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!"

27 of 984 comments (clear)

  1. Nobody wants it, yet we get it by Master+Bait · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...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.

    --
    "Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
    --Tom Schulman
    1. Re:Nobody wants it, yet we get it by cK-Gunslinger · · Score: 5, Funny


      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."

    2. Re:Nobody wants it, yet we get it by geoffspear · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    3. Re:Nobody wants it, yet we get it by Ralph+Yarro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's the diff? They both WILL screw us over at every opportunity!

      Yes they will, because they've learned that everyone will let them get away with it.

      If you want to change that then the first step is to take the approach of "I don't care what the other guy probably WOULD have done, this one was in power, this one did lie to me, this one is being kicked out".

      Make no secret of the fact that you'll vote them out once they've proved themselves untrustworthy, and then do it.

      Yeah, you can't guarantee everyone will do the same but you can at least make a start. Be a part of a new trend.

      If enough people take this approach then eventually it will work.

      The reason politicians are lying deceitful scum is because it WORKS. It gets them elected. Start changing that.

      --

      The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
    4. Re:Nobody wants it, yet we get it by StenD · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Nobody wants it, yet we get it by rmassa · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  2. Re:Terrorist Clause by saunder3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is easy for them to define "investigating for possible terrorist association" as anything they want.

  3. More info by pantycrickets · · Score: 5, Informative

    There was a post about this on whatreallyhappened.com.. and it linked to a large article about it here.

    1. Re:More info by tealover · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't kid yourself- they still do.

      Are you living in the same world as the rest of us?

      America used to be diplomatically effective without having to use force. They did so by leading the way with treaties like SALT, SALT II. They were the prime funders of the UN. They were signatories to most international treaties.

      Today, America is effective because it has told everyone that YOU ARE WITH US OR AGAINST US. You don't win mindshare that way. You win resentment.

      If you don't see what's going on with the EU, the leftist governments in South America, the rampant hostitlity towards America in teh Middle East and Southeast Asia...well, all I can say is you need to play less videogames and look out your window.

      --
      -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
    2. Re:More info by TandyMasterControl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Acually what Congress (and a runaway Executive of the same political party) can do is IGNORE the Constitution. Which if you read it (the USC together with the article at the top of this thread) is basically what the Executive (FBI) is already doing.

      Yes, I think this is a clear case of a 4th amendment violation, indeed a whole policy intended to VOID and break it, and so clear a violation that it breaks the category. Don't need a court order to go rifling through a citizen's bank accts? Shit then why did we bother having a Constitution at all if its rules against unwarranted searches can be ignored at a whim?

      I think the Constitution's Framers knew ALL ABOUT about the possibility of "seditious" forces or "terrorism" or whatever you want to call it: after all they THEMSELVES were armed revolutionaries against their legitimate government. Arguments that "the Constitution isn't a suicide pact" and therefore Mrs. John Asscleft shall be allowed to paw through citizen's private information at will simply because it's expedient is the most breathtakingly cynical perversion of this country's committment to liberty in its history.
      I've seen the Constitution violated before, but the perps eventually were called to account. The other branches did their job or at least faked it. The perps didn't always go to jail, but they suffered disgrace and the fear of being caught. Never before -NEVER- have I seen the Constitution dispensed with in broad daylight --simply WAIVED-- with breezy arguments that "everything's changed: that was then, but this is now" and "the Dear Leader needs your civil liberties melted down in order to fight terra."

      Change the Constitution? They don't have to change it when they can just use the compliant and ignorant corporate media to convince the public that if the gummint does it, it can't be illegal. They just leave the Constitution's words in place and pretend the meanings have changed. Done deal, and oh yeah you're Un-goddamn-American if you dare protest what they're doing.

      --
      Johnny Quest has two Daddies.
  4. Way ahead of you. by sparklingfruit · · Score: 5, Funny

    I pre-ordered my 21" telescreen yesterday, I bought myself a newspeak dictionary and enrolled my daughter in the Junior Anti-Sex League.

    1. Re:Way ahead of you. by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Get ready to be saying "The U.S. is at war with Iran. The U.S. has always been at war with Iran."

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
  5. Tinfoil hats by bathmatt · · Score: 5, Funny

    They may be able to read my bank records, but they cant read my mind thanks to my tinfoil hat.

  6. Yay democracy! by sssmashy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re:Terrorist Clause by PCM2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  8. Re:Call me a spinless, communist.... by Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    what reason would you have to hide it?

    It isn't hidden. There is, however, something called privacy.

    The "if you're innocent, you have nothing to hide" argument is a strawman I tire of. It's not about hiding. When I'm in the bathroom, I am not hiding. That doesn't mean I want everyone looking.

    Same for my bank account. It's simply nobodys business what's going on there. If the FBI wants to peek, they'd better have a good reason to, and until recently, it was a judges job to decide whether the reason is any good.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  9. So here are your choices: by anomaly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    --
    But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
  10. USPS? by cperciva · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  11. I'm so sick of hearing "if you are innocent..." by sabaco · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    This is SO educational! -- Kintaro Oe
  12. it will further destroy the US economy by fermion · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  13. Re:Call me a spinless, communist.... by monique · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's not a matter of having something to hide.

    I am not embarrassed about what's in my fridge, but I still don't invite people to take a peek. I'm not embarrassed about what's in my palm pilot, but I still don't post it on the web.

    The question isn't, "Do I have something to hide?" The question is, "Why should I allow you to go on a fishing expedition through my private life when you have no admissable cause to suggest that I'm doing anything illegal?"

    --
    -monique
  14. Your $15 Can Help Fight Back by jalefkowit · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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

    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, 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?

  15. Re:Terrorist Clause by rhombic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

    --
    1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
  16. So write your sentaor! by Nevo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  17. Re:Suspicious activities by igaborf · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If I get flagged as being something I'm not, further investigation will reveal that I'm not doing anything wrong.

    I hope so, but as it stands right now they could keep you in the can indefinitely while they investigate, without charges and without access to an attorney -- just because they suspect you.

    In my book, that's a violation of the fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth amendments. At least.

  18. Re:Terrorist Clause (aka, violating rights clause) by ramdac · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  19. "National Security" has a lose definition at best by erroneus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.