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."
So would Slashdot turn over identifying information to the FBI et al if it was requested? What's the site's position on this?
going to limit the ability of the RIAA to get the names of people downloading misic. i mean if the gov't can't do it, then why should the riaa be able to?
I think that this is a good move.
It is unfortunate that the P.A. even was passed.
I spent some time studying the US constitution this semester, and although I havn't looked at the P.A., I suspect that it breaches the writ of habeus corpus in the US constitution.(Its not even in an amendment- its in the original document)
Writ of Habeus Coprpus: A summons to a gaoler demanding that they present themselves and their prisoner to the judge, so that the gaoler can give an account of why the prisoner is being held.
/b
|f(x)dx = F(b) - F(a)
Troll moderation is right. The ACLU takes care of all the ammendments that the NRA doesn't take care of. It would be a waste of time any money for the ACLU to duplicate the efforts of the NRA.
The reality is that many right wingers have a serious problem with the ACLU, because the ACLU takes on cases that they consider to be "liberal". The ACLU isn't interested in the politics of the situation - they protect Republicans and Democrats alike. They even defend some people who are quite morally despicable, such as racists.
But, those racists have rights too, and they must be protected.
So, when you hear people like this DAldredge railing against the ACLU because they don't take 2nd ammendment cases, what you should understand is that these right wing buffoons really HATE when the ACLU takes on liberal cases, but they don't have a rational reason for opposing the ACLU. This bogus charge that they don't care about the 2nd ammendment is ALL THAT THEY HAVE.
And even the ACLU is being honest about their position. When it comes right down to it, the ACLU doesn't think that the 2nd ammendment was talking about individuals, but state militias. But, this opinion does NOT cause them to litigate along those lines. The ACLU stays out of that conflict to concentrate on areas where there is nobody else fighting for the preservation of rights.
DAldredge, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You're a partisan mudslinger first, and an American second. I doubt that there's any room in there for much appreciation of the Bill of Rights, and the affirmative good that the ACLU has brought to its defense.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Name the country that used the following law enforcement tactics
- Authorizes the use "Secret" Search Warrants that may be carried out without the recipients knowledge and prevent the recipient from discussing said warrant and search with anyone including legal council, which do not define the nature of the search in any means.
- Makes it a Federal Offence to discuss any "secret action" taken by law enforcement by any knowledgeable party.
- Where National Security reasons apply allows suspects to be secretely detained only on law enforcements "reasonable" suspicion and to be held indefinitely without any formal charge nor the ability to seek council or contact anyone to infomr them of their detainment.
- Allows for Court proceedings to be held in secret and all records thereof to be sealed from the public.
Select the answer from the Following List
A) Soviet Russia (USSR)
B) Nazi Germany
C) United States of America
D) All of the above
Check out the ACLU's page on the challenge. There's info on the (redacted) complaint itself, a press release, and related cases and efforts.
Here.
--Ryv
Their full position can be read here. You may not agree with it; but it is a perfectly valid position to take, and in no way inconsistent with their and praiseworthy longstanding defense of our civil liberties.
Woah there, Tiger. You may believe that the Patriot Act is G.W's tyrrany and that Conservatives are "evil", but I assure you, there are very few people in Congress right now who are opposed to it, regardless of party affiliation.
I personally am opposed and I am very conservative. I also do not believe that Bush is the greatest President either, nor Reagan, etc, but that won't stop me from voting for him in November. Why? Because John Kerry firghtens the hell out of me on so many different levels, and I am convinced that if Congress re-ratified the Patriot Act, Kerry would _NOT_ veto it.
To Kerry is another Clinton who votes down the polls which is _NOT_ what a President should ever do, especially with the shit the country is going through today... not even during a re-election campaign (but they all do it!). I don't find Bush particularly intelligent, nor do I find him zealously religious like most people believe him to be, but over the last few years since 9/11, I have seen him toss out what the Public Polls feel is right or wrong, and take action on the things that will protect the Country from crazy people.
Taking on Saddam Hussein is not an easy thing to do. In fact, attacking Saddam has already knocked one President out of office and it may very well knock another out. The Bush Administration was fully aware of this when they made the decision to invade.
I digress. Associating a conservative with _ANY_ political issue is foolish and assuming that Republicans straight off the bat support Bush is plain ignorant.
Nobody likes the Patriot Act. Not a single person, but if Congress wants to re-ratify it, the only concept that puts me at ease is that they likely have their reasons for it.
I feel lucky today that 9/11 was an attack by planes and not a nuclear weapon. Until Islamic Societies mellow out, we _WILL_ have that risk. I personally am convinced that its not a matter of "if", but rather "when".
Mod me down... you cannot effect my Karma.
1933:
Reichstag burned
Attack blamed on communists.
Enabling Act is imposed giving special powers to Hitler.
2001:
Twin Towers destroyed
Attack blamed on terrorists.
Patriot Act is imposed giving special powers to Bush, et al.
I call bullshit.
In every other part of the "Bill of Rights" the ACLU interprets "the people" to mean just that. For some reason with the 2nd amendment "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." doesn't apply to "the people" in the ACLU's opinion.
The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons
Second amendment rights advocates do not believe this either. The ACLU knows that. They're using verbal gymnastics here. Second amendments rights advocates believe that rights exist independantly of the constitution, the constitution serves to limit the governments ability to infringe upon rights that the people HAVE, not to grant non-existant rights.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
If there was no Patriot Act, you guys would bash the President for not having something in place.
Well, I can't speak for everyone on Slashdot, but I personally would not be complaining about the lack of PATRIOT.
I hope you understand that the Patriot Act passed with only 3 no votes. So even if he did veto it, it would still be enacted. So you all should be bashing your local congress/senate person for voting for it
I can't agree, for a number of reasons.
a) The Bush administration was the originator of the PATRIOT Act. Congress didn't get together and say "gee, it would be really great if judges were cut out of the law enforcement loop...let's make an act allowing this!" That's all Ashcroft.
b) Saying that "because element X also did something wrong, you should not complain about element Y" is not correct reasoning. Perhaps they should be recieving flak that they are currently not; that does not mean that Bush should not be complained at.
c) Just because they voted for it does *not* mean that they would override a veto of it -- that Bush vetoing the vote would not have stopped PATRIOT. There's a significant political difference between the two.
It is interesting seeing a Bush supporter on Slashdot, though.
May we never see th
I think Bush has managed to invent a whole new direction to move in. The man has pissed away an obscene surplus projection, put rocket boosters on the deficit, instituted a recovery plan that would make a first year economist trainee weep, started two wars, failed to justify one of them, shoved a law that puts Orwell's work to shame through a pants-pissing Congress, attempted to revitalize the career of the man who defined "creepy Big Brother" with a program that can only be described as "conceived from the bowels of hell", can't do anything without Ashcroft, Cheney, or Rice holding his dick to guide him...
All this and he managed to stonewall an investigation into one of the biggest intelligence disasters in history, roll back a dozen years of progress on diplomacy, environmental issues, and civil rights, AND he took more vacation time his first year in office than any healthy president in history.
Yes... I think Bush has redefined the political spectrum.... in a very bad way. I have never cared about politics before, but I am now a registered voter and I've looked deeper into the issues in the last few months than I had in all my previous years on this planet combined. Way to go Georgey....
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Gore would have known about the attacks months beforehand, as published in the PDB, and taken action, instead of allowing the attacks to occur to create a reason to invade Iraq.
--
I'm a 'third party' swing voter (meaning I haven't found a party I can entirely agree with enough to become a card-carrying member - No, don't go posting a link to the Libertarians as if I've never heard of them. I have, and I don't agree with them enough to support them, although they do resonate with me on some issues and I have voted for their candidate on several occasions.)
Anyway, the point is that I often ignore the Republican vs Democrat issues, knowing full well that I'm voting for neither one, and that on the issues that matter most to me, they aren't that different from each other.
But I've been a major fan of Feingold ever since the Communications Decency Act (part 1). He voted that down (even though it was just a rider on a larger telecom bill), for a number of good reasons he cited in his statement about his vote. Most importantly he said it was wrong to enact laws that define stricter standards of free speech for new mediums as opposed to existing ones. Why is it that things a newspaper can get away with in print should be disallowed for an individual to say online? The fact that the new medium of the internet is quicker, more open, and turns everyone into a publisher, shouldn't be a reason to get stricter on it - just the opposite, really." Feingold was the ONLY SENATOR to oppose the bill. The ONLY ONE. The vote was 98 in favor, 1 abstain, and 1 against. Feingold was that single voice against it (and the supreme court ruling that declared it unconstitutional afterward vindicates his stance.)
That took courage. That took guts. I became a big fan of his on that day and started paying more attention to his voting record. I don't agree with every vote, but the ones that are really important, on issues where congress was trying to move the country to a more totalitarian format, Good Ole Russ was there as the (usually) lone dissenter - saying that no issue is more important than the freedoms of our citizens down the road, that selling away our future rights to take care of an temporary problem is not good policy, even when that temporary problem is something as big and momentous as a major terrorist act killing thousands.
He was also the lone dissenter in the Patriot Act. Again, a very brave thing to do given that opponents can use that to paint him as a traitor, and they probably will try that tactic.
I've sent him a letter (on dead trees, since that tends to get more notice), stating that as long as he keeps it up with this kind of stance against selling out freedom to gain temporary security, that he will continue to have my vote (Yes, I live in Wisconsin so I can do that). The letter also stated that I don't agree with him on lots of his other votes, and that I am not a Democrat, but that no issue is more important today than this one, and so the fact that he's the only one in office with the guts to stand up to these bills means he has won me as an ardent supporter. (And I closed with the famous Ben Franklin quote about giving up freedom for safety and deserving neither.)
I was pleasantly surprised to get a snail-mail reply to this letter, and some of the things in the text of the reply make it clear that it was not just a form letter, as it made explicit references to the fact that I said I am not a member of his party but support him anyway. It was not written by him, but by a staffer (and it was honest enough to say so explicitly), but the gist of it was that the senator had received a lot of similar letters in response to his patriot act vote, too many to answer them all in person, but that the senator's standard response to all such letters was to let people know that he does plan to continue this trend of voting, no matter the consequences.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Was there a huge uproar when the Act was introduced?
Well, yes and no. 26 October 2001 was the day President Bush signed the PATRIOT Act into law, and as the poster above has mentioned it followed the anthrax scare that began around 4 October 2001 (not to mention the 11 September World Trade Center attacks), used by Bush to political advantage in his signatory speech:
Most disturbing is that most supporters of the PATRIOT Act accept the possibility that it might infringe (it does) on citizens' liberties with the reasoning that the government will only go after terrorists who don't deserve rights anyway; that FBI agents will only issue writs - erm, letters - of "national security" (one-page forms that require a court clerk to okay a warrant to search someone's home or workplace and that issue a gag order so that no one can tell the target they've been searched) against terrorists; that the government is never wrong; and that, after all, even if they do monitor people's Internet traffic, they'll only do it to the real threats (which in this case might mean "people conversing in Arabic on the Internet").
The reason there's little opposition from some quarters is that most people think the Act doesn't affect them much; others' civil liberties simply don't come into consideration, particularly when those others constitute a significant minority of the population (say, Arab-Americans, hundreds of whom under provisions of the PATRIOT Act have been detained without access to legal counsel or their families or the outside world for up to a year and released with no remuneration except a "sorry about that" letter from the State Department; and nobody-knows-how-many more of whom remain incarcerated indefinitely). Our legislative system is one where fifty-one percent can pass a bill. (Well, it might possibly require more than that in the Senate because of filibusters and cloture votes and the possibility of Presidential veto - but we definitely operate on a majority rather than a unanimity system for reasons of expediency.) The effect is that the inalienable rights of a minority can be, well, alienated by even a well-intentioned majority only seeking to preserve its own interests.
The fact that you haven't seen much public outcry about the PATRIOT Act (notwithstanding the hundreds of villages and townships that have passed resolutions at least symbolically refusing to cooperate with its provisions, and ignoring the national tour that John Ashcroft had to make - abandoning his duties as Attorney General for a PR campaign - to try to boost the Act) means that many people simply don't care bec
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.