Slashdot Mirror
ACLU Sues FBI Over ISP Records
An anonymous reader writes "One of the provisions of the infamous USA PATRIOT Act is the ability for the government to force companies that hold personal information, specifically in this case, ISPs, to turn over their records without a court order. MSNBC is reporting about a lawsuit filed by the ACLU in secret because of another provision in PATRIOT that prevents public disclosure of these matters. The gag order was dropped when the Justice Department agreed to not take any action against the ACLU."
Parent is not a troll, mods just didn't get it or disagreed... either don't mod things you don't understand, or leave them alone. You're here to mod for the benefit of discussion, not your own personal agenda.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
You were saying?
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
I believe that you misunderstand the situation.
The ACLU is not challenging the FBI's ability to request ISP customer data from suspected criminals or other shady figures.
What it is challenging is the fact that under the PATRIOT Act of 2001, the FBI can now do this "without a judge's approval."
"The ACLU lawsuit contends that the USA Patriot Act...expanded the FBI's power to use national security letters by deleting parts of an earlier law requiring that there be some suspicion that the subject of the probe was linked to spying or terrorism."
Thus, in the past the FBI had to go to a court and get approval before they received authorization to access all this data. Now, however, they don't need to show any reasonable suspicion. That's what the ACLU is arguing.
I don't know why this is "-1 Troll." The parent post has a valid point about the hypocrisy of the ACLU.
Wired reported in another story about a lawsuit against the government for it's failure to destroy certain database records (emphasis added):
Yet Slashdotters bitch and complain when the state of Florida wants to retain driving records for 3 months.
Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU, has stated that
Never mind. I know exactly why it was modded "-1 Troll."
Yeah, I think that's the basis of Jose Padilla's case at the Supreme Court. You know, the "dirty bomber". First it was foreigners and now it's American citizens who are denied fundamental legal rights. Ashcroft/Bush have seriously f*cked up things in this country.
Yes, in fact the "Justice" department encourages the use of the PATRIOT ACT against anyone and anything. The idea is to make it so entrenched in the way they do business, that to repeal it when the terrorist threat goes away (or at any time really) because a very big issue of public safety.
An example of this was the G-Sting operation in Las Vegas, the feds used the PATRIOT ACT against owners of strip clubs.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
It was the CRIA and they were actually denied getting the information from the ISP's at all because the Judge failed to see how putting MP3's in a shared folder on your computer differs from that of having a photo copier in a library surrounded by copyrighted material.
This case doesn't really have anything to do with what happened in Canada though, because Canada doesn't have a PATRIOT act.
You may consider not wasting your vote on a Democran or Republicrat. Try these alternatives: www.lp.org www.constitutionparty.com www.natural-law.org
You all seem to forget that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government is not required to comply with Constitutional restraints when they legislate for the United States - see Art. 1 Sec.8 Para. 17 of the U.S. Consitution. What is the federal government definition of "United States"? According to Art. 1 Sec.8 Para. 17 of the U.S. Consitution, the "United States" is defigned as federally owned properties and territories. 90% of federal legislation does not apply outside of the "Federal United States". 90% of fedral law does not apply to 95% of the American public. Study the U.S. Constitution. "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it". - 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 "An unconstitutional act is not law..." - 118 US 425 p. 442 Remember the rule... "if you don't know your rights, you don't have any". "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" -Edmund Burke 1729 - 1797
Oh, and I realize that while it has absolutely nothing to do with the electronic or online realm, since we're talking about things like basic human freedoms and rights to privacy, NORML is another fine organization working to secure all Americans the right to pursue happiness as they choose.
This is a special excite
This
I am convinced that if Congress re-ratified the Patriot Act, Kerry would _NOT_ veto it.
Bush is asking for it to be made permanent, hence if Congress passes it, he will sign it.
Kerry has said publicly that he's uncomfortable with at least some portions of the act, hence he might sign it.
Therefore, if you oppose the act (as I do), logically you should vote for Kerry. Of course you may have other issues that trump your concern for the act, and you're entitled to those opinions, but please don't base your decision to vote for Bush on assuming Kerry would sign the act.
And don't forget: "President Bush has been pushing Congress to renew all of the Patriot Act before it expires next year..."
Vote.
...and do what? Vote out a guy that is in favor of it and vote in the guy who made it law? He voted for it. Kerry is not against the Patriot act. His only public grief with it is that Bush's appointee is utilizing it instead of his appointee.
Head over to JohnKerry.com if you don't beleive me:
FACT: You can sum up the problems with the Patriot Act in two words: John Ashcroft.
John Kerry stands by his vote for the Patriot Act.
He says that it is not the law that is the problem but the abuse of the law that is causeing problems with civil liberty. In other words, "give us the power, not them and we'll only use it for good." Ya, right. If the government has the power, they're going to use that power.
while i'm no big fan of george bush, most people seem to have forgotten that the patriot act wass passed overwhelmingly in an evenly divided house and all but unanimously (1 dissenting vote) in an evenly divided senate. so dubya is hardly the cause of our problems (at least wrt patriot). bill clinton has spoken very favorably of patriot also, and iirc tried to pass something similar after the oklahoma city bombings. apparently there wasn't quite enough public outrage after that one to push it through....
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
Go read about the secret FBI files kept during the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. Read all about them. There are many, many, clearly documented examples of the government tracking and taking careful notes on the legal activities of citizens. There are also plenty of examples of the government then using those notes to harm those citizens.
Tell us if you think that it is ok for the government to keep secret files on citizens.
My grandfather publically protested shady government construction contracts in the 1960s, and the FBI followed him and harassed him until he lost his business. The work he found to support his family - manual labor installing isulation - killed him. We know he has an FBI file, but my mother is waiting until her mother dies before she fights to read it.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
The reasoning they're employing is that those folks are POW's rather than criminals. One could argue all day about fair trials, and they'd only say "we have no intention of even charging them with a crime; we're holding them as POWs till the war is over". Crappy, but technically valid.
No, because POWs have rights as prescribed by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Which rights those at Guantanemo are not afforded (eg free association, same standard of barracks as is normal for their captors, not be subjected to interrogation, etc.).
So instead they're called "illegal combatants", which is not a term recognised under international law, TTBOMK (afaict, the US administration just pulled that phrase out of the air). A combatant is a POW, and to judge them otherwise (eg "illegal") requires due process by competant tribunal. Now, if they're not a combatant, then their treatment is specified by the Geneva convention relative to the treatment of Civilians in times of war, which again demands due process.
So, it's not that it's "crappy but technically", it's crappy and in contravention of the Geneva conventions, but the present US administration simply does not care, nor do the US public really, sadly. To paraphrase a certain priest describing civil rights in 1930s Germany, first they take away the rights of xyz, but you dont speak out because you're not xyz, then they come for, etc.. eventually, when they come for you there'll be noone left to speak out.
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
free fax
I'm probably going to edit the default text after I read up on whether adding a law is a more reasonable response than just urging my congressdrone to repeal PATRIOT altogether, but it looks like you could use it to express any opinion you wanted.
mitch
"Maybe I haven't been following too closely, but wasn't all the information already there before 9/11?"
Yes, but the "problem" is that the FBI and the CIA are not allowed _by law_ to cross-ref their information, since the CIA cannot operate inside US borders. Ditto for the NSA.
So, yes, we had all the right information in collective knowledge, but it wasn't being shared to put together the "ack, 9/11 tomorrow!" warning. Whether that's good or bad is up to your particular opinion, I suppose. But it's rather misleading to say "oh, they're just a bunch of screw-ups". There are laws that prevented them from using that information to put together the real situation.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
"In times of war" only applies to the military, not civilians.
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
The ISP's name was kept secret, but you may be able to deduce it from the redacted brief
In the following excerpts, I have made the number of asterisks proportional to the size of the censored words:
Plaintiff ***** is an Internet access ************ business incorporated and located ***********. [Long block of censored text] sues on its own behalf and on behalf of its clients.***** is an Internet access ************ business located and incorporated ** **********.
***** provides a number of Internet related services for its clients.
***** has both paying and non-paying clients.
***** possesses a wide array of sensitive information about its clients. With respect to any particular clients, ***** may possess [long block of censored text].
Some of *****'s clients communicate anonymously or pseudoanonymously.
Some of *****'s clients are individuals and political associations that engage in controversial political speech.
Some of *****'s clients maintain accounts with ***** specifically because of *****'s commmitment to security.
So, we can be reasonably sure that the ISP is NOT:
It's probably a more obscure provider. Any guesses?
If the grand parent was referring to the FISA court, then yes, in fact, no request has been denied in over 23 years.
Frogs are primitive animals - so the occasional extra toe is not that unusual. But this is very unusual.
The Patriot Act also keeps some data managment work from being shipped into the USA from other countries. For example, the province of British Columbia will not allow medical care work to be contracted out to operations in the Excited States because the Patriot Act trumps patient confidentiality.
So the Patriot Act perversely encourages "offshoring" and discourages data from being sent into the States.
FreeSpeech.org