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."
USA == Land of the not so free.
troll. besides what makes you think the ACLU has a slated view of the bill of rights
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
> The American Civil Liberties Union is challenging the FBI's use
> of expanded powers to compel Internet service providers to
> turn over information about their customers or subscribers.
> People who receive the letters are prohibited by law from
> disclosing to anyone that they did so. Because of this legal
> gag order, the ACLU was forced to reach an agreement with
> the Justice Department before a heavily edited version of the
> lawsuit could be unsealed.
"PATRIOT Act"? Damn you, Orwell and your Newspeak!
So the ACLU was suing to protect Americans' privacy from the government prying into ISP customer data. But no one knew about it, since there's another law that prevents the ACLU from telling the public. So they're basically fighting for our freedoms in secret?
It reminds me of that light from the classic show, "The Prisoner": "Why don't you just lock us all up and be done with it?"
I call upon the self-proclaimed conservatives who never tire of claiming they're against "big government". Stop for a minute punctuating every sentence with "terrorism," and "support the troops; we're at war!" like some sort of right-wing Speak and Spell. Remember this on election day: Bush believes the PATRIOT Act should be renewed and celebrated. There's your big government, pal.
Sheesh. Someone get me a valium.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
force companies that hold personal information, specifically in this case, ISPs, to turn over their records without a court order.
As opposed to the warerant-mill judges the FBI already have who give 'em out like candy, this just made it official, the FBI has been using the constitution for toilet paper for decades
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Thank God for the American Civil Liberties Union. For everyone who hasn't done so yet, I recommend visiting the ACLU website as well as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and donating, even if it's just a small amount. Help keep America free.
This is a special excite
This
Maybe you don't agree with a lot of their suits or think they waste resources and time on foolish pursuits, but this time they hit the nail on the head. Hopefully we'll open up the little breach in the PATRIOT dam that'll grow big enough to topple it.
And don't forget:
"President Bush has been pushing Congress to renew all of the Patriot Act before it expires next year..."
Vote.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
Amendment IV
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.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
So far, We've seen media-described breaches of all of these in the DoJ, FBI, and Military holdings in the military base in Cuba.
Why do we still have this president again?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
And about time this is happening, too.
I'm always amazed at Americans who consider being a "card-carrying member" of the ACLU a bad thing.
Sure, you may not agree with some of the individuals they protect, but it is comforting to know that there is an organization that will protect the rights of anyone, irrespective of personal opinions/feelings/politics.
The USA is supposed to be a country based on the Constitution, and was founded with the belief that every individual has natural rights that need to be protected -- against the government, against the majority, against those in power. These ACLU folks are every bit as patriotic as the folks in the armed forces doing their duty overseas that the current presidential administration loves to trumpet about. To see true patriots go up against the so-called "PATRIOT Act" warms my heart.
It wouldn't be a question of whether Slashdot would decide to turn over requested information to the FBI or not.
They would. I can't imagine they'd feel good about it, but anyone would in that position.
However, the *real* question is, what data could they turn over, if requested- i.e. what do they collect, and what pre-emptive measures do they take against this FBI action (for instance, they could only keep certain data for 24 hours before deleting it... or 6 hours. Or whatever).
RD
Does anyone else find the fact that they can't even share the details of the lawsuit with us incredibly scary?
Whether the rest of the PATRIOT act remains or not, we should at least have the right and opportunity to free and open public debate about it.
Hide all the details when you're looking for information, sure, but don't hide the details and criticisms of the act. That is exactly the sort of thing that we all have a right to know.
Since the current administration views the Presidency as answerable to no entities, domestic (judiciary, congressional, public) or foreign, they will keep attacking the Constitution as long as they are in power. And they will do this with a free conscience becasue they are incapable of even imagining that anything they do is wrong. After all, God put them in place to do it all.
Let's disregard the whole argument "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" routine. Consider for a moment that you haven't done anything wrong, but your ISP's records are requested by the FBI via an NSL. So, there goes your privacy. Maybe you cruised a pr0n site or two, maybe you shared some freely-distributable music. Does the fact that the FBI can investigate you without cause scare you? It should.
From the other side of things, it's nice that the government can just barge right in to grab the information that's needed... but... I wonder; if the FBI can demand such information without reasonable suspicion, and without court order, what's the point? To make it faster? More secret? What is it about obtaining a warrant that takes so long that it warrants (pardon the pun) circumventing judicial approval? From what I understand (and please feel free to enlighten me), as long as there's reasonable suspicion, there should be no roadblocks to obtaining a warrant. So what's the point of this portion of PATRIOT? Looks like more government power to me.
I am a huge supporter of the ACLU, and I have to agree that they pay only lip-service to this part of the Bill of Rights. Clearly, the whole nonesense about the National Guard being the "militia" mentioned is just a convenient gloss-over for those who don't think a repeal of the 2nd Amendment is feasible.
But, I ask you this -- isn't it better to support an organization that does protect the majority of the Bill of Rights vigorously than to let all our rights fall into oblivion? Let's get behind protecting as much as we can -- not tearing down those who don't match up to every one of our expectations.
Sometimes, you have to choose the half-full glass to get anything at all, or choose the lesser of two evils...
troll.
Yeah, but I've previously gone on record as believing that not all trolls are without merit and have garnered a few troll moddings myself.
besides what makes you think the ACLU has a slated view of the bill of rights
Probably statements like this, taken from their website:
If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.
It doesn't even really make sense, it's the sort of "logic" that allows you to justify anything.
I think he got the count wrong though. The ACLU only has 8 ammendments in their version, since they leave out the one that everyone else leaves out as well, the most important one really, since it provides the rights that most people argue we don't have.
That would be the Ninth Ammendment.
That one was put in there to appease the Hamiltonians who argued that an explict Bill of Rights would be used to limit rights by falsely interpreting the specific wording, allowing Congress to make law that the Constitution gave them no authority to.
Looks like old Alex and the boys nailed that one dead on I'm afraid.
KFG
Well, I know for a fact that there were several thousand detainees in the Tri-State area about a year ago who were being held for months without even being charged. I think that qualifies as a violation of habeas corpus.
Then there was an additional throng who had been ordered deported two or three months previously, but who were still being held.
Once upon a time, a young bull and an old bull were standing on a hill, overlooking a valley full of cows.
The young bull said to the old bull, "Hey, old bull, let's run down into the valley and maybe we can fuck one of them cows!"
The old bull turned to the young bull with a wizened eye and said "No. We walk down. We fuck 'em all."
Upon hearing this, the young bull was enlightened.
People of all nations deserve HUMAN RIGHTS, the Bill of Rights guarantees that for those under its jusisdiction.
While foreigners may not be covered by this, to argue that they don't deserve rights and are 'terrorists' without any checks or balances is arguably arguably inhumane.
Name the country that, if you were a citizen of said country and made your comment, would not put you in prison (or just put a bullet through your skull):
A) Soviet Russia (USSR)
B) Nazi Germany
C) United States of America
D) All of the above
If you didn't answer C then you are simply a reactionary fool.
Listen, I'm all for fighting for privacy, security, and equal rights, but can we please keep the knee-jerk paranoid comparisons out of the discourse? It doesn't serve any purpose but to delegitimize you arguments in reasonable minds.
Well said. The typical "libertarian" reply that because that the ACLU doesn't litigate over the 2nd amendment that NOTHING they do is worthwhile is illogical and like you said mainly a cover for people who just dislike them because they perceive the ACLU to be liberal.
Maybe, MAYBE you would have a reason not to support them if they actually litigated AGAINST your interests, but if they don't then what exactly is the problem? Any money you would donate would go towards things you would support, none would go against your interests, but because they don't spend money on every case you would want them to you're going to refrain from supporting them? It's stupid, it's illogical, and it's intellectual cowardice.
Im neither a lawyer or an american, but even i can see that this whole thing is totally unconstitutional to the point where you have to wonder: if bush came right out tomorrow and said "the bill of rights is null and void" would there be mass protest? or would there be a little poll on the cnn website?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym S[tephen] G. Tallentyre.
The stigma about being a card-carrying member of the ACLU is just that, a negative stigma. It's not something to be ashamed of though. Would you be ashamed of being a card-carrying member of the EFF or EPIC? There's nothing shameful about asserting your rights.
This is an important distinction. Acronymn use reduces the propaganda value of those seven letters. As audiences learn the difference between an acronymn and semantic hijacking, ROI for future hijacking decreases.
What utter, utter rubbish.
The Government has no, zero, nada right to conduct surveillance of me! Who the fuck do they think they are?
The problem is that people seem to be forgetting that Governments are there to serve the people- not the other way around.
It's Governments that need to be put under surveillance- NOT the public. The problem is that acts like Patriot turn that completely around- and then you get people like the parent poster *accepting* the basic premise of such legislation! Now *THAT'S* scarey.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
OK, OK, I'm with everyone that decries the abomination and desecration of the Constitution that the "Patriot Act" is.
Let's move on, though.
Beneath the knee-jerk reaction is a reasonable intention: what can be done to better protect a free society from being victimized by terrorists?
Is it not possible to craft legislation that achieves this goal in a more effective manner with less infringement of individual liberties?
[I've been a fan of Bruce Schneier and his observation that more effective and more economical security policies, for computers and for the broader arena, are frequently overlooked.]
"Provided by the management for your protection."
I won't defend the government or anyone's right to conduct surveillance of anyone, including themselves. However, surveillance (i.e. observation) is an inevitable sensory by-product of mobility. Unless you are stationary beneath a big rock in a dark cave, you are making sensory observations and are the subject of sensory observation.
... observations will be made, retained and called into evidence. What is subject to debate is the process of this cycle. To the extent that our taxes are employed in this process, we have input into the process. Hence, public collection is more accountable than private collection.
Given that observations will occur and given that crimes will occur, historical observations (even if limited only to fading human memory) will become evidence in the prosecution of crime. Digital observations are cheap, comprehensive (7x24), indefinite (storage) and increasing in scope (cheaper and more mobile sensors).
Therefore
A useful technique is widespread, reciprocal digital signature of observations. E.g. Slashdot generates a log record of your IP address visiting their HTTP server, but the returned page includes a cryptographically signed "receipt" for that log record. That receipt hashes not just your anonymous public key, but a sequence number that is enmeshed with all other Slashdot visitors in the temporal neighborhood of your visit. The authenticity of Slashdot logs is then linked to a random, distributed cluster of witness (visitor) observations.
Watch the Watchers. Audit the Auditors. We are all fallible.
You know, if the 800,000 dead in Rwanda had been armed with rifles, pistols, and shotguns they might not have all been killed.
Just like all those gun-toting Americans stood up for American Japanese back in World War II and protected them from being illegally detained and held in American concentration camps?
I'm well aware of your argument. There's a time and a place when having access to weapons makes sense. Perhaps if we gave every Iraqi an AK-47, boxes of grenades, and tons of ammo, Iraq would be a safe society today. And if you and your buddies grabbed your rifles, pistols, and shotguns and decided to defend the constitution by standing up to the injustice committed against that 97 year old, what do you think would happen? I'm guessing the military would be called in and you'd all be facing a firefight with the marines.
Perhaps you think society should be patrolled by ad-hoc police forces made up of its citizens, but we saw how well that worked in the corn fields down south many years ago. I don't think a white hood makes for a good police uniform if you know what I mean.
I don't think anyone (including grandparent) believes this country is as oppressive as the USSR or Nazi Germany, but when we are having our essential freedoms limited, perhaps we should do something before our country goes that far....
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
I think you totally missed the point. When discussing the erosion of freedoms, it's important that the line items themselves be discussed. Comparing the United States to Russia or Germany is not meant to promote the discourse, it's meant to incite anger or to play to an audience (or to get mod points from others with equally idiotic worldviews). We have to keep things in perspective. Russia and Germany killed millions to keep their leaders in power and to grab more. Here in the USA, when a new President is ELECTED to office, power will change hands with a handshake, as its been done since George Washington passed power to John Adams.
In our world, Russia/Germany and the United States are actually on completely opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to the freedoms its citizens have. The very fact that we can have this discussion without fear of governmental retribution is evidence of that.
The ACLU provides abortion and family planning services? That's news to me.
Furthermore, the situation between the ACLU and the NRA isn't nearly the same as between the ACLU and Planned Parenthood. For 2nd ammendment rights, the first name you think of is NRA. Everybody who cares about 2nd ammendment rights belongs to the NRA.
It is a fact that the ACLU was the first organization to argue for abortion rights. Got that right off the link you provided. Therefore, the ACLU isn't duplicating the efforts of other agencies. The other agencies are duplicating the ACLU with regard to their legal actions.
But, as I said before, the ACLU doesn't provide family planning services, those are provided by Planned Parenthood.
In other words, you got nothing.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Sadly, no, the only things funny about our sitting president is his misuse of the language. Everything else he has done is very, very, serious, and these are serious responses to a serious crisis.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
somehow I don't think that 800 thousand bogus hotmail addresses and fradulent names are going to make the FBI sing and dance. But that's just what i think.. who really knows what's going on, with a fumble-mouthed ignoramus in charge of the country, and the inhabitants a bunch of repressed spineless bozos.
just like the humble blood clot... turboporsche@telus.net
That's not evidence, that's your interpretation. And it's based on assumption and an inadequate consideration of what the colonies actually were (why on Earth would a colonized portion of land have its own standing army anyway? The country wasn't as old as *I* am when that amendment was written, of COURSE it didn't have a standing army).
Are you beginning to see the problem with stating a position on the issue as unequivocal fact yet?
If you'd like some context, remember this: the colonists weren't fighting a foreign invader, they had just wrapped up fighting their OWN GOVERNMENT. Why should they be assumed to be considering protection from an invading force when they wrote the amendment?
Why is carrying a gun unjustifiable? That's just another wild, emotional statement. You're not basing this on fact. I can respect that you have a position, but I'm not going to think it has any merit if you can't produce hard evidence for it.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Yes, they are completely opposite if applied to the same context. The first was to show that the dichotomy between Russia, Germany, and the United States didn't exist. The implication, though technically not explicitly stated, was the compare our government with the governments of totalitarian tyrants. The second applied to how those who respect freedom should defend it within our border.
My friend's mother is a hypochondriac. She has a bowel pain and assumes she's got colon cancer. She calls everyone to lament about how she has colon cancer and is on the verge of death. She goes to the doctor, he tells her it was gas, and she laments about how bad of a doctor he was and how he's dooming her to an awful death.
Setting up a comparison like the root poster did is akin to crying wolf. If things do get bad, you've spent all of the capital you might have had by making reactionary comments. The environmental movement is experience the same things today. The disingenuous nature of previous comments (and grade-school indoctrination) about how we are all on the verge of acid rain and on the verge of destroying our planet have made the average person apathetic towards environmental causes, even when the plight might be more important today than ever.
You are much more likely to convince people your position is the correct one (and that is the goal regarding protection of freedoms...right?) by providing an accurate view of the world and not playing on people's worst fears.
If some goverment functionary wants to snoop through my ISPs records to see that I spend 80% of my time online surfing for porn let them have at it...I am not going to worry about it because the courts will settle it.
So you also don't mind if they hold you as a "material witness" during the course of their investigation? You don't mind floating the bill for your lawyer? And if you can't afford one (of course the state will provide you with a very competent one to stand for your defense), what about all the time you lose at your job or with your family? Or the unnecessary embarrassment - who's going to hire you from now on? Your name has now been stained unneedingly.
If you want to go through all of that over nothing, be my guest.
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
The oppressive laws tend to come before the bullets-in-skulls. Maybe it would be better to address the oppressive laws now.
What's paranoid about it? These tactics are really in use, he's not inventing anything. (hint: that's the point of the story)
The constitution protects the right to engage in all those types of speach, however it does not protect you from being found criminaly or civily liable for the consequences of those actions, hence if you yell fire in a crowded theatre and someone is trampled to death, you will be tried for manslaughter. If you cause damage to the theatre by people panicing and seeking alternate exits, you are liable for the damages. If you threaten or harrass another person this is a matter of you impinging on their rights, and as such criminal. So the speach itself is not illegal, it is the way it is used, just as we have the right to bear arms, but if you use your gun, or your sword, or your knife, or pike to take a life, you are tried for murder. Libel and slander are both civil laws, and as such, don't realy have the same limitations. after all you are perfectly free to print libelous materials, so long as you can pay the damages.
That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
Keep in mind that the governments of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany are no longer in power. The US can't say the same, so for the posters who have been flying off the handle: of course it's not the exact same because the US isn't finished yet! Among other things, the government is trying to drum up support to make the PATRIOT Act *permanent*. Is this a good idea given the history of nationalized secrecy? THIS is the major point of the original poster, for United Statesians to keep their eyes open and realize the histories of the path that the US Government *may* be going down.
And let's not even get into the absurdity of the Bush Administration's cynical attempts to invent exceptions to the Geneva Convention, since this thread is already in severe danger of going Bozon-nuclear.
While the USSR and Germany were leftist movements and the US is rightist, the government's promises are the same: that the citizens will be safer and better off if they let the government do what they want. Secrecy only benefits those with the secrets.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
is the widespread belief that a descent into true tyranny is impossible in the USA.
When the average American hears tales of abuse of the Patriot act, he thinks of ACLU bleeding hearts protecting terrorists. At most, he might be able to conjure up government agents using personal data to catch a tax-evader or getting a list of a citizen's favorite pron sites. He concludes that this isn't so bad if it helps combat terrorism.
We've been taught to think of America being "the land of the free" and having a superior political system to the rest of the world. Therefore, many of us have difficulty making the connection between giving the government more power to go after "bad guys" with the possibility of such powers being used to quell political dissent.
I feel that we are firmly on a road that will lead to an dictatorship in the USA. We've given up important rights and more are sure to follow. Eventually, opposing views will be squashed to the point where only certain "approved" candidates will even be allowed to run for office (ala pre-invasion Iraq).
-- scsg
The analogy does not hold. A parents job often includes protecting a child from himself (drugs, peer pressure, etc). The government is NOT supposed to protect someone from themselves. Governments serve the people, parents don't "serve" their children, at least not in the same respects. The government will need to invade people privacy from time to time, thats what search warrents and the like are for. But they shouldn't be allowed to do it in secret. And there should be definit limits to that power. You have to draw the line somewhere. The patriot act goes well past where I would draw it, indeed where I think most americans would draw it.
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
Theoritically the government only has the rights that the people allow it to. And to a certain extent this is the case here. The PATRIOT Act (it is actually an acronym) gives the government the power to conduct surveillance. Was there a huge uproar when the Act was introduced? Did letters and emails flood Congress opposing the Act? Were representations made to those ellected to represent you?
From a human rights and constitutional point of view certain parts of the Act can and should be challenged, but it seems so far that this has not been pursued vigorously.
"She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
You'd believe that argument only if you never read the ammendment. The 2nd actually includes the word "militia" in it. The others don't.
OK, here's a clue for you. There have been many more smart people than us arguing the situation for a very long time. What makes you think that you are right and everyone else is wrong?
Now, I grant you that you might be right and the ammendment acutally gives the people as well as militias the right to own guns. Now, how about this? You take my gun from me and I pop a cap in your ass.
In other words, I'm a liberal gun nut, and you're preaching to the choir. I don't care that the ACLU believes different than me, because they have the right to think anything they want, AND they do a hell of a lot of good work that I benefit from.
But, for you to argue that their position on the 2nd ammendment weakens their other arguments is absolutely ridiculous. The 2nd ammendment really has an ambiguous wording, and to not acknowlege that is dishonest. Good people can interpret it either way.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
even though most of you have never read it, nor have any idea what it actually does.
I'd be willing to bet that the typical Slashdot reader is more informed than the typical Joe on what the PATRIOT Act is and means from the articles here. I am also willing to bet that the typical Slashdot reader opposes (more strongly than the average Joe, at least) the PATRIOT Act. This is an interesting correlation.
As for reading it -- the PATRIOT Act is a very large piece of legal text, and reading the thing in its entirety and original form is not, I think, reasonable to expect everyone to do. It might be a good thing, but I have never read my state's full legal code, even though I am governed by it and could go to jail for violating it.
May we never see th
I've twice voted for Nader, but Feingold is one of the few democrats that I'd have no qualms about voting for in a presidential election.
While Russ stands for the common man, it's too easy for the other side to portray him as the worst four letter word in politics... liberal.
I can't tell you how many times I had hoped for a ticket made up of Feingold and Wellstone.
sigh...
Frogs are primitive animals - so the occasional extra toe is not that unusual. But this is very unusual.
But you're still missing the point. If its so bad then why the almost unanimous support for it from the House and Senate regardless of party affiliation? If it is so bad, then wouldn't you think some Democrat or Republican senator would rally against it? Even Ted Kennedy voted for it!
You can almost always push something like this through in a time of national fear. In a national emergency, there is tremendous pressure put on legislators to "stand together" with the President and legislative branch. Yes, legislators shouldn't do this, but they *do* do so, and it's not as if the Executive Branch is unaware of it -- 9/11 provided a fabulous opportunity to push through bills relating to limiting civil rights and increasing police powers. The Executive Branch bears significant responsibility here, in my mind, because it was the easiest place to avoid the law modification that took place.
Would the PATRIOT Act pass today, in a more cool-headed environment? I doubt it.
Should the legislators who voted on the PATRIOT Act take some blame? Of course. However, many legislators (from both parties) are now taking the embarassing stance that, yes, they should not have allowed the PATRIOT Act through. It takes a lot to make legislators willing to publically accept blame and reverse positions, and I can't ask for much more from them to be done than what appears to be happening. I have not seen that degree of public support for the limitation or elimination of the PATRIOT Act from the Bush administration.
What if it were written with strict guidlines, would you still not like it?
I'd have to see a revised version. I can't make a claim of support or non-support without seeing what might go through.
I *do* think that there would probably have to be a couple of changes made:
* A replacement PATRIOT Act should be several broken-up bills, where individual power grants are each voted on. The bundling of elements in acts is where most of the abuses of our current legislative system seem to come from, and something that is very disturbing when it comes to altering protections civilians have against governmental abuse.
* I do not think I would agree to an act that allowed judicial bypass for wiretaps, with the following possible single proviso: If the FBI must obtain data *immediately*, the delay of which might pose grievious harm to the Unitd States and cannot afford judicial review, they may obtain the data now and undergo regular judicial review later. Such use would have to be periodically subject to an overview board, and could not be held secret. I doubt that this is a valid complaint, given that current wiretap orders can be granted within the day, but it's one of the few ways I can think of that PATRIOT might fail.
May we never see th