Patriot Act Used to Enforce Copyright Law?

Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-27 00:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

No, its not. You've merely been suckered by the spin that the PATRIOT Act is in some away a counter-terrorism measure, rather than noticing that the terrorism angle was just to stop you from noticing that the Bill of Rights was being recinded.

Re:Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act? by jlgolson · 2004-07-27 00:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

every single one of these cases should be overthrown in the federal courts without question. The PATRIOT Act is illegal.

Not yet.

The patriot act is not illegal until it is declared so by the US Supreme Court, and (sorry) it probably won't be declared unconstitutional. Maybe some small parts, but most likely not all of it.

Change the damn law by Lord+Grey · 2004-07-27 00:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

... the FBI invoked a provision of the USA Patriot Act to obtain financial records from his ISP.

The reality is that law enforcement in the United States is going to use every tool at their disposal to try to catch the bad guys, provided the tool doesn't cost too much. Laws can be invoked for (basically) free, so they get used, abused and stretched a lot.

This Patriot Act thing really needs to be refined. While parts of it may be good, it's worded so that it can be invoked in far too many cases. This escapade with The Stargate SG-1 Information Archive is just the latest example.

Will the law be redefined? The Powers That Be won't do it on their own, as the Patriot Act is (according to their collective mentality) too good a tool to throw away or change. The public needs to call for the change, loudly.

--
// Beyond Here Lie Dragons

Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-27 00:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Waving that flag around is just a misunderstanding of the Act.

Which just goes to show that the act's promoters were basically lying, since that's the flag under which they sold it.

This is what... by cOdEgUru · 2004-07-27 00:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

the rest of the country dont think would happen, or hopes never happen. These isolated incidents are just the harbingers of numerous other instances where FBI and other law enforcement agencies under the clout of Ashcroft will use their newfound power, power that was bestowed on them by our representatives, in the name of making this nation more secure against faceless terrorists, to serve their corporate masters.

What we as a collective need to do, and need to do now, is to take a look at the ambiguities in this act, and the scope of it and put down strict guidelines as to when and where it could be enforced and put some damn oversight while you are at it.

The Govt has cleverly chosen depictions of late night arrests and mysterious black cars/helicopters as the evidence of a communist/totalitarian regime. They hope you would never equate that with Feds in uniforms. They hope to turn your attention to daily terrorist warnings, to turn your attention away from the extent to which these antiquated laws can be abused.

You all have a clear choice this November. Even if that choice is starkly different from the other half of the nation, act now to ensure you still have civil liberties when all this is over.

--
Rapid Nirvana

Re:This is what... by cOdEgUru · 2004-07-27 01:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

Ok..

The Patriot Act and its proponents has done a fantastic job in making America feel safer under its umbrella, hence I would not go deep in to why Patriot Act and other regulations wont keep americans any safer (it will probably save the land, but not its citizens who choose to travel beyond its boundaries). What I believe would keep its people safe is when its Govt decides not to trample over the collective will of the rest of the world over starkly contrasting priorities and beliefs.

You are admitting that Kerry does want to take out the obviously scary stuff while leaving some behind. We have an administration who is backing the law in its current state, with all the scary stuff thrown in, and they want to make it Permanent!!!

Bush had his shot at the White House. He could have chosen to unite the country on the wake of 9/11. He took the path of the religious right, choosing to align himself with right wing nuts like Falwell and folks like Apostolic Congress. He chose to wage a crusade, he chose to go to war over vague notions as to what a WMD is. He chose to divide this country, rather than unite it.

Kerry might do a double take like Bush when he becomes President, but my perspective of him is more of a statesman, of a masterful politician, a man who chooses his words wisely, a man who did not have the Presidentship handed to him on a platter. Him, I can trust, atleast for the next 4 years. Bush, I have lost that trust.

--
Rapid Nirvana

Re:It's still illegal? by jlgolson · 2004-07-27 00:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

See this from above. Seems like he was doing worse than just posting pictures without permission.

Here goes Slashdot blowing things out of proportion again. I'm shocked.

Has anyone here actually read the USA Patriot Act? Or the 9/11 Commission report? Or written their Congressman?

Everyone just bitches on Slashdot. No wonder nothing ever changes.

Not the point! Think about INDUCE. by argent · 2004-07-27 00:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

You're seriously missing the point.

The point is not that he was or was not breaking the law. The point is that this is yet another case of a law being applied outside its original scope.

Every time some new law comes up, people say "what if the law's abused, how about putting in some clauses describing how it's supposed to be applied, so it can't be abused". The lawmakers and other defenders of the purity of our bodly fluids say "CLEARLY the FOO act would never be used for BAR, and your clause would allow some tiny fraction of FOOmeisters to go free!"

So what happens? You get the DMCA being used to enforce toner cartridge and service and support monopolies, RICO being used against churches, and so on...

So here we have the INDUCE act. People have pointed out that it could make VCRs and iPods illegal. Apologists argue that they'd NEVER ban a USEFUL technology, they'd only go up against BAD people who are pushing CRACKING SOFTWARE and PIRACY NETWORKS and scary stuff like that.

Wrong. If a law can be applied in any way... however inappropriately... it will be. Whether it's the Alien and Sedition Act, the PATRIOT act, RICO, the DMCA, or INDUCE... laws like these are an attorney's field of dreams.

Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE. by jimicus · 2004-07-27 01:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

The Patriot Act, at it's core was designed to prevent people from breaking the law.

So, what you're saying is, people can be prevented from breaking existing laws by passing a law against it?

That explains quite a bit....
Re:Not the point! Think about INDUCE. by arkanes · 2004-07-27 01:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

First off, you really need to read something about the Constitution. I can't blame you that much, cause it's a failing lots of people have. I'll start with the most obvious one: LACK OF AN EXPLICIT DECLARATION IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS DOES NOT MEAN THAT A RIGHT DOES NOT EXIST. The Constitution spells out the powers of state and federal government, not limit! The Bill of Rights is actually redudant (and was considered by some of the founding fathers to be harmful), because it's NOT NECCESARY. It's there as a signpost - "These are rights that we consider especially important". Sadly, people through the years have come to take the existence of the Bill of Rights as some sort of definition of your rights.
The Patriot act, at it's core, was designed to remove many of the limitations on law enforcement. If all you really care about is catching criminals, rather than about personal rights or privacy or any of that other stuff that gets in the way, then where you really want to live is in a police state. We've had those and most people didn't like them very much. The protections were there for a reason. The Patriot act was a bald manipulation of public emotion over 9/11 to pass a bill that had been shot down dozens of times over the last few years and decades. It's certainly true that there's nothing restricting those powers to use against terrorism (which was pointed out at the time the bill passed, and ignored). It's passing was dishonest at best.
Now, as for catching criminals - nothing in the patriot act was needed to "catch" this guy. In fact, a simple C&D from a lawyer directly to him probably would have been sufficent. One to his ISP certainly would have been. Unless there's (a lot) more to this case that we don't know about, like he was using the SG-1 fansite as a cover for child porn or sale of nuclear weapons or something, then the amount of force used against him was totally out of line. If there is more than we know, then we should know it - it should have been on the search warrant and it should be in the court case.
The people are not supposed to be accountable to the government! It is supposed to be the other way around. The police/FBI/CIA/etc are there for YOUR benefit, and they are not supposed to be able to act in secrecy and without public justification.

Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by schmaltz · 2004-07-27 00:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

The Patriot Act amended many laws that were already on the books that were not directly related to "national security."

It would be nice for you if that were the whole story, but it's not. It should be written "amended many laws that were already on the books so that the FBI wouldn't need to be distracted with pesky Constitutional requirements such as judicial oversight.

Whether this guy willingly broke copyright law, which it sounds like he did, is another matter. Whether copyrights, previously litigated, should be a matter for door-kicking-in police/feds, is an issue that needs to be revisited.

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.

--
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma ... where's Siggy?

Re:Of course.. by malsdavis · 2004-07-27 00:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you think about it, anything can be called a "terrorist act".

Shoplifting, for example: steal a can of coke, the state (as in the government and the governing collective) loose x cents taxation. Hence, you have just committed an attack against the state and can be immediatly sent for an indefinate stay at a small jail in Cuba during which friends and relatives may or may not be told about your detention.

Hitler and Stalin would both of envied being able to do such legally. ...ofcourse they won't living in a time where we all ought to be scared for are very lives due to the intense, widespread terrorist activity presently occuring in the USA.

Re:One-Sided Press Release; FUD-ridden writeup by Alranor · 2004-07-27 00:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, in their defence, didn't one of them state in Fahrenheit 9/11 that they don't even bother to read the text of the laws they pass?

So they may not all be liars, some of them may merely be incompetent morons with the intelligence of the common garden slug.

Only one side of the story by {tele}machus_*1 · 2004-07-27 01:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'd like to point out two things to all of you throwing up your arms in dismay about the alleged abuse of the Patriot Act in this case: the linked article is hosted at sg1archive.com, and it clearly is anything but fair and unbiased. The article makes it seem as if this gentleman never did anything except run fan forums and provide information about the show. However, one of the other posters here on Slashdot used the Wayback Machine to find out that this guy was hosting copies of episodes, which is unquestionably copyright infringement.

I also observe that the "article" asks for donations to this guy's legal defense fund. Before anyone clicks to donate, I suggest that you consider that the "article" is a clearly biased view of the facts. He admits to no wrongdoing, but even a Slashdot poster has been able to show that this guy has some culpability. Shame on Slashdot for accepting this submission and allowing it to be passed off as truth.

He had links to DIVX's of the shows while DVD by sjs132 · 2004-07-27 01:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

Pulled from the forum on the site:

Now lets be a little objective here. Newcomers don't know but those that have lurked around for quite a while (myself) and have appreciated the site for a number of years know. The REAL reason for this lawsuit was that divx bootlegs of nearly (all?) every episode, up until a couple years ago, were available here for download. THAT'S why he got raided. So don't let the one sided story that's on here fool you. If it were truly for linking to legitimate dvd sales, I would be standing in line to donate to the legal fund. As it stands, it's a legitimate lawsuit.

Oh... and of course... don't believe ME... Check it out for yourself. The internet wayback machine has the pages archived.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010418190842/...sg1ar chive.com/

Just click on the links for the seasons and you can see that they were available for download via ASF and DIVX.

Now, the FBI probably was involved because of the overseas links to the DIVX contents when he was originally sent a "Cease & Desist." But, INAL...

Point is, there was copyright infringment, I'm sure the DCMA would have been the better act to follow, I don't know why they pulled the patriot act, other than it's another "TOOL" at their disposal....

BTW, the fact that this was from 2002, and it is just now being brought up, makes you wonder if it wasn't a planted story because of a certain election that is going to be playing out soon...

You know, FUD by the DNC? - Interesting thought, thats all I submit, no flames please, not trying to make any political points...

--
--- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...

Police State Wish List Act by Michael_Burton · 2004-07-27 01:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

Copyright infringement is not a terrorist act. The USA PATRIOT Act wasn't designed to fight terrorism. It was just sold as a law to fight terrorism. (If I were the wild-eyed type, I'd say the PATRIOT Act is a terrorist act.)

Virtually every provision of the USA PATRIOT Act was on John Ashcroft's Police State Wish List well before the terrorist attacks of 9/11 ever happened. After the attacks, it didn't take long to wrap every rotten proposal up with a great big red-white-and-blue ribbon and ram it through Congress. Ashcroft demanded it be passed within three days with no amendments. In the heat of that moment, only a handful of legislators from either side of the aisle dared to suggest that we should be more careful with our liberty.

Easy come, easy go, I guess.

--
When all you have is an axe, everything looks like a grindstone.

Re:Look at this by Oddly_Drac · 2004-07-27 01:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

"How evil of them to enfoce thier copyright."

You might figure out at some point that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is the government organ for handling internal federal problems, and currently is enagaged in everything from counter-terrorism thru to tracking down bank robbers. Enforcement of copyright is generally down to a civil action rather than getting a government body to kick your doors down. For one thing, every taxpayer is now engaged in protecting the copyright holders, so now you're not only buying their products, but paying for them to keep the prices where they want them.

Next time someone detonates a large-ish bomb in a city centre, think about whether the FBI's manpower is better spent working for the good of society or the good of a corporation.

As for the moral aspect of it, usually it's considered polite to send some contact first, and generally to a postal address. Getting a PI to serve papers has to be easier on the taxpayer than invoking an anti-terrorism law, just not as scary.

--
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.

Re:FUD ALERT by drooling-dog · 2004-07-27 01:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

But don't sit here on Slashdot and bitch, you're not changing anything.

The airing of grievances in a public forum (like Slashdot) is an essential part of achieving change. Nothing happens until a critical mass of people become aware.

The down side of the long slow bell curve by zooblethorpe · 2004-07-27 01:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

I was going to moderate this comment, but I found there's no "sad" category. This is spot-on (heck, I've already left), and the sentiment needs to be better known. Sure, the US has lots going for it -- but so many of the positives seem more like historical legacies slowly being choked to death by the corporate greed and public complacency that has enveloped the country.

And now I embark on some very general theorizing, so bear with me.

Historical comparison:
The Islamic world was a major intellectual force from around 700 to what, 1300 or so? They brought us algebra, among other things. But this drive for knowledge got choked off -- the Powers That Be decided that the spirit of inquisitive examination of the world had learned "enough", and the screws were tightened. And now it seems we are seeing signs of the same choking in the West, driven largely by the US, with greed as the engine.

Suffice it to say I am dismayed. I dearly hope someone (a very many someones) will prove me wrong, but it will take years of very different behavior in the US to bring me around.

--
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."

Re:FUD ALERT by teromajusa · 2004-07-27 01:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

If you feel that the Patriot Act is a bad thing, write your congressman. Join the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. But don't sit here on Slashdot and bitch, you're not changing anything.

How about joining the ACLU and bitching on Slashdot? The article may not give both sides of the story, but regardless of whether the guy is a 'bad guy', its not ok for the FBI to take legislation specifically drafted to fight terrorism and use it whenever they see fit. And I don't see any problem with bitching about things that are wrong.

Re:FUD ALERT by Brightest+Light · 2004-07-27 01:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

Except the problem is that whining on /. is not going to do anything to increase awareness. Bitching about nearly anything here is preaching to the choir. Writing one's congressman is increasing awareness. Passing out fliers/etc is increasing awareness. Posting rants on Slashdot about how the FBI/RIAA/MPAA/etc is evil is not going to do anything to help us reach this "critical mass" of people. I agree that airing of grievances in a public forum is essential to democracy; but airing grievances to people who know full well that the Patriot Act/etc is a bad thing does nothing to help matters any. If you want to increase awareness, go tell 5 of your friends (those who do not read Slashdot) why you think $issue_of_the_day is important. Explain to them why it matters, and make them aware of how it affects everybody's lives.

Re:Here comes a rant by Exatron · 2004-07-27 02:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

And it only cost every citizen their rights to due process and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. The Patriot act didn't even help catch these people, it just let some legal officials tack on a few extra charges.

--
"I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
"Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage

Re:Yes it is... by Asprin · 2004-07-27 02:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Way already on the bus, man.

For US voters who don't know what The Libertarian Party is, here's a good 10 second summary.

Their presidential candidate this time around is Michael Badnarik. He's a computer programmer by trade and he gets the whole "The Patriot Act really was a bad idea" argument.

FYI.

--
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie

Re:YOU are FUDding here! (mod me up) by twiggy · 2004-07-27 02:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm really upset that this article made /. and here's why:

First: Re "YOU are FUDding here!" -- no, he's not. Read the guy's post about the raids etc for a minute and forget about whether you liked his site or liked Stargate. It's totally misleading crap that doesn't even remotely mention that the raid was related to him (even at one point in the past) having hosted entire episodes. No, he makes it out to be an issue of linking to amazon that got him raided by the FBI.

Second: Giving this /. volume traffic, a bunch of dumb monkeys are going to paypal this clown $5 or $10 or whatever, and he's going to pocket it and/or use it for his legal defense. He doesn't deserve $5 or $10, even if he was somehow magically innocent, or even if you argue that "hey, he took the clips down and they still raided him!". He wrote a misleading post trying to get money from the public while not admitting one iota of the truth about the situation.

Also, as people mentioned there's discussion over at metafilter, and someone there stated that he knew he was going to be raided and had been moving around quite a bit before it happened, etc...

The ONLY valid point of discussion here is whether or not the PATRIOT act should be used, and if measures / activism need to be taken to get it repealed. Linking to this scammer's donation/"help my sorry ass" site without even realizing what a scammer he is, however, is upsetting to me.

--
http://www.babysmasher.com
http://www.openingbands.com

Re:FUD ALERT by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2004-07-27 02:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Perhaps the FBI did step over the line here, but from reading the Patriot Act ...one can see that the FBI is simply using the tools they've been given to bust the bad guys (the ranks of which this gentleman belongs to).

When people first started warning that USA-PATRIOT granted the government absurdly broad powers, its supporters replied, "Oh, don't worry about it, it's just to go after terrorists -- they won't use it in other kinds of cases." Now that it's being used as a blunt instrument against people who are not terrorists by any reasonable definition of the word, we're being told, "Well, what can you do, it's the law." Great.

If you feel that the Patriot Act is a bad thing, write your congressman. Join the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. But don't sit here on Slashdot and bitch, you're not changing anything.

Talking about these things, getting the word out, does have an effect -- in the long run, more of an effect than any single letter or donation. FWIW, I was an ACLU member before /. existed, but I had never even heard of the EFF before I started reading /., and I joined them largely because I was impressed by other posters' positive reports about their activities. Electronic forums like /. and K5 are, to some degree, the modern equivalent of the Green Dragon.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.

Re:FUD ALERT by LuYu · 2004-07-27 03:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

I have to agree with this and to add that if the Patriot Act was used, I do not care what sort of criminal this guy might have been. He is innocent to me.

I agree that the government should track and jail scumbags. This guy sounds like a real scumbag. However, there is a reason we have the rights we were given in the Constitution, and the FBI is wrong to make use of inappropriate laws in order to make it more convenient to catch someone. I really do not care if the guy has a rap sheet that streches from Texas to Canada. Copyright infringement is not a terrorist act (even if Jack Valenti may think so).

--
All data is speech. All speech is Free.

On the other hand... by SuperKendall · 2004-07-27 03:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

We're also smart enough to see that Kerry is no different than Bush, a fact that seems to elude Kerry supporters and other democrats.

When you are not voting for something, but against something - often the replacement is not what you expect.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

patriotic duty by Doc+Ruby · 2004-07-27 03:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

"I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." - Voltaire

People might defend the guy without deciding whether he's worth defending. OTOH, the government is prosecuting the guy as a terrorist, justifying an invasion of his privacy (financial records) unwarranted by the act of which he's merely accused, not even convicted. Now that the "Patriot" Act is used to prosecute mere copyright violation, Slashdotters can choose to defend our rights to privacy by protecting our rights to copy, even when the copyright violation is valid. Even we nerds and geeks who make our living from copyright protection are more threatened by unjust laws like the "Patriot" Act. If only the rest of the population would participate in such central decisions of our democratic society, with the degree of organization that counterbalances the lawyers at the "Justice" Department, we might actually resolve some of these issues, and debunk these false choices.

--

--
make install -not war

Re:OY MODS! by Jim+Starx · 2004-07-27 03:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

Whether he's guilty or not doesn't matter. The point is that when the patriot act was passed the gov't said don't worry, this is just so we can prosecute terrorists, we have no reason to use this in everyday investigations. And now they are using it in everyday investigations.

--
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.

Re:YOU are FUDding here! (mod me up) by syberanarchy · 2004-07-27 03:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

So the ends justify the means? What the fuck about due process? Do you really value copyright over the due process of law?

That's what this is about. The government, bought and paid for by the folks in the cartel, bowing to their masters. If I have to explain to you why this is fucked, I am wasting my time - THE GOVERNMENT IS PROSECUTING COPYRIGHT CASES WITH A LAW MEANT TO PREVENT THINGS LIKE PLANES CRASHING INTO BUILDINGS!!!

Of course, that's probably a moot point to types like you, who will gleefully state that hey, the US govt can do anything they want with their laws, it's their intellectual property, and if you don't like it, you don't have the right to make them do anything...

Oh wait...

Re:FUD ALERT by Jim+Starx · 2004-07-27 04:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

The patriot act was a collection of general powers, not a collection of only-in-terrorism-cases powers.

And there in you see the problem. The entire point of everyone bitching about the patriot act was because they didn't think the gov't should have these powers for use in every day investigations. But the gov't just said hey don't worry, well never use this against normal criminals, we just need this for terrorists. Low and behold.... they lied.

--
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.

Re:Article Text by Dashing+Leech · 2004-07-27 05:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm not sure that the opinions of the shows creators have anything to do with it.

Well, if they are at least partial copyright holders for the show, their opinions are relevant. However, I suspect that the "creators" don't actually own the copyright (despite the fact the intention of copyright is to go with the creators.) Neither the MPAA nor FBI own the copyrights.

What other sites are doing is irrelevant.

Not entirely true. Selective enforcement is a legitimate defense, particularly if related to accusations of harassment. For example, police can't just stop blacks who are speeding. True, they are breaking the law so they can be stopped, but they can't do it selectively to target certain groups or individuals. That doesn't mean he can use it as a legal defense here, but it does mean that what others do (and aren't prosecuted for) is not entirely irrelevant.

What seems to missing in the article is actually what was done that was illegal. It's obviously related to copyright infringement, but are they accusing this guy of selling T-shirts without licensing the images, or something like that? It can't be just displaying some images without permission. If it's criminal infringement it has to be something quite serious to meet the circumstances required by the statutes.

Re:Article Text by maximilln · 2004-07-27 06:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

However, I suspect that the "creators" don't actually own the copyright (despite the fact the intention of copyright is to go with the creators.) Neither the MPAA nor FBI own the copyrights

I've also found amusement that Uncle Sam is more than willing to spring to action to protect the rights of the corporations against a private citizen but, should any private citizen have a problem with the behavior of a major corporation, they'll have to come up with their own PIs, attorneys, and counsels who don't have the authority to just kick the door down, take everything in sight, and return most of it damaged and broken.

What amuses me more is that >50% of the posters on /. (and in the world) have been brainwashed to think that this is the right and true way for things to work.

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80

Re:FUD ALERT by b-baggins · 2004-07-27 06:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

Your personal disagreement with a law does not make it an inappropriate law, unless you were recently appointed king.

Secondly, the Patriot Act is nothing more than streamlining the search warrant, wiretaps, and property seizure laws to bring them in line with modern technology.

Slashdotters constantly whine about how out of touch with technology gov't is. That is until it comes to law enforcement. Then they want the cops to be restricted to using laws designed for 1960 on criminals using technology from 2004.

--
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.

Slashdot Mirror

Patriot Act Used to Enforce Copyright Law?

34 of 725 comments (clear)