Slashdot Mirror


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."

3 of 565 comments (clear)

  1. It's worse than you say: by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Informative


    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.

  2. There's plenty of blame to go around ... by Fookin · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.

  3. Terrorism by GQuon · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.
    --
    Irene KHAAAAAAN!