Bush Wants Right to ISP Customer Data

bryan8m writes "Wired is reporting that the Bush administration wants back the ability to make ISPs turn over information on their customers. The U.S. Court of Appeals is handling the case and of course the feds want to hide details of it from the public. The law giving the government the power to seize communications records from 1986 was strengthened in 2001 by the Patriot Act and struck down after the ACLU challenged it."

Comments

Re:Hiding the law from the people who it is direct

[PsiPsiStar]

Even worse are the laws about what a person can bring on a flight that can't even be discussed.

It's worse than you say:

[Futurepower(R)]

In my opinion it is worse than you say.

Here are reviews of 35 books and 3 movies that discuss how bad it really is: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

Background information: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories. The U.S. government declared war on Arabs long before there was Arab terrorism against the U.S.: New York Governor Pataki's statements are equivalent to a declaration of war.

The U.S. government is bankrupt. The value of the U.S. dollar is dropping fast because the Bush administration is rapidly borrowing money. Who is doing the borrowing? These people: U.S. Federal Deficit by Political Party. If you are a U.S. citizen, you owe: $26,289.01, even if you are only 1 year old.

There's plenty of blame to go around ...

[Fookin]

Let us not forget a key point:

Congress creates the bills, the President merely signs them into law.

Where is all the uproar about the Congressmen who voted for these laws? I see plenty of anti-Bush sentiment here, but where's the outrage towards *your* representatives who approve of this?

Get angry all you want at the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, but don't give a free pass to the occupants of both the Hart and Russell Senate Office Buildings, they typically stick around a lot longer than a President.

Send it in then:

[GQuon]

The data you're looking for is allready available on line. Have a look here and here for example

Here's the address that you can send your ISP info to: president@whitehouse.gov

Terrorism

[GQuon]

I mean whos to say what constituits a "terrorist" website?

The secretary of state, I think.

Sec. 219. (a) Designation.-(1) In general.-The Secretary is authorized to designate an organization as a terrorist organization in accordance with this subsection if the Secretary finds that-

(A) the organization is a foreign organization;

(B) the organization engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) 1a/ or terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 2656f(d)(2)), or retains the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism); and

(C) the terrorist activity 1a/ or terrorism of the organization threatens the security of United States nationals or the national security of the United States.

And here's the definition of terrorism. Think "direct action activism".

INA Act 212(a)(3)(B)4/ (iii) TERRORIST ACTIVITY DEFINED.-As used in this Act, the term "terrorist activity" means any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if 4/ it had been committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following:

(I) The highjacking or sabotage of

any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle).

(II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained.

(III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in section 1116(b)(4) of title 18, United States Code) or upon the liberty of such a person.

(IV) An assassination.

(V) The use of any-

(a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or

(b) explosive, 4/ firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.

(VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.

Re:Why Bother with the Courts?

[falconwolf]

There was once when the 'republican" party and the 'conservatives' meant smaller govt, less spending, and less intrusiveness.

A small limited government was the platform for the Democrat party and liberals to begin with. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal democrat who wanted a small and limited government. That I am aware of the only tyme the Republican party said they wanted small government was from Nixon onward. Well also Eisenhower who came up with the term "military industrial complex". He started the Viet Nam War though strengthening said complex. Nixon when his presidental committee released a report saying hemp, marijuana, should be legalized he said he didn't care what the recommendation was, there was no way he would allow it to be legalized. It was because of the Nixon Republicans that the Libertarian Party was started. Reagan increased the size of the federal government, increased federal police powers, and pushed for maximizing minimum sentencing for drugs. This is what conservatives wanted back in TJ's tyme, a strong federal government.

Falcon

Bush said he wanted to be the dictator

[alfredo]

Back in Dec 2000 he declared his desire to be The Dictator

Re:Look! He is making his Tribal identification cr

[Anonymous Coward]

So let me get this straight, now people who believe they should actually have freedom and a government that doesn't suck ass, are below both Republicans and Democrats? I mean, thats what you're saying going around slapping a label like "Libertarian" on people just because they want their government to quit making up bullshit excuses to spend billions of dollars on war and spying on our own citizens. "Defending our Country" just isn't going to cut it when Iraq had sticks and stones, and oh yeah, one of their "scientists" had slime growing under their sink. Man, thats a whole WMD program right there, our country was clearly in imminent danger from those stinky mildew-wielding terrists.

Re:Why Bother with the Courts?

[ShadeARG]

The Wikipedia article for Fascism is a really interesting read. If that definition is undisputed*, then it's scary how well it's starting to fit. The discussion page makes for insightful reading as well.

* The discussion page seems to signal an overall agreement, but the neutrality/factual accuracy warning banner has yet to be removed.

Re:That is so true

[safari-surfer]

That is so true. It points up the obvious that Bush people are neocons and an insult to true conservatives. Bush backers are more fascist than conservative but fascist is a tough label to sell in Oklahoma. So they call themselves conservative.

They are well on their way towards making Conservative synonomous with Fascist wich is not good. I may be rather liberal myself but I share some of the same beleifs as conservatives such as a the preference for a free market system over the government controlled economy preferred by the left. Similarly there are conservatives who share some of my own beleifs, such as concern for the state of the enviroment (Yes, that's righ you dont have to be a tree hugging pot smoking hippie to be concerned about pollution, extinction and climate change). There are more brands of Conservativism than the one sold by the current White House.