Slashdot Mirror
FBI Can Inspect Bank Records w/o Court Orders
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!"
There was a post about this on whatreallyhappened.com.. and it linked to a large article about it here.
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, this, or this.
--
Use Vobbo for Video Blogs
Insurance companies sell annuities which are, in essence, financial instruments.
Mmmm.. Donuts
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 $3000, financed through them at 14-18%, and if you miss a payment, they drag it away with a tow truck and sell it to someone else.
Car dealers pull tons of credit reports, too. Some dealers won't let you test drive a car without pulling your credit. These guys are savvy financial operators, from the lowliest used-car dealer to the biggest multi-dealership operations.
Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
"but when real (documented) abuses occur"
Such as an article in a previous post (using the right wing Fox news as a source):
FBI agents investigating two strip club owners in Las Vegas on bribery charges bypassed a grand jury and instead used the Patriot Act to subpoena the financial records of the bar owners as well as several prominent city and county officials.
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
He went to PayDemocracy and set up a campaign to collect donations.
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
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.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
The slippery slope argument has already been proven by the FBI's use of the Patriot Act in investiations that have nothing to do with terrorism. Some lawmakers have begun to speak out about the Las Vegas incident, complaining that they were assured that the powers they granted to the administration under the Patriot Act were to fight terrorists, not "garden variety criminals."
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.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Yes there is - according to the article, the FBI official has to create a letter documenting that the investigation is for National Security reasons.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
If you're going to think about that, keep in mind that Wired got its facts wrong. According to the bill summary, 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.
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?
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)
ZOG as in Zionist something something... shit people say things I write are conspiratorial, but man those liberty forums they have the right frame of mind... Run /.'ers
MoFscker
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
Problem is, this was voted on verbally, with no record of who voted on it. So that idea's gone out the window. Better to just vote all incumbents out.
We shouldn't have to pay for our democratically elected officials for doing the "Right Thing".
I'm pretty sure a very nicely worded letter to them congratualating them would have sufficed. Also, a strong worded letter to your elected officials who did NOT vote against this bill would be better yet.
Sig it.
"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."
Technically, your financial records aren't *your* property. They belong to the bank and are readily available to others at any given point. No 4th amendment problem here.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
DEAD WRONG.
if a bank discloses the financial information of its clients voluntarily or involuntarily, it is liable under the Graham-Leech-Bliley act congress passed about 2 years ago. The concept was to restrict the ways information the bank held could be used, because of the material loss of privacy suffered by its customers. Just because, in this case, the party the information is being disclosed to is the government, why should this skirt that law?
Its issues like this that are (were) at the heart of the governments requirement that a Judge be involved in awarding these warrents. Now that the process has been short-circuited, the process has lost a very valuable legal perspective gained by the several years each federal judge works through to be appointed.
Well, C-Span has one. You can search by subject, month, member, and vote number. Upon finding the desired bill, it pops up a map that colors states based upon the overall vote, bringing up a vote count by Dem or Rep when your mouse cursor hovers over the state, and upon clicking a state, you can get detailed information, including votes by representative name.
Actually, it's a neat site that I oughtta keep in mind come November.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Except that this would violate some of the other rights enumerated in the Constitution, namely "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". So your example, while interesting, is a straw man. There is no risk of that occuring, because all "men" have the right to life. Which makes for a fascinating issue all by itself with regard to capital punishment, but even in that regard if you look at the constitution its spells out at least one case where capital punishment is warranted, treason.
I digress,but the point is that your slippery slope supposition is flawed. The slippery slope is not nearly as treacherous as you try to illustrate. The right to life, liberty, property, and interestingly, the pursuit of happiness are already guaranteed by the constitution, so you do not, via the 10th, and by some stretch 9th amendment, have the right to "torture small children". In short, the dangerous slope you imagine is not there. The rights that are guaranteed are affirmative rights, not rights to wreak mayhem because of the totality of the document. There is far more to the consitution than just its amendments.
To the issue at hand, there are at least 4 amendments, the 4th, 9th, 10th and 5th amendments that affirm the right to privacy. For instance, the high court already established that these many amendments affirm the right to privacy. Numerous cases establish this over and over again. Heres an incomplete list: Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622, 626, 644; Public Utilities Comm'n v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451; Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167; Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139; Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541., NAACP v. Alabama, Mapp v. Ohio, Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade.
Heres a quote from GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the Supreme Court affirms and reaffirms the "right to privacy":
So, the right to privacy is not some abstract pie in the sky extrapolation thats not clearly established, or created by some ill concieved "slippery slope". Its clearly spelled out in the case law and in several amendments in the constitution. The book is closed as to their being any doubt about there being any "right to privacy", the problem at hand is that certain members of congress have no respect for these rights and would like you believe that right does not exist.
In short, there absolutely is a "right to privacy" according to the law and the constitution , and that, amongst the obvious fact that people should be upset about this invasion of their privacy, should be reason enough to bring every politician that is destroying freedom for "security" to task for these unconstitutional acts. Lets stick to that and not waste time debating about the existence of the right to privacy. Its real and its critical to democracy.
Don't believe me? Then ask yourself this, if privacy isn't critical to a democracy, then why do we vote for the leaders of democracies via secret ballot?
Python
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.
Say you know 10 people. And each of them knows 10 other people you don't know. Six degrees of separation in this case is about a billion people. Since you probably know more than 10 people (although overlap probably means you might not know 10 people that none of your other friends know...) then you might have a case for saying *any* two people are six degrees away from each other. You might think that this sort of set of relationships tend to be restricted by national or cultural boundaries, but in practice, it only takes one person in your list who has a wide array of experiences and/or wide group of acquaintances to jump such limitations.
The site http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/projects/libert y/story/7989769p-8926319c.html does not exist. Although I am happy that you wrote something like this. I proudly live in IL where all our rep's seem to have voted nay. I plan to actually vote come election season and give them my vote.
Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
He probably means the FISA - Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Act - Court. Here's some info, both pre and post 9-11 about the FISA Court. In short - bad shit, almost certainly in violation of the constitution.
EFF
Ratical
Slate
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I messed up. It's one of those four letter acronyms. FISA. I was in a class last year where we had to research several privacy related laws, court rulings, and the dmca and patriot acts. I think the class was called "Information Technology: Ethics and Legal Issues". But the teacher is one of those paranoid folks who no longer trusts the government to respect their privacy, and keeps himself informed on the topic.
To be a terrorist, you have to:
(Perform an act dangerous to human life AND in violation of US law) AND (intimidate or coerce a civilian population OR try to influence the government via intimidation or coersion OR affect government via kidnapping, mass destruction or assasination) AND (be within US jurisdiction)
What aspect of civil rights demonstrations sattisfies that statement?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984