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."
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.
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.
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.
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.