USA PATRIOT Act Survives Amendment Attempt

crem_d_genes writes "A bill to modify the USA PATRIOT Act that would have blocked part of the legislation's provisions that allow for the investigation of people's reading habits was defeated by a 210-210 vote in the U.S House of Representives. The House leaders kept the roll call open for 23 minutes past the 15 minute deadline to persuade 10 Representatives to change votes. According to the article 'Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., said he switched his initial "yes" vote to "no" after being shown Justice Department documents asserting that terrorists have communicated over the Internet via public library computers.' On the other hand, 'Critics of the Patriot Act argued that even without it, investigators can get book store and other records simply by obtaining subpoenas or search warrants.'"

Comments

The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[foidulus]

but I don't see anyone moving to block them. Seriously, how will this stop terrorists? You can go to walmart.com and get a computer that is quite capable of decent encryption for $200, and maybe an extra $150 or so tops for a monitor. Internet access $20 a month. You can also get a ton of books(in pdf) off of limewire/kazaa/whatever. The terrorists of 9/11 were well financed, I'm sure the billionaire Bin Laden could afford a few thousand worth of computer equipment. All this provision does is help the FBI spy on average people, not terrorists.
*begin rant
Also, what is this BS of people breaking house rules just because they want their law passed. The abuse of procedure here pales in comparison to what happened in the medicare bill. Why do we even have congress anymore? With the rise of political parties(which Washington warned against in his farewell speech), pretty much all the votes are predictable. With a few notable exceptions most congressmen are sheep, toeing the party line..... Maybe if we had some more original thought in congress, stuff like this wouldn't happen end rant

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[foidulus]

Please read:
this
this
this
this
and this
Then we will talk.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[macdaddy]

And where is the FBI actually using this to spy on 'average people'? And can you come up with any particular reason why they might give a crap about what the 'average person' is reading?

The FBI has been used to abuse power before. Ever here of this really nice old man by then name of J.Edgar Hoover? Power like this is meant to ensure continued power. Ever check out a book on kama sutra at the local library for you and the Mrs? Better hope you don't run for public office if someone finds out about it. They'll call your wife a whore and you'll be a pedophile (simple leaks to the media get blown well out of proportion with their creative impulses). Ever check out any book that is critical of a sitting president or a party just because you were curious? Well your political opponent will say, once the info is leaked to the media, that you're an anarchist hell bent on destroying our way of life. This power infringes on the freedom to think. Do you want to research Vietnam's alternate theories, the ones that Uncle Sam says are bogus? Would you still do so under public scrutiny? The moment we let our private thinking become legal fodder for our government is the day that we can no longer honestly ascend to the ranks of a government official. Slippery slope indeed.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[schtum]

His argument:
Serious and frightening abuses of power have occurred in the past. Here is a ton of evidence. Let's try to avoid such things in the future.

Your argument:
LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA

Who's being unreasonable?

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[Dashing Leech]

And where is the FBI actually using this to spy on 'average people'? And can you come up with any particular reason why they might give a crap about what the 'average person' is reading?

That is irrelevant. It's saying a police state is acceptable if it doesn't inconvenience law abiding citizens. By this argument, the government should be allowed to put cameras in everyone's houses. They won't watch or record most cameras since they won't be interested in viewing the activities of 'average' people.

Freedom isn't just a word, it has meaning. The government cannot "spy" on anyone with out just cause and independent oversight (e.g., judicial review). That's the whole point of keeping the divisions of government separate. It doesn't matter if they intend, or even remotely desire, to spy on 'average' people, the point is that under the PATRIOT act they are legally allowed to. (They alway could do it before, but they could be sued/fired/punished for doing so because it would be illegal.)

Plus, not everything out of 'average' is illegal.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[Tassach]

Money is not enough. You have to have knowledge and intelligence. These do not mix well with religious fundamentalism.

Unfortunately, evidence suggests that this is false. While I'll admit that many (even most) fundimentalists you'll meet are drooling morons, there are plenty of ones who are very intelligent and well educated (other than their obviously deficient bullshit detection skills).

Studying theology (or mythology) requires genuine scholarship (which in turn requires intelligence), regardless of the validity of the religion being studied or if the person believes in the tenants of the religion they are studying. Remember that many of the 9/11 hijackers were college-educated, holding degrees in engineering and science.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[macdaddy]

I'm a card-carrying member of both the ACLU and NRA. I don't agree with either all of the time but at least both seem to do something every so often to protect my interests.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[David McBride]

Money is not enough. You have to have knowledge and intelligence. These do not mix well with religious fundamentalism.

I'm confused -- are you referring to Al Queda or to Congress?

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[stealth.c]

And where is the FBI actually using this to spy on 'average people'? And can you come up with any particular reason why they might give a crap about what the 'average person' is reading?

In other words, the only way to be worry-free about the FBI making your life miserable is to lay low, never do anything controversial, and don't let your aspirations or convictions lead you to do anything that might get you noticed. If the President stands up and publicly tears apart a copy of the Bill of Rights and reinstates slavery, don't protest in any way. It would get you noticed, and that would be awful.

Not that I'm surprised at Congress' decision. People, especially those running a government, instinctively respond to things of this nature with fear. Fear is what got the PATRIOT Act written in the first place; fear is what passed it. And once its powers are solidified, if I may modify a line from one Grand Moff Tarkin, fear--fear of an investigative enema from the FBI--will keep the citizens in line. Perhaps one day we can live in a perfect reproduction of Orwell's 1984.

In a world like that, the libraries are perfectly safe. All the potentially controversial books have already been burned.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[Dyolf Knip]

Except that with few exceptions, more people have been killed at the hands of their own governments than have ever died from foreign or even domestic terrorist networks.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[Des Herriott]

They've even been able to swing an election in a Western European nation, and have won over most of that continent to agreeing with their major policy positions.

Pardon my language, but: what a load of fucking bullshit.

Just because most European people don't like current White House policy, and don't like Ariel Sharon doesn't mean for one moment that we believe Al Qaeda is anything but a bunch of murderous terrorists. It didn't take Al Qaeda to make Europe dislike the Neo-conservative/Zionists alliance.

What really lost the election for the conservatives in Spain was not the Madrid bombing itself, but the incumbents botched efforts at blaming the attack on ETA. Their lies were shown for what they were, and they lost the election. Maybe this should be a lesson to governments in other nations.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[cHiphead]

No doubt, Kerry is the worst kind of candidate there is, but Bush is still the worst kind of President there is.

I'd rather give Kerry a chance to f-k it up in his own special way than let Bush to CONTINUE f-king it up in his spectacularly inept, lack of statesmanship, idiotic, 3 year old finger pointing way.

cheers.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[k98sven]

Some fundamentalists are certainly intelligent in many respects. However, one common trait for all of them is the lack of critical thinking and/or imparired jugement.
So while not all of them are unintelligent, all of them do have some 'blind spots' to their intelligence, since most of us would include critical capabilities and sound judgement to be important parts of what we call 'intelligence'.

Studying theology (or mythology) requires genuine scholarship (which in turn requires intelligence), regardless of the validity of the religion being studied or if the person believes in the tenants of the religion they are studying

While I don't disagree with this, the implication that fundamentalists are scholars is wrong. Genuine scholarship implies a critical distance and deep understanding of one's subject, not just a lot of knowledge. Indeed, if you look around at religious fanatics around the world, most of them are laymen, and have not studied theology at an academic level.
(Whereas most of those preists who have do not advocate literal interpretations)

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[Morpeth]

Actually there was a case locally in Denver, one of our best independent bookstores fought to keep patron records private after some gov't croonies came in demanding them based on Patriot [sic] Act authority.

Kudos to the bookstore owner Joyce Meskis, who not only refused, but took the case to the Colorado Supreme Court and won.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/0 6/1410206

I shop at that store and buy anything from cookbooks to leftist political works to sci-fi/fantasy. And I'll keep shopping there not only cause it's a great place, but b/c they are on the right side of the issue in my book

So there's your example for you. You can Google for a lot more examples of bookstores and libraries having to fight against these intrusions in your private reading habits. What you read is your business, and I'm d*mn happy there's a lot of bookstore owners and librarians willing to stand up for my (and your) 1st Ammendment rights.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[Tassach]

Here in the U.S., the spy Brian Regan used library computers to shop around secrets to Libya and Iraq

And yet somehow the FBI was able to catch computer-savvy spies like Regan and Robert Hanssen WITHOUT needing the additional unconstitutional powers granted by the PATRIOT Act.

If you want to be scared, just imagine what Joe McCarthy or J Edgar Hoover would have been able with the PATRIOT act. Time and again the government has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted with the powers it already has, and requires MORE oversight and controls, not less.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[moof1138]

If you are in a fight and every time you get punched somewhere, that's the place you block, you will get your ass kicked. Monitoring net access in libraries and net cafes is the same type of approach. You will always be a step behind. Once libraries are recognized as being monitored the bad guys will move on to open 802.11 access points, univerity campuses that have ethernet ports open all over the place, and so on. There is no end until we have complete monitoring of every node on the internet. And then the bad guys will figure out how to hide communications in postcards, junk mail, or some other method.

Taking away the right to privacy gains us nothing in the war on terror but helps erode the limits on power that help prevent abuses of power by our government. I am a lot more concerned about keeping the government in check (no matter which party is in office) than I am about terrorist attacks. Far more people have been murdered by their governments than terrorists.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[grassy_knoll]

The notion of anonymity in one's reading habits reeks of someone who is too afraid of their peer group, and not the government. For my part, I want my peers, my community, and the government to know what I read, and what I think. Only then can they know how strong the opposition to their criminal power really is.

I want others to know what I read and think when I choose to tell them. Anonymity has value.

Example: Take the DEA looking into purchases made at grocery stores with loyalty cards ( see story here ). Buy too many plastic bags, or too much cold medicine or too much engine starter fluid? Must be a dope dealer. What's too much? Who knows.

Now extend the example to any subject. Buy a book on urban gardening? Must be growing weed. Book on Islam? Terrorist. Book on Secular Humanism? Abortionist. Book by Pat Robertson? Christian anti-abortion sniper.

You point out that right acting people know that just because a person has read Mein Kampf that doesn't mean that person is a supporter of the books ideals. True as far as it goes, but we don't place limits on Governmental power to inconvenience right acting civil servants. We place limits on the Government to prevent abuses.

Give any group unlimited, unchecked authority and someone in that group will abuse that authority.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[scanner_darkly]

I really wish this whole argument would just die. From nearly the beginning of American involvement in other nations' politics there has been one driving goal: self interest. And really, that's how it should be. A nation in the climate of the last several hundred years needs to look out for its own interests because no one else will. Even in situations where we pride ourselves on going for the greater good, an actual looking at history finds our involvement lacking. Take World War II. We liberated many from tyrrany, and we are justifiably proud of it. But we left millions more in tyrrany with the dropping of the Iron Curtain, and there's another very important note to remember: By 1936, it was pretty apparent that Hitler's dictatorship was aggressively going to attack its neighbors and would be a threat to the entire world. The United States did not join the war in '36. It waited until 1942...when it was attacked by Japan to do anything. That's SIX YEARS of sitting around being neutral. Six years of watching people get gassed, watching country after country get conquered. Ignoring the Rape of Nanking, et cetera. World War II was about liberating millions from tyrrany, but it was not why we entered the war. Yet all we hear is self-congratulations about what a great job we did liberating those poor bastards. Post cold-war, the US put a lot of effort into curbing aggression from the Soviet Union and its allies - which is IMHO extremely admirable, and should be lauded. But in doing it, they propped up any number of vicious, destructive dictatorships all over the world, and it is that reason that began the worldwide distrust of the United States today. This is just one example of how divided this country is right now. Conservatives wrap themselves in the flag and casually 'forget' that their one-sided philosophies don't match up to, erm, actual history, while Liberals seem to desperately want things like freedom and are too quick to point out every situation where the US acted in its own self-interests and avoided those said one-sided philosophies and ideals out of national pragmatism. It does tell us that we are a nation of idealists at heart, and that conservatives and liberals are surprisingly similar. They just go about dealing with their ideals in a different way.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[llefler]

Simply put:

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security - Benjamin Franklin

The possibility of catching a few terrorists is not worth the guaranteed loss of liberty. A government is like an attack dog on a leash; it MAY do what you want it to, but it is NEVER your friend. You should be particularly concerned when a democratic government claims it need secrecy to monitor its citizens.

We should dump the PATRIOT Act and find another way. Like not supporting dictators in the first place. Sneak and peek is what a burglar does, right before he robs you.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[Melantha_Bacchae]

An AC wrote:

If you live in the USA, you are completely full of crap. If the USA is so bad, why don't you either leave or take up arms against this government that is so terribly evil?

Maybe because we are patriotic citizens who love what our country is supposed to stand for, and take peaceful action to change our government so it is more in line with those ideals?

9/11 and the corruption in our government are not two separate things, they are the two sides of the same coin. US foreign policy has done great harm in the Middle East, especially its policy regarding Israel, and the economic sanctions against Iraq (which killed a half a million children). Mounting anger in the Middle East fuels terrorism, and our government uses this to justify the Patriot Act, the rights violations perpetrated in the name of the "War on Terror", and to excuse the invasion of Iraq and torture of Iraqi (and probably other) prisoners. Which fuels more anger, more terrorism, and more excuses to turn the US into a fascist nightmare (complete with happy corporations raking in the gold). And the nightmare spreads outward, with repressive governments (like Egypt) using the name and techniques of Abu Graibe to terrorize their own citizenry. This is just another version of your garden variety cycle of violence, just like you get in cases of child abuse where abused children grow up to abuse their own. The only difference is the greed and power lust of Mongol King George, and maybe that isn't that much of a difference.

On the path that it is on, our government can never hope to end terrorism. It will only learn how to effectively terrorize its own citizens. Our founders offered a different path: with checks and balances to keep our government in line, and the kind of respect for the independence of other countries that would allow us to make peace with all the peoples of the Middle East, thereby depriving the terrorists of the hatred and anger that fuels them. Without popular support, terrorists become unpopular criminals that anyone would turn in.

On a practical note: if you are a US citizen, check out who waffled and who firmly supported the Patriot Act. This vote conveniently happened right before an election. Take advantage of that, and vote these people out of office. The veto they should be worried about is yours, not the President's.

Here is a favorite quote of mine. It is part of a wiser president's speech to the House of Representatives. Why is he wiser? His dad invented the first set of laws that we now call the "Patriot Act". The son learned how to really be president from one Thomas Jefferson:

She [America] well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

President John Quincy Adams' speech to the U.S. House of Representatives on July 4, 1821.

And They Are Us

[treehouse]

How ironic it is that a law which allows the government to keep track of reading habits (let alone our surfing habits), is called a Patriot Act. Not long ago, countries such as Communist Russia were considered un-American because they practiced such invasion of privacy. Now the right wing, who fought so vigorously in the past against such "Communist" practices are their strongest defenders in this country today.

Re:And They Are Us

[Ex Machina]

What are you talking about???? We have *always* been at war with Eurasia!

Re:And They Are Us

[gUmbi]

How ironic it is that a law which allows the government to keep track of reading habits (let alone our surfing habits), is called a Patriot Act.

Please refer to the new government handout, provided by the Ministry of Truth: http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html

Re:And They Are Us

[eldacan]

Now come on. You know very well that there's a huge difference between what is happening in America today and what the Soviets did.

Sure. However:

I don't know about you, but I do not have any fear of being woken up in the middle of the night, thrown into a van, and being shipped off to some Siberian gulag just because I surfed the wrong website last night.

Well depending on your nationality, maybe you should... somewhat... See http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/

Re:And They Are Us

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>>some Siberian gulag

No, the Americans keep their gulag in Cuba.

Re:And They Are Us

[4of12]

who fought so vigorously in the past against such "Communist" practices

Right wing ideologues are seduced by authoritarianism just as much as the old Stalinist left ever was.

What the right really feared about "Communism" was the attack on property rights of people who owned a lot of property; the concern for civils rights was a facade.

Now, with the Republicans abandoning fiscal conservatism (cf. latest budget deficit numbers), it's hard to find much of anything left to like about them anymore.

Re:And They Are Us

[gowen]

I don't know about you, but I do not have any fear of being woken up in the middle of the night, thrown into a van, and being shipped off to some Siberian gulag

And you're right. Because the US doesn't have gulags in cold Siberia. They have temporary detention facilities in sunny Cuba.

But don't worry, they still don't have to give you a trial, or legal representation, or follow the Geneva convention. Not to mention the lovely treatment you might expect at Abu Ghraib...

Re:And They Are Us

[4lex]

and being shipped off to some Siberian gulag just because I surfed the wrong website last night.

I think you just misspelled "Guantanamo" and "for being of arabic origin".

Re:And They Are Us

[killjoe]

"Abu Ghraib prisoners were abused, not tortured like they were when Saddam was in power. Their abusers should and will be punished. Their is a fine line between abuse and torture."

THe following items qualify as torture.
Women were raped, Men were raped, men had broomsticks and lightsticks shoved up their asses. 11 people died at least 9 of those were declared to be murder by the military medical examiners. People's legs were ripped open by dogs. People were smeared with feces and held in crucifiction poses for long periods of time. People were crucified on metal beds and jail bar for several days with handcuffs.

All that is detailed in the report put out by the army itself. God only knows what they left out. There are still thousands of pictures which have not been released because we don't really have free press in this country but the politicians who have seen them have described them as sickening. Rumsfeld used the word "sadistic".

Please read the report that the army put out and then go check out some foreign news sources. You are clearny not getting the entire picture from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.

Re:And They Are Us

[Dovregubbens Hall]

The Soviets lived in constant fear of Big Brother because unlike our government,

Not really.

You'd actually have to do something to get onto their shitlist. For most, who did not care, the led a boring but safe life.

My parents were communists in the early 60-ties, and my uncle married a girl from Eastern Germany. In fact, my mother was a Norwegian delegate to a big youth-conference in Bulgaria in 1968, but that became a big wake-up-call for her. Pretty much all the delegates were brain-dead droids, except the Czechoslovakians, who had a government heading in the right direction. That's how my parents viewed the possible future of communism, not authoratorian, more anarchistic. While they were there, the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia. To my parents, that's the straw that broke the camels' back, and they resigned.

They also made some moves towards their Eastern German friends, which made my parents enter the STASI shitlist. It didn't really matter to them, but it has been very interesting to look in the STASI archives now. They knew pretty much everything.

To those never entering the shitlist, what made a difference was the constant pounding of head against the beaurocratic brickwall, the humiliation of "sorry, you're not allowed to enter that flight", "you're not authorized by proper authorities", always have to submit to some greater authority. Always hearing "you have nothing to fear if you have done nothing wrong". To most, that's something they could live with. And what it would take to change it had very little to do with leadership, it had to do with people getting off their asses.

My cousin (the son of the Eastern German), studied three years in Jacksonville. He happened to be just a couple of blocks away from Bush when the planes hit on 911. Because of family that was still in Eastern Germany, they had been there a lot, even though STASI made sure they were thoroughly examined on every visit. He knew what that was about. The privatized US beaurocracy (especially in banks and insurance companies) is not very different from the Eastern German beaurocracy according to him. The three months that he spent in the US after 911, he felt that the US had lost most of its lead on Soviet-era Eastern Germany.

That includes freedom from reprisal from government. Look here to know what happens if you try to say that abstinence only is wrong

Now, the hard part in Eastern Germany was to get on the shitlist. You would actually have to do something. They did in fact not have the resources to keep a tab on everyone.

With Echelon, they can.

Re:And They Are Us

[demachina]

Excellent point. You need look no further than China. Certainly their government isn't as repressive as it was when U.S politicians considered them to be sitting on the right hand of the devil.

But since then they've mostly just adjusted their economic policies to respect private property and business. Now wealthy Americans and multinationals can own capitol there, and can make a killing on the cheap labor and artificially undervalued currency and... what ... suddenly they seem to have no problem with China. Though China still has no "Freedom and Democracy", they spy on their people, they repress dissidents and religious groups, now the Republicans are as happy as can be with them now and get furious if anyone criticizes them.

It probably hasn't occurred to them that China, having deduced they couldn't beat the U.S. militarily or idealogically are exploiting America's greatest weakness in their new war, that weakness being greed. They are luring wealthy American's and multinationals in to transferring all of America's manufacturing base, capitol, jobs and intellectual property to China, voluntarily, with the lure of making a nice profit next quarter.

One day America will wake up and realize the U.S. can no longer function without Chinese container ships pulling in to its harbor, all of its wealth has migrated their thanks to trade and budget deficits, and the U.S. lost a war it didn't know it was fighting until it was to late.

Old Ben said it best

[garver]

Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.
- Benjamin Franklin

Re:Old Ben said it best

[Queer Boy]

Not to nitpick, but what he said was,

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security."

I think the "essential" and "temporary" parts are especially poignant in this case, as is this great quote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Re:Old Ben said it best

[csguy314]

they criticize us for doing stuff like taking sadam hussein out of power.

And they also criticize the US for putting him into power and giving him weapons of mass destruction in the first place. Talk about flip-flopping! First there's criticism for supporting terrorists like Bin Laden, and then more criticism when trying to stop him by invading the privacy of all Americans. Make up your minds people!

Re:Old Ben said it best

[Malor]

One of Lincoln's many amazing quotes:

"All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

"At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction were our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

Catcher in the Rye

[vg30e]

I cannot say that I feel very comfortable about some of the broad-based stuff that the patriot act allows governmental agencies, but this country does have a history of curtailing civil rights during a wartime footing.

The question still remains, is this really helping? and are we hurting more people than helping?

Of course

[sielwolf]

being shown Justice Department documents asserting that terrorists have communicated over the Internet via public library computers.' On the other hand, 'Critics of the Patriot Act argued that even without it, investigators can get book store and other records simply by obtaining subpoenas or search warrants.'"

Who wants to get a subpoena or search warrant? That requires talking to a judge and getting him to sign a piece of paper.

Who wants a papertrail when they steal you away in the night to an undisclosed location? Let's just call it a 'Cuban Beachfront Resort'.

Re:whats the problem with the patriot act?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with the PATRIOT act is that it directly urinates on the fourth amendment.
Perhaps you should read it... Basically, anyone doing anything "criminal" can be treated as a "terrorist" -- sounds innocuous until you realize that speeding on the highway on your way to work is considered to be "criminal."

Arrrrghhhh!!

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the article 'Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., said he switched his initial "yes" vote to "no" after being shown Justice Department documents asserting that terrorists have communicated over the Internet via public library computers.'

When will they understand that computers are simply tools? Would they be up in arms if they found out that terrorists use public transport to meet each other? Would there be draconian restrictions on who can board the subway?

Re:whats the problem with the patriot act?

[mattbot 5000]

how has the patriot act directly affected you?

Oh come on. How has any piece of legislation "directly affected" you? Sure, no one's come to my door to arrest me citing the Patriot Act, but then again, they sure could if they wanted to go through my library records and think I'm a national security threat.

It's not about whether the Patriot Act has "directly affected" you, it's about the gradual erosion of your civil liberties this Act affords.

And do you think there would be big front page stories if there were cases of abuse of the Act? Of course not. Just because you haven't heard about it doesn't mean it isn't going on.

All we can tell about this is...

[foxtrot]

it looks like exactly 210 members of the House of Representatives need immediate replacement. ...no matter which side of the debate you're on...

-JDF

A Call to all Fellow Terrorists

[Noksagt]

Please check out "The Little Engine that Could" from your local library. It will have the infidels guessing as to what we are up to, when we could be up to what we already know how to do.

Legislation like this part of the the PATRIOT Act is a waste of paper. Why would a terrorist now check out "Bomb Building For Dummies" from a US library after knowing his reading habits could be watched? Instead, they can browse material inside the library--taking notes & photocopying particularly relevant bits. Or they could buy said books from a bookstore, paying cash. Or they could read it on the net. Or they could just rely on other terrorist communication and training channels.

It effectively wastes the time and effort of librarians and law enforcement officials who have to search for these idiots. It also strips away privacy from all of us. I hope that if your representative voted to keep this sucker, you will write letters & protest with your vote!

America beware

[imogthe]

I suppose this is just an indication of things to come. From my strongly euro-centric point of view the United States of America is about to become either a dictatorship or a police state... that is unless the American people wake up and smell the corruption and blatant abuse of power by their elected(?) leaders.
Best of luck to you. You're going to need it.

And no, at the moment the European Union is just as bad, if not worse. We're doomed :)

Getting "taken" by agents

[vg30e]

The thing is, that you don't have to be a "paranoid governmental conspiricy theorist" to now get spied upon or worse.

I went to Washington D.C. on some business, and I had shipped my suitcase via UPS to my hotel beforehand. Since I was only traveling with my laptop, a camera, and a single change of clothing in my backpack, I was searched and double searched for over an hour.

After taking one or two pictures of monuments and such, I went to a cafe where I spoke to someone who had been "picked up" by men in black suits off the street after taking pictures of some buildings he thought looked cool. It turns out one of them was a secret government facility of some sort. The FBI raided his apartment, and took EVERYTHING photo related, held him for 48 hours in jail before deciding he was harmless. When letting him go, they warned him to "be careful" because they "can do this anytime they want"

Re:Now everybody make a big deal

[Deflagro]

The problem is, if i email you something saying how to create a virus and take out networks and they see it went to you. You are now suspicious and since that can be seen as 'terrorist' activity, you can be held without a lawyer, or charges, for an indefinite amount of time.
Does that sound like America to you? Sounds like the old Mother Russia or the 3rd Reich.
I'm not even from the US and am so totally against this "ACT". It's terrible that the terrorists have beaten the US of A and they don't even know it.
Our way of life has changed and we fear anything and everyone now.

Re:whats the problem with the patriot act?

[PalmerEldritch42]

there haven't been any cases of abuse

You've got to be kidding me. Just because you haven't heard of any abuse of the PATRIOT act hardly means that it hasn't happened.

Also, in order to see what the repercusions of a law are, you have to think it through to the extremes. It is easily possible to abuse this rule. When I was younger, I was interested in all sorts of things. Like the Anarchist's Cookbook and others that contained recipes for bombs and other lethal items. Now, I am a good person who doesn't blow people up. But I wouldn't want to be hauled into jail without a trial and without even a search warrant because I had something that Ashcroft doesn't like. And since I was a minor at the time, my parents would have had to face all sorts of legal repercusions as well.

I mean is it really that hard to get a warrant? A phone call to a judge and they can do whatever they want legally. That is part of the checks and balances that this country is founded on. No part of the government can be prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. At least that is how I was lead to understand it in civics class.

if you don't want to be spied upon, then don't do suspicious things

I don't want to be spied on and I don't do suspicios things. I do attend the local library. That hardly makes me a terrorist, but apparently it is enough to flag the PATRIOT boys into thinking that I am more worthy of attention than my illiterate friends.

Re:whats the problem with the patriot act?

[roystgnr]

how has the patriot act directly affected you?

By making it impossible for me to answer this question, since it is now illegal for my librarian to tell me if the PATRIOT Act is affecting me.

It would have failed even if it had passed..

[cOdEgUru]

in the senate, as GW had blatantly professed his undying devotion to the Patriot Act as well as he had decided to Veto this bill if it had cleared the Senate.

So its not enough there are 210 people out there who think this law stinks, we need to get GW out of his chair so as to salvage what little freedom this country still possess.

GW doesnt scare me, he makes me laugh, but he doesnt scare me. Cheney and Ashcroft scares me. The indifference of half the country scares me. People who are willing to send other people's kids in to war, in to a hail of bullets, scare me. People who will stomp all over the rules of the land so as to feel powerful, to win their own private dirty war scares me. The Presidents dependence on the religious right scares me.

I am not an american and neither have I the right to vote. I am helpless in what I can do, despite the immense respect to the people around me as well as the country that I live in. I believe America can be a whole lot better than what it is, its standing among other nations, its perspective. I believe this country and its people are being held back, day by day, kept on check, from being a true leader of the free world. I believe, if we do not turn back this course, come November, the road ahead for America is bleak and fraught with peril.

House rules were not broken

[konekoniku]

Actually, house rules were not broken. As I noted below, 15 minutes was originally scheduled for the vote, but the floor rules of the House permit such a period of time to be extended. What was done was fully within house rules. It's a simple lesson: don't trust slashdot writeups for all your information - look up the house rules yourself, or at least find a more reputable source.

Re:House rules were not broken

[demachina]

I'll trust you on the rules but its become a disturbing trend on the part of the Republicans that when they really want something to pass they just hold open the vote until they can threaten or bribe enough people in to supporting their position. The second they have it they hold the vote before they lose someone.

Believe it or not we elect representatives to vote their conscience, intellect and judgement, which suggests they should vote the way they see fit and not they way the party in power pressures them to vote. It is a leading indicator of totalitarian government when elected representatives become rubber stamps for whatever the people in power want. By holding open the vote until they get the answer they want that is what the Republican's are doing, totalitarianism.

In this case and not having RTFA it sounds as though perhaps they should have separated the issues. I can see anonymous use of public computers, in a library or anywhere being a concern, so are pay phones. But that issue should have nothing to do with giving the government power to secretly monitor what you read. The government simply shouldn't have that power nor should they be placing book store owners and librarians in the position that they have to rat out their patrons or and to be at resk that they are breaking the law if they violate the gag and don't keep this intrusion secret from everyone.

This law creates a disturbing pressure that you shouldn't read anything that the government might find subversive, criminal or obscene and what's worse you don't know what the government's standards are. The obvious best example, is anyone who reads the Koran going to be instantly placed on a watch list. That is a violation of the most basic right to religious freedom in this country.

Re:House rules were not broken

[demachina]

I don't think Slashdot has a unified conscience or intellect to reply to your challenge.

For myself I can say I don't care if they keep the vote open an extra 15 minutes. But I do care if they keep the vote open for as long as is necessary to coerce just enough people to get the outcome they want.

If I recall the Medicare vote was kept open half the night while lobbyists for the drug and healthcare industry worked the Capitol building lobby bribing and threatening representatives. A famous case was a politician who was retiring so he couldn't be easily pressured so instead they offered him big contributions for his son's campaign instead.

I can say for myself that if the Democrats did this same BS yes I would care just as much. Perhaps they did do it but I didn't have CSPAN when the Democrats had power. I've watched the Senate and House proceedings, off and on, in the last year or two and what is happening today is deeply, deeply disturbing to anyone who thinks the U.S. is a representative democracy, because it isn't. If you haven't watched CSPAN you should during debate on one of these especially controversial bills. It is an eye opener.

You can ask most of the people in Congress and they will tell you its turned in to a bitter, rancorous, partisan, uncivilized body, that is bending every rule to the breaking point, to an extent no one would have dreamed possible a few years ago.

Re:Now everybody make a big deal

[spellraiser]

I honestly don't believe I'm important enough and/or interesting enough to have anybody read my e-mail.

Now here's an interesting bit of apathy. Yes, quite true - most of us are not worthy of being scrutinized like this by the federal government. But what if you're, say, a 'dangerous subversive' who is critical of the government? Certain powerful people would be quite interested in doing a little research on you then, wouldn't you agree? And should they be allowed to? Think about it ...

Besides, if your plotting to destroy some building somewhere, why don't you download a good ol' fashioned version of PGP and protect yourself

Yes, if you really are plotting something evil and doing it over the net, you would use something like that, wouldn't you? So doesn't that fact rather defeat the alleged purpose (i.e. combating terrorism) of allowing the government to spy on average people?

If you are doing something that requires you to hide it from the government, your breaking the law, and deserve to be caught.

RED ALERT! RED ALERT! Tell that to the subversives in Soviet Russia or other Ex-Communist countries. Remember, the government is not automatically benevolent. This is why democracies have things like Constitutions and division of power. And they certainly do not have laws that allow indescriminate monitoring of regular people.

Yes, yes, I know all about 9/11 and the horrible tragedy that was inflicted on American then. I am not American myself, so I cannot begin to imagine what it must feel like. But this also gives me the luxury of objectivity. Every American today needs to ask himself: Just who are we protecting ourselves against? And how do we do it? And just how much of what we have gained in the past 200 years are we willing to sacrifice for it?

Re:Now everybody make a big deal

[afidel]

Look at how amuck the FBI ran in the 50's amd 60's when they had little oversite. The "enemies" lists, the invasions of personal lives of people who were NOT a threat to the country, etc. I LIKE the fact that the executive branch is beholdent to the judicial for warrants. Some people far smarter than you and I setup the systems of checks and balances and I wish people wouldn't try to muck with it every time there is a small threat to the country, their meddling is FAR more dangerous to republic over the long run.

What Göring had to say about this

[October_30th]

Hermann Göring: "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

Göring: "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Re:Now everybody make a big deal

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

That red tape is there for a reason. The Police and other Law enforcement agencies have enormous power, and in a free society that power must be restrained.

Take a look through history, even recent US history. Law enforcement can and do abuse their power. From bashing Vietnam war protestors, to beating up innocent people to extract confessions, Law enforcers are not angels. They are people like everyone else. You consider yourself innocent and that this law will not effect you. You fail to realise that this law and laws like are the exact kinds of restrictions placed on liberties that lead to dictatorships, and that ultimatly will affect you.

If you are one of those people that believe that a dictatorship could never,ever happen in their country, then you should reevaluate your views. Democracies should always remain vigilante against those that would seek to undermine them. Nowhere is immune to the threat of an authoritarian state.

Terrorism presents a threat, only to life and limb. It presents no threat to our freedoms. We have reactionaries and politicians to do that.

AAARRRGGGGHHH...

[cOdEgUru]

You are a moron!

Now that its out of the way, let me take this further..

No matter what the Govt, or Fox News tells you, Saddam Hussein was not the gravest threat ever to walk the earth. He was neither the baddest dude alive. Do you have any fucking idea as to whats happening in Africa?? Sudan?? Ethiopia?? Nigeria?? Are you fucking insane or just clueless, like half this country?

Even if you round up the total number of Iraq's citizen this murderous villain had slaughtered, it would still pale in comparison to the number of people who are dying in Africa in the last year. Sudan can easily be compared to Hell, considering the number of men and children who are slaughtered like cattle, women who are raped and killed. Can you even compare the atrocities that happen there every day to what did happen in Iraq?? Ofcourse not.

Then why is it that Bush turns a blind eye to Africa, why is it that Powell after his recent visit to Sudan proudly proclaims that it still hasnt achieved the so called status "Genocide" when we actually care a fuck!! Can you justify their tears, kids with out limbs, with out parents, without shelter and food. Can you justify this travesty in Iraq when a greater threat looms in Sudan threatening to wipe out a country, snuff out a million lives in less than an year??? Where is Bush's God amidst all this? Or does the President listen to his God only when the response meets his needs?? Why proclaim the fact that you are a devoted christian when you turn a blind eye to Africa?

So dont you fucking say that you step in and regulate every now and then..not when it doesnt serve your needs.

Thomas Jefferson said:

[mi]

I am mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, the sale of a book can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too.

Thomas Jefferson

Re:Thomas Jefferson said:

[Noksagt]

Old TJ was more irate over the charges of sacreligious materials (more complete quote below). Quoting him out of context is a bit of a cheap shot.

I am really mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, a fact like this can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too, as an offence against religion; that a question about the sale of a book can be carried before the civil magistrate. Is this then our freedom of religion? and are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold, and what we may buy? And who is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read, and what we must believe? It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason. --From In Freedom

Re:I wonder what John Kerry thinks of this

[DeanFox]

Kerry and Edwards voted for the temporary (5 years) version of the Patriot Act that is set to expire in Kerry's term as President. It was inacted as an emergency measure with the intention it would expire when the crisis was over or at least more managable with existing laws.

Both Kerry and Edwards have stated they want, support and will work toward making sure the Patriot act does in fact expire when it's supposed to.

However, because they will not be enacters of new law in their role as President/Vice President (unlike our present administration) they will need the support of Congeress to not get this law renewed when it comes up for vote.

So, along with my vote for their ticket, I will also be voting a stright Democratic ticket for Congress as well.

Right or wrong this is just my opinion and I'm not looking to Flame or Troll. It's just my honest opinion.

Yes... We the FBI deny using our secret powers...

[TofuDog]

If you stop to think for a minute, maybe there's a reason why there are no examples of secret warrants being excercised or library, etc. records being searched. Do you suppose it has anything to do with the unrestrained power the PA grants the executive to do these things SECRETLY?

See how your Rep voted!

[krysith]

Your representatives' votes are here!

Check out how they voted and let your representative know how you feel about this issue: find yours here (requires knowlege of where you live)

My sentiments exactly

[truthsearch]

My sentiments exactly. Prove probable cause to a judge and have everyone sign it, which is the way it's been for many years. When my friends investigate my disappearance they can see who was looking for me and what they thought they'd find. When we go to trial the government can show that my civil rights were or were not violated.

Since when are we supposed to not hold the government accountable for their actions?

Not going to happen

[Kjella]

"Maybe if we had some more original thought in congress, stuff like this wouldn't happen end rant"

It's not going to happen. The US system is a stable duopoly - even if a third party were to rise up, it would only displace one of the two current parties. Try looking at some basic duopoly theory - location theory with one product (i.e. the current policy) is an exact analogy between economics and politics.

Where would you place yourself? Both dead in the center. One side takes left, one side takes right. Sure, you're trying to differentiate yourself to squabble over the center, but it's all fluff. The US political system is not designed for original thought. If you want to truly change that, you need to change the election process, not either party.

Mind you, it has its strengths and weaknesses. Here we have more original thought, more parties, but also more compromises, more blameshifting, vague and shifting governments and parlamentary support. Everybody is trying to push their politics, even within their own coalition. (for you US guys: several parties working together)

However, it has also allowed you to choose a party closer to your own political view, as they differ in economic policy, social policy, district policy, crime policy, domestic and foreign policy and so on. Whereas in the US, you have the republican policy, and the democratic policy. That's it. Of course, we have the whole EU thing which complicates things a bit too...

Kjella

Re:Democracy is a myth

[THotze]

Sometimes, all too often, you're right. But there are some issues I have with your post.

For one thing, the Patriot Act, in a way, shows democracy in action. The American people wanted a swift and comprehensive law to fight terrorism, and they got it. The fact that it takes away people's liberties is a side effect. Now, IMHO, I think that the real danger to America isn't people blowing up buildings - we can rebuild those, but rather the threat to free speech and a nation where people of different backgrounds and beliefs - policitical, social, whatever, I think that its the threat to free speech as presented by the Patriot Act that most threatens America.

Still, despite stories circulating for years about all the scary powers of the Patriot Act, there are still many people in the general populas who support the law. You can argue - and correctly - that they only support it because they don't fully understand its consequences, but that misses the point. In a democracy, its not right and wrong that matter, but what people BELIEVE is right or wrong.

And yes, most recent Presidents HAVE been multi millionaires. On the other hand, I think you could argue that we want our Presidents to be proven successful, capable people, and that in the US today, realistically, most people that we'd consider to be 'successful' are millionaires.

The important thing to note is that they didn't start out that way - Clinton started out every bit the Southern country boy, for example.

If you think that over the course of him bing a Rhodes scholar, Attorney General for Arkansas, Governer for Arkansas and later President of the United States, that he didn't deserve to accumulate a fair bit of wealth (a lot of it has been since his Presidency ended, where he can make $50k speaking or several million for an advance on a book), then you don't understand how most of America characterizes (for better or for worse) 'success'.

Tim

Ask those poor guys getting shot at...

[codepunk]

I spent 10 years in the military suposedly protecting your freedom. Thats right you have
thousands of men dodging bullets so that you may
enjoy liberty. I don't have a problem with the govt
doing what they have to for intelligence reasons. The patriot act and all bills like it serve only one purpose, to unconstitutionally short circuit the judicial branch of the govt, now that I have a problem with.

Re:Ask those poor guys getting shot at...

[Jason Ford]

Thank you very much for defending my freedom. If I may be so bold as to ask, though, how does 'thousands of men dodging bullets' preserve my freedom?

So do something about it...

[TheBigBezona]

There is so much focus on the Presidency, and so much hand-wringing about what the big bad government is doing, and in the midst of it so many people seem to forget that we, as individuals, CAN have some influence here.

How many of you have actually taken the time to write or call your local representative? You would be suprised how approachable and responsive they really are. Thier districts are relatively small, and they have by far the most sensitivity to thier constituents of any branch.

I recently wrote to my local rep. expressing my concerns about the DMCA, the proposed INDUCE act and copyright legislation in general. Within a week I received a nice, substantive letter with his position on the issue, a summary of all related bills currently in progress or under consideration, and his take on them. True, the letter was probably boiler-plate although considering it's substance, it's apparent he is at least informed on the issue, and cares enough about what I think to respond in a timely manner.

When the difference between getting elected or not can come down to hundreds, or sometimes dozens, of votes they tend to pay attention when people don't like what they are doing.

The President can have half the country hate him, and still get elected. A senator can have half of a state hate him (and the bigger the state, the less an individual matters), and still get elected. A rep can lose with a well-placed handful of people hating him, and they know it. And as the closeness of the vote in the article shows, getting one rep to shift closer to your ideal CAN potentially make a substantive difference in U.S. policy.

So if you have something to say about it, take the time to address it to them directly. It isn't much harder than commenting here on /., and is likely to be quite a bit more effective.

Coincidence

[mrm677]

Is it a coincidence that Tom Ridge announced yesterday that terrorist are planning an attack?

Right in the middle of the vote?

hold the government accountable

[dpilot]

Think a moment about the Constitution, and then since this is /. think about computer and network security.

The Constitution was written the way it was because the Founding Fathers didn't trust Governemt, including the one they were creating. Therefore they created a Government with three independent branches, each with checks and balances on the other two branches, in an attempt to create a trustworthy system. In security-speak, they attempted to create an open, trustworthy system so that it would function correctly even if some particular untrustworty components were incorporated. (elected or appointed)

It's ALL about trust, plain and simple.

The President is head of the Executive Branch, and Commander In Chief, but only Congress can declare War. Of course, leading up to the Gulf War II, Congress gave the President a blank check to make War. The only control they appeared to put on it was 'payable to Iraq', but the amount, date, and decision whether or not to exercise were not filled in.

The Legislative Branch makes laws, and the Executive Branch enforces them, but since enforcement of the law essentially deprives the accused/convicted of Constitutional Rights, the Judicial Branch is involved in the process, both in warrants and in judging and sentencing. The Patriot Act significantly weakens the Judicial Branch's participation in the warrant process. (This sentence keeps the post on-topic)

Back to transparency, for a moment. Transparency allows us to see the checks and balances in action, so that we can see that our government is functioning as designed.

OTOH, when the Government begins to operate in an opaque fashion, it doesn't matter whether or not we trust the Man at the Top. Opacity shrouds downward from the starting point, so it requires that you trust the start point, *and everyone from there on down*. This has particular relevance with respect to Abu Graib. Even if it were just 'a few bad eggs,' the cloak of secrecy gave them the space to operate. Keep in mind that Abu Graib techniques were imported from Guantanamo, another 'cloaked' installation, and we've heard next to *nothing* from there, other than they're being kept in what sounds like dog kennels. Eventually this will come out, too.

The FBI and Bookstores

[The Angry Mick]

where is the FBI actually using this to spy on 'average people'?

You know it is a little difficult finding examples of this, what with the gag order and all (see Section 215). Still though, here's the primary example offered up by most media outlets, and here's another, more obscure example from my home city.

Re:Okay okay you're right, you're right!!!

[Schmendr1ck]

I catch the sarcasm here, but you're making a REALLY good point. The biggest single problem with the PATRIOT Act is that we have almost no way of knowing when or if our government is abusing it. Because of the gag provisions riddled through the law, your librarian could get arrested for telling you that the FBI stopped by and asked for a list of books you have read recently.

The judicial subpoena system is a good balance of investigative power and accountability by law enforcement, and "investigation of terrorism" is no justification for bypassing this proven system.

Re:Okay okay you're right, you're right!!!

[dthable]

You also forgot the balance that has always been given to the people - the right to remove the government when it no longer represents them (Thank god for the second amendment).

The patriot act is nothing more than a collection of unconstitutional provisions that those with the power have wanted to pass for a long time. 9/11 just happened to be a catalyst to make dumb Americans give up their rights....I'd rather die than give the government more control over my life.