Slashdot Mirror
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."
Has it occurred to anyone that when Osama bin Laden vowed to destroy America, that this is what he was talking about? Anyone? Anyone?
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
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.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
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.
How ya like dat?
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.
The court admitted that this act violated the fourth ammendmant. Check out this quote:
At least it comes close!!!! I hope this is just a poor quote. What's next? "It is the judgement of this court that we think the defendant is innocent, but it certainly comes close."
This ... constitutional [sic] protection specifies that no government under its jurisdiction can do blanket searches of papers and effects
Read the amendment. It says precisely what it says: the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, shall not be violated.
The Constitution is absolutely silent on searches deemed reasonable. It says absolutely nothing one way or another.
There is a trait common to humanity--a desire to substitute wishes for truth. What you wish the Constitution to say, it doesn't say. If you want things to change, the only way to make them change is to first frankly acknowledge the way things are, and then to work towards getting them where you want them to be.
I gave this comment before - the logic is undeniable. Nobody has ever gave reasoned argument against it:
Ask Security Services in the US, UK or Indonesia (Bali), or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught.
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - Meet you in the pub Monday (human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) that the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from CNET: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in the UK when government checked for dirt on individuals of the Paddington crash survivors group. This group was lead by the badly injured Pam Warren - whom they arrogantly presume would have nothing to worry about, having her privacy invaded.
All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the LIES of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists.
P.S. On the Domain Name System, big business steal words that belong to everybody in UDRP and Sunrise - abridging what words you can use - violating the First Amendment. Don't believe me? Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. Even common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat. It is major Corporations illegally abusing and expand their brand using domain names - above other trademarks and all smaller businesses who use similar words - violating Trademark and Competition Law.
The authorities LIE - they know how to make these trademark domains unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be. They are aiding and abetting the pervertion of Law. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not connected with the corrupt United Nations !
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.
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
I would like to read more about why you think greens and libertarians are the answer, but a long discussion here would be off topic, so I switched my settings to show my email, with spam filtering. Let me know why the greens aren't just a one issue party, and the libertarians not just anarchist bomb throwers, or fascists who will drop the "do as thou willst should be the whole of the law" mantra as soon as they seize power.
How ya like dat?
Is there a copy of this 56-page ruling that I can read, instead of the news articles which all say the same extremely vague things?
I have a positive modifier on Troll. When I mod someone Troll their karma should go UP!
There are some more links on my page
This is expected to pass TODAY, so call your Senator and URGE them not to vote for the bill.
He also backed out of secret plans to goad the US into war by orchestrating a Reichstag at burning a few months before he was assassinated. Fudgepacker.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
The ACLU is concerned that one of the leaders of the Iran Contra affair now having access to every database in America. The government wants to know where and when you pass through a toll booth, make phone calls, e-mail, surf the web, and anything else. And they want it without having to get a warrent. Has anyone read the Constitution who's passing this lesgislation?