Appeals Court Rules Gov't. Has Broad Wiretapping Right

An anonymous reader writes: "Reuters reports that a special, secretive appeals court on Monday said the U.S. government has the right to use expanded powers to wiretap terrorism suspects under a law adopted by Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The ruling was seen as a setback for civil libertarians who have said the expanded powers, which allow greater leeway in conducting electronic surveillance and in using information obtained from the wiretaps and searches, jeopardize constitutional rights. In a 56-page ruling overturning a May opinion by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the three-judge appeals court panel said the Patriot Act gave the government the right to expanded powers."

Comments

Has this occurred to anyone?

[Uma Thurman]

Has it occurred to anyone that when Osama bin Laden vowed to destroy America, that this is what he was talking about? Anyone? Anyone?

Laws can't grant the goverment rights

[aminorex]

It's a fundamental absurdity to say that an act of
congress grants the government rights. The
constitution reserves all rights not specifically
and explicitly granted to the federal government
for the states or the people. No act of congress
can legitimately abbrogate this fundamental
limitation.

Obviously, this decision is unconstitutional, and
void.

Fingers Crossed For the Supremes

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the law, I'm not surprised at how the appeals court ruled. It does *indeed* give the executive branch vastly expanded (and exceptionally unconstitutional) powers. Hopefully this will come before the supreme court before Bush gets to appoint any replacements.

1984

[macdaddy357]

2004 will be 1984. America will redefine just what a police state is, but slaves will still claim to be free, as the government propagandists will tell us we are free. Is it hard to emigrate to Russia? Over there Dmitry Sklyarov had freedom of speech.

This isn't a question of rights.

[rjh]

Warning: I am not a lawyer and I may be misremembering things.

In the dawn of the telecom era--early 20th century--the Supreme Court faced a tough decision: did people have a Fourth Amendment right to privacy in their phone conversations? This was, is, a surprisingly difficult question. The Amendment is not near-absolutist, as are the First, Second and Fifth; instead, it only protects from unreasonable search and seizure, where reasonableness is determined by the courts.

There is a long-standing legal principle which guides these decisions of reasonableness. If you have a reasonable expectation of privacy--for instance, if you're in your own home behind closed doors talking to a guest--then the government needs a warrant. If you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy--for instance, if you're talking on a city street--then the government doesn't.

At the time, telephone calls were all routed manually by operators, and operators would often listen in on phone conversations. This was known and accepted practice of the time. Therefore, the Court found that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy when talking on a telephone; therefore, no warrant was required.

This caused outrage in the public, and Congress quickly passed laws requiring that warrants be issued for wiretaps. So privacy on your phone calls is purely an act of Congress; it is not, and never has been, held to be a Constitutional right.

If Congress is the one who provides you with the protection of wiretap warrants, Congress can also revoke that protection at their discretion. Don't like it? Write Congress. I have.

But don't accuse the judiciary of abrogating their most fundamental duty, when the reality is you don't know the law surrounding wiretap warrants.

what this means

[L-Train8]

Well, the article and the Slashdot intro are a little vague about how exactly this erodes our rights against unreasonable search. The PATRIOT act expanded wire-tapping rules for the FBI in anti-terrorist investigations. They no longer have to get warrants to tap the phone of suspected terrorists. Well, once they start tapping a suspected terrorist's phone, they might hear some stuff about another type of crime, that doesn't involve terrorism. The PATRIOT act only exempts terrorist activities from requiring a warrant. The secret court originally said that information about non-terrorist crimes gathered through the terrorist-only wire taps could not be used by law enforcement. This ruling overturns that decision.

The implications are scary. Essentially, the FBI no longer needs a warrant to tap anyone's phone. They can say there is a suspected link to terrorism, whether there is or not, and get a wire tap. If it turns out there was no terrorist threat, that's okay, they can still use any evidence in court or in an investigation. It is a huge loophole. There are no procedures in place to make sure that this privilege is not abused, and given the excess of law enforcement in the past, it is not a stretch to imagine just such a thing happening.