. As a result, it lacks background legislative history that often retrospectively provides necessary statutory interpretation. Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (ATA), a far-reaching legislative package intended to strengthen the nation's defense against terrorism. The ATA contained several provisions vastly expanding the authority of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to monitor private communications and access personal information. However, the USA PATRIOT Act retains provisions appreciably expanding government investigative authority, especially with respect to the Internet. Those provisions address issues that are complex and implicate fundamental constitutional protections of individual liberty, including the appropriate procedures for interception of information transmitted over the Internet and other rapidly evolving technologies. History One of the most striking features of the USA PATRIOT Act is the lack of debate surrounding its introduction. Many of the provisions of the Act relating to electronic surveillance were proposed before September 11th, and were subject to much criticism and debate. John Podesta, White House Chief of Staff from 1998 - 2001, has questioned what has changed since then. overwhelming majorities in Congress that law enforcement and national security officials need new legal tools to fight terrorism. But we should not forget what gave rise to the original opposition - many aspects of the bill increase the opportunity for law enforcement and the intelligence community to return to an era where they monitored and sometimes harassed individuals who were merely exercising their First Amendment rights. Nothing that occurred on September 11 mandates that we return to such an era. USA Patriot Act - The Good, the Bad, and the Sunset (Winter, 2002) When the legislative proposals were introduced by the Bush administration in the aftermath of September 11th, Attorney General John Ashcroft gave Congress one week in which to pass the bill -- without changes. Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, managed to convince the Justice Department to agree to some changes, and members of the House began to make significant improvements. However, the Attorney General warned that further terrorist acts were imminent, and that Congress could be to blame for such attacks if it failed to pass the bill immediately. Extensive and hurried negotiation in the Senate resulted in a bipartisan bill, stripped of many of the concessions won by Sen. Senator Thomas Daschle, the majority leader, sought unanimous consent to pass the proposal without debate or amendment; Minor changes were made in the House, which passed the bill 357 to 66. The Senate and House versions were quickly reconciled, and the Act was signed into law on October 26, 2001. Fair Credit Reporting Act Russ Feingold, the only Senator to oppose the Act, was particularly concerned with the effects the Act might have on the civil liberties of immigrants. Feingold expressed his concern and certainty that the enhanced authority to profile and engage in electronic surveillance would be disproportionately wielded: Now here is where my caution in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks and my concerns over the reach of the anti-terrorism bill come together. To the extent that the expansive new immigration powers that the bill grants to the Attorney General are subject to abuse, who do we think that is most likely to bear the brunt of the abuse? It will be immigrants from Arab, Muslim and South Asian countries. In the wake of these terrible events out government has been given vast new powers and they may fall most heavily on a minority of our population who already feel particularly acutely the pain of this disaster. For example, the Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to authorize installation of pen registers and trap and trace devices (a pen register collects the outgoing phone numbers placed from a specific telephone line; a trap and trace device captures the incoming numbers placed to a specific phone line -- a caller-id box is a trap and trace device), and to authorize the installation of such devices to record all computer routing, addressing, and signaling information. The Act also extends the government's ability to gain access to personal financial information and student information without any suspicion of wrongdoing, simply by certifying that the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. Surveillance and Privacy Laws Affected The USA PATRIOT Act significantly expanded law enforcement authority to surveill and capture communications. There are three major laws that create the framework for the government interception of communications: * Title III: Requires probable cause, a high legal standard to meet, from a judge for real-time interception of the content of voice and data communications. Within ECPA, the Pen Register statute governs real time interception of "numbers dialed or otherwise transmitted on the telephone line to which such device is attached." Although the use of such devices requires a court order, it does not require probable cause: there is no judicial discretion, and the court must authorize the surveillance upon government certification. A government attorney need only certify to the court that the "information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation." Therefore, the Pen Register and Trap and Trace statute lacks many of the privacy protections found in the wiretap statute. FISA, which applies primarily to the government's power in foreign intelligence and counter-intelligence cases, therefore does not offer many of the protections required under the federal wiretap statute. Title III governs the "contents" of communications, defined as "any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of that communication." The Supreme Court has held that the contents of a communication are entitled to full Fourth Amendment protecti... |
| epic.org comments (pdf) to the Department of Homeland Security, EPIC urged the agency to either suspend the Automated Targeting System or to fully apply all Privacy Act safeguards to any individual subject to ATS. The system creates secret, terrorist "risk assessments" on tens of millions of US citizens and foreign visitors. led a coalition (pdf) in condemning the terrorist "scoring" of US travelers. Though DHS has made some positive changes, the Automated Targeting System still assigns terrorist risk assessments that are secret and unreviewable and the agency is still seeking broad exemptions from the federal Privacy Act. ordered (pdf) the Department of Justice to be more forthcoming about the basis for withholding documents concerning the President's domestic surveillance program. press report of the program, EPIC requested legal opinions and related documents that were prepared to justify and monitor the warrantless surveillance program. The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Security Archive also submitted FOIA requests. A federal court has now ruled in EPIC v DOJ (pdf) that the Department of Justice's basis for withholding the documents were "too vague and general," and that the FBI's justifications, in particular, are "wholly inadequate." By October 12, the Department must provide far more detailed information to EPIC and the other plaintiffs. Philadelphia cab drivers went on strike to protest a similar plan by the Philadelphia Parking Authority. The mandatory GPS requirement will allow the city to track all cabs and cab drivers. Federal Trade Commission, EPIC urged the Commission to create regulations to limit the use of the Social Security number, but those restrictions should "not limit the ability of the states to develop better safeguards." previous comments (pdf), EPIC has consistently called for more restrictions on SSN use and recommended the creation of context-dependent identifiers "that will encourage the development of more robust systems for identification that safeguard privacy and security." Secrecy Report Card 2007 (pdf) which looks at trends in public access to information. The report shows an unprecedented level of restriction of access to information about federal government's policies and decisions. The 2007 report offers updated numbers on presidential signing statements and invocations of the "state secrets" privilege, and information about restrictive laws introduced/passed in the states. Renamed "E-Verify," DHS will require more than 200,000 federal contractors to check the agency databases before hiring employees. DHS also will require employers to fire employees if they are unable to resolve "no match" discrepancies within 90 days. "friend of the court" brief (pdf) in a case concerning a New Hampshire state law banning the sale of prescribe-identifiable prescription drug data for marketing purposes. NH Prescription Confidentiality Act violated the free speech rights of data mining companies. The experts said the lower court should be reversed because there is a substantial privacy interest in de-identified patient data that the lower court failed to consider. This privacy interest, in part flows from the reality that data may not be, in fact, truly de-identified, and also because de-identified data does impact actual individuals. Program Officer The biometrics program manager in Iraq this week expressed concern that the database containing biometrics and secret files on thousand of Iraqis could "become a hit list if it gets in the wrong hands." Velliquette, the Iraqi system has approximately 750,000 records in its database. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on proposed rules for Enhanced 911 location information, EPIC recommended enhanced privacy safeguards. Wireless telephone providers are required to meet certain standards for location accuracy. requested comments on location accuracy standards as well as extending rules to VOIP services. EPIC reminded the FCC that current privacy rules do not adequately protect location information. EPIC proposed that as location technology improves, so should privacy protection. EPIC also said that there should be consistent privacy rules for both VOIP and other communications services. Previously, DHS sought to use Secure Flight to assess possibilities for criminal behavior from travelers. The new program will "determine if passenger data matches the information on government watch lists, and transmit matching results to aircraft operators," according to DHS. Currently, the airlines run passenger names against the watchlists. government investigations (pdf) found numerous security and privacy vulnerabilities. There are ongoing concerns about the secrecy and accuracy of watchlists and adequacy of redress procedures. Complete EPIC Docket EPIC is a public interest research center in Washington, DC It was established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging civil liberties issues and to protect privacy, the First Amendment, and constitutional values. |