How has the USA PATRIOT Act Affected You?

wetdogjp asks: "October 26th, 2004 marked the third anniversary of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (or USA PATRIOT Act, as it is more commonly known). While the Slashdot crowd can certainly muster the enthusiasm to debate its pro's and con's, I'd like to know: How has the USA PATRIOT Act affected you, personally? How has it interfered with your personal and professional life? Has this act influenced your Presidential vote?"

Comments

Re:Umm

[bwd234]

" wacko... seriously, we live in a democracy as you're witnessing tonight - not a dictatorship"

First off, this is NOT a democracy, it is a representative republic. When is the last time YOU voted on a new law? If this was in fact a democracy, your vote would decide who is president, not the Electoral College's.

"Paranoia is out there..."

I agree, I guess that's why you posted anonymously!

Re:Umm

[Dyolf Knip]

The PATRIOT Act also allows _any_ judge anywhere in the country to authorize a search of your house, no matter where you live. In other words, the feds need only find one single judge to rubber stamp their warrants and they have essentially unlimited power of searches in every state of the union. So just what good is the requirement of a warrant?

Re:Umm

[thenightisdark]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename= article&node=&contentId=A16287-2003Mar23&notFound= true

Under prior law, if the primary purpose of a search was to obtain "foreign intelligence information," the FBI could obtain a secret warrant through the court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to conduct a physical search or wiretap without notifying the target of the search. The counter-terrorism law lowers the standard to permit the FBI to conduct a secret search or wiretap if intelligence surveillance is a significant purpose of the search. Thus, under the new law, law enforcement could conduct secret searches for the primary purpose of investigating criminal activity, with the auxiliary significant purpose of intelligence surveillance. This could circumvent the 4th Amendment's probable cause requirement for obtaining a search warrant.

from

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oi d= 9392

Empirical evidence

[MacDork]

• On June 9, 2002 Jose Padilla--a.k.a. Abdullah Al Muhajir--was transferred from control of the U.S. Department of Justice to military control. Since that time, Padilla has been held in a navy brig in South Carolina.

• Padilla has not been charged with a crime, and does not have access to a lawyer in his detention.

Source

11/3/04 - 6/9/02 = 2 years, 4 months, and 3 weeks.

No charges, no trial, no lawyer. Nothing. Welcome to your new home citizen. Enjoy your stay here at the Ministry of Love.

Re:Umm

[MoneyT]

Well, for one, you didn't answer what I asked, you didn't provide me with a section. But here is the section you're refering to:

SEC. 218. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION.

Sections 104(a)(7)(B) and section 303(a)(7)(B) (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)(B) and 1823(a)(7)(B)) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 are each amended by striking `the purpose' and inserting `a significant purpose'.

For 2, this doesn't change things. The FBI could still obtain taps against you under FISA. What this does is allow the FBI to persue a criminal prosecution if they find said information. Furthermore, it ignores two very important aspects.

1) If you were in court over this, and lawer worth his salt would argue that any basic criminal evidence found falls under this aspect of FISA

C) that such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;

And you would get said evidence suppressed.

2) It also ignores that there are a ton of hurdles to jump through to use any FISA tap against a US citizen.

Re:Umm

[Anonymous Custard]

Maybe secret's the wrong term, but it's illegal for you to disclose that you've been served by such a warrant. See http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html , section 215, revision to 501 (d):

"`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section."

So a warrant exists, and no one is allowed to mention it. They must keep it a "secret". Thus you could call it a secret warrant, though a "classified" warrant might be more accurate.

So that is the section of the patriot act which gives the government the authority to obtain a "secret" warrant.

Re:Umm

[databyss]

Wrong, they do need a search warrant, they just don't need to tell you in advance. Please read: http://www.factcheck.org/article259.html so you can understand what you're talking about.

Re:Umm

[Korgan]

Really? It hasn't happened? Short memory there.

Re:Umm

[GileadGreene]

Shoot, even Orson Wells was trying to get Hoovers endorsement on '1984', hopefully to sell books.

Uh... I think you mean George Orwell. You know, the same chap who wrote 'Animal Farm'.

Orson Welles was the guy behind the panic-inducing radio broadcast of War of the Worlds, the movie 'Citizen Kane', etc. He never had anything to do with '1984'.

Please don't call it the "Patriot" Act

[some guy I know]

It's not the "Patriot" Act; it's the "USAPATRIOT" Act.
Please use the full acronym, or its full name: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism".
The "USAPATRIOT" Act has nothing to do with patriotism, so calling it the "Patriot Act" is misleading.
(Considering how the Act is being misused these days, even using its full name is somewhat misleading (How is copyright infringement "terrorism"?).)
Personally, I pronounce it "the you sap at riot act" to avoid confusion.
Other pronunciations are "the US ap uh TRY ot act" and (as Jar-Jar) "the YOUsa pah TR-R-RE-E-E at act".