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

Why Bother with the Courts?

[geomon]

When did the Bush administration become concerned about legality? Their previous stances on issues including torture, sovereign right of nations, and the role of Article 2 power has been done without discussing it with anyone.

Now all of the sudden they are getting a read from the courts?

Fucking facists.

Re:Why Bother with the Courts?

[Ryvar]

The reason the Bush administration is concerned about legality in this matter is because they aren't going after individuals or impoverished nations filled with people the average idiot American distrusts and blames for gas prices.

They're stepping on the toes of large, multi-national corporations many of whom have major media holdings and could make life very, very painful for the US government. Translation: they ARE being watched on this one, so they have to cross the 't's and dot the 'i's.

--Ryv

Re:Why Bother with the Courts?

[JenovaSynthesis]

Well you know how Bush loves hypocrisy. Like bitching about "activist judges" and then continuously trying to appoint a judge (and finally succeeding) his won attorney general has called an "activist judge" on several occassions and actually worked with the conving conservative whore.

And we all love Republican's love of ethics. Like how Clinton gets head and it involves an impeachment and Senate trial. But god forbid someone even mention the shit Tom DeLay does. Or Bill Frist's violation of medical ethics with his famous diagnosis via heavily edited video tapes.

Re:Why Bother with the Courts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whereas our current President will never allow himself to testify under oath. Therefore he can never have lied about Iraq, or the WMDs, or state-sanctioned torture, or his shady war industry dealings. People DID care that Clinton "got head." They made an absolute circus of it. "He lied under oath" was just a flimsy excuse to launch a character attack against him.

Just for the record, I AM a citizen of the United States, and I was in secondary school at the time. A senator who came to address some of the students gave an impassioned speech about how he would resign if anyone even brought charges of infidelity against him, and that it was unbecoming of a president to behave so immorally. Two weeks later, a woman DID come up with charges against him. Needless to say, that senator continued to work in Congress as he always had.

Posting AC to avoid the flame machine.

Hiding the law from the people who it is directed

[haluness]

and of course the feds want to hide details of it from the public

I have read of this before, but it is very strange that in a democracy (?) laws for the popluation can be discussed/made by not letting the population know about them.

Does'nt this seem *too* close to a dictatorship - not that the US is one, but it increasingly is seeming that certain aspects are going in that direction

They will defend the US to the point

[cyber_rigger]

...that no one will want to live here anymore.

Diabloical

[101percent]

I'm not a bush basher generally. I'm not totally against the RIAA and MPAA.

But I must say, that this initiative is truely diabolical. My freedoms to surf the internet privately is clearly being breached here.

Are we going to see them applying the same interpretationist polcies that they use on television to the internet. I mean whos to say what constituits a "terrorist" website?

Goodbye my friends. I think 1984 has truely, and finally come alive, and its time for some of us to go underground.

Unfortunately...

[sumday]

the, "if you've got nothing to hide, why worry?" argument will probably win this one. but guys, c'mon. This descision will quash terrorism... don't you see...?

Shaddup!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yer all a bunch of commie pinko liberal America-haters. Our President is doing the BEST HE CAN to protect us from terrorism, and he NEEDS these powers.

Re:Shaddup!

[falconwolf]

Yer all a bunch of commie pinko liberal America-haters. Our President is doing the BEST HE CAN to protect us from terrorism, and he NEEDS these powers.

While I am a liberal, classical liberal, just as Thomas Jefferson was, I am not a "commie", I very much am a capitalist just as Adam Smith wrote about in "On the Wealth of Nations". Others here seem to be fascists.

Falcon

Re:Sounds bad but...

[pashdown]

The bad part: "To expand the FBI's power to seek records without the approval of a judge or grand jury."

This means no oversight, and opens the door for all kinds of abuse. Giving the government a little grief? No problem, they'll just have to make life hard for you.

I'm so glad...

[calstraycat]

I'm so glad that the "keep-the-government-out-of-people's-lives" party is in power.

They could get all your hacker information!

[Anonymous Coward]

After a quick browsing of the ISP records they could know a lot about us... It seems that you have been living two lives. In one life, you are Thomas A. Anderson, program writer for a respectable software company. You have a social security number, you pay your taxes and you help your land lady carry out her garbage. In the other you are an annoying slashdot troll under the alias "Anonymous Coward" and are guilty of virtually every computer crime we have a law for, including extreme comparisons of the Bush administration to fictional works such as The Matrix or 1984. One of these lives has a future... In all seriousness, though, I can't see how giving the government access to ISP records is going to beneficial to the people. Guess the Department of Homeland Security is getting bored and needs something to do.

I can see more personals like this in the future

[Valacosa]

Seriously, if things keep on going on the way they are, I can see a lot of personals like this popping up:

"Single, white 22-year old Canadian male willing to `marry' American female fleeing fascist regime. Must be intelligent and conversational. Preferably aged 19-25, ethnicity unimportant."

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

[Ryvar]

In some ways it's worse than a dictatorship, if you think about it. Most people in nasty dictatorships have an all-to-clear a picture of exactly what kind of behaviors will get them 'disappeared.' It's not a guarantee or anything (you may be a government-critic's brother, for instance), but at least you have a sense of your position on the terrain.

In the United States the law is so hopelessly complex, the enforcement so arbitrary, and adherence to the concept of checks and balances is such a farce that very few people are entirely sure of the legality of all their actions. Or what the consequences would be. We have developed a culture of lawyers for precisely this purpose - we walk on pins and needles hoping to God we aren't crossing some local, state, or federal ordinance without realizing it.

To live in the United States without having a law degree or the money to employ someone with one full-time is to be a second-class citizen.
--Ryv

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.

Ahem [gets on soapbox]

[64nDh1]

The way I see it, your IP is becoming more and more like your phone number. It's part of who you are and we're fast approaching the day that the two will be essentials for anyone living anywhere in the world. You'll need your digits so people can call you, and your IPv4 or IPv6 digits for other reasons, and it'll become the norm.

How would people react if the Bush, or any, administration claimed the right to be able to tap anyone's phone for any reason?

From the article:
The legal filing with the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New York comes amid a debate in Congress over renewal of the Patriot Act and whether to expand the FBI's power to seek records without the approval of a judge or grand jury.

And will they also seek the entitlement to search domestic residences without a warrant approved by an authority figure? Would I be far off in this seeming to be about the same? For those who lost their short term memory, and those who like repetition:

without the approval or a judge or grand jury

How do you respect a law like that?

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.

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

[Maestro4k]

I have read of this before, but it is very strange that in a democracy (?) laws for the popluation can be discussed/made by not letting the population know about them. Welcome to the US of the 21st century where controversial bills are passed as riders to defense spending bills and passed by voice vote (so there's no record of who voted for or against). This has been going on for some time, but it has increased dramtically under Bush's administration, and not all of it after 9/11/2001. After 9/11 almost anything goes of course. Torture's been determined legal, secret searches are fine, but hey at least we caught Bin Laden right? Oh wait we didn't... Does'nt this seem *too* close to a dictatorship - not that the US is one, but it increasingly is seeming that certain aspects are going in that direction It's not just certain aspects, our entire government seems to be happily heading towards either dictatorship or fascism controlled by the corporations. Many feel that the latter has already occurred and it's just a matter of time before the whole semblance of government by the people is dropped.

What do I think? All I know is that it certainly feels like whatever any corporation wants they get, but whatever I want (and others like me want), even when it's constitutional freedoms, I don't get it because it would inconvenience some corporation. So I'd have to say we're well down that road to control by corporations and I wouldn't be surprised to see congress and the courts dissolved and the presidency turned into a dictatorship in my lifetime.

Re:Fuck the ACLU

[interstellar_donkey]

Unlike past wars, this is one that isn't really going to end. The global war on terrorism's ultimate goal is to stop terrorist threats from attacking the United States.

No matter what we do, the threat will always be there, and as such, the war will continue to go on. Granted, a government should be granted special permissions during wartime, with the understanding that when the conflict is over the population can rest easy that things will return to normal.

Only now, any permissions granted to the government won't be temporary. We are setting ourselves up for a government that can violate the principals on which this nation was founded indefinitely.

I for one don't want to live in a country where the government can violate my privacy. I don't want to live in a country where at whim any action can redefined as "terrorist", and I could be labeled a criminal for doing nothing wrong. We've gone past the point where "only guilty people have to worry", and are approaching "innocent people have to worry too."

So kudos to the ACLU. Kudos to any person or group who wants to limit the powers of government. The war just isn't in Iraq, the war is here too. Like the war against terrorism, our domestic war is between those who value liberty and freedom above all else, and those who want to limit it.

The current administration may have the best of intentions, but I can see Bush saying "It is better that the rights of 1,000 innocent Americans should perish at the hands of their own government so that the rights of one American won't be taken by a terrorist."

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:Title is mis-leading.

[Maestro4k]

but last time I checked the Patiot Act didn't pass with a narrow margin No it didn't, but many congressmen (and women) have said afterward, repeatedly, that they were pressured into voting for it and given almost no time at all to review it. Many voted for it without having read more than a few pages. The pressure of 9/11 was used to force congress to pass the PATRIOT act without allowing them time to debate it. So yeah it was voted for near unaminously but even congress wasn't terribly happy about it. Try including all the facts instead of only the ones that paint the viewpoint you're shooting for. and it doesn't look like it is going to pass with a narrow margin again this time. Only portions of the act are up for renewal, very few in fact. The bulk of it is still intact and would take new legislation to remove it. Also it's by no means certain those portions up for renewal will pass, and even if they do it won't be so quick and easy. Numerous congresscritters have publically stated that they will _NOT_ be put in the same situation again and will be invesigating this fully before deciding this time. Multiple hearings have already been scheduled and many already completed. So for all you liberal's out there that say my guy would never vote for this, and Bush is evil because he did. Check the vote records for this back in 2001. It's all posted on the Library of Congress website. Exactly why do you assume it's only liberals who oppose the PATRIOT act? There's at least a couple of republican congresscritters who do. It's by no means a straight party line as to who supports and opposes it. When it's actually explained to someone, they generally don't support many of its provisions. Even idiots realize secret searchs without any oversight are dangerous.

You may say the article is biased, but frankly you're showing far more bias than it does. Also everything is biased, you have to realize this and learn to read the bias as well so you can make up your own mind. Personally I support some sections of the PATRIOT act and not others. If I had to chose between the whole thing going to get rid of the worst sections I'd err on the side of caution and say yes, it should be removed. As Benjamin Franklin said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

And frankly, do you really feel more secure now than you did before the PATRIOT act was passed? I don't, at best I feel I have the same level of security, at worst I have a new enemy -- my own government who treats me like a criminal in the name of "fighting terrorism".

This Memorial Day -- Remember America

[bratwiz]

An open letter on this memorial day. A time to remember our countrymen and the sacrifices they made for our freedom. Consider the price of freedom, and how fleeting it is. What must be taken with mighty armies can be given away with the stroke of the pen...

I've read that congress is considering revisions to the Patriot Act, and that President Bush is pushing for more powers to intrude in secret into lives of Americans. Please don't let our nation go down this road. I am asking people to discuss this issue and contact your congress person and senator to let them know how you feel. Freedom is not free, it must fought for and held close dearly, in the statehouse and on the battlefield.

In America a battle is raging that is threatening our freedom in the name of terrorism. It used to be "drugs", then it was "the children", and now its "terrorists". The government doesn't care who the bogeyman is, it simply wants more power, and it will use any excuse possible to get it.

When the events of 9/11 occurred, everyone-- the politicians, the President, the newscasters, and the people everywhere-- said "We must go on with our lives, if we change who we are as a result of the trajedy then the terrorists have won..." I hate to say it then, because that's exactly what we did. We allowed our government to put in all these draconian measures that would have scared the pants off us if we had seen it in a hollywood movie on September 10th. We have fundamentally altered our country in response to what the terrorists did, and our freedom and liberty is at stake.

We are no longer as free as we were. We are no longer as kind to each other as before. We run around the world acting like the bully, and we've even lost the respect for ourselves-- our own moral compass and lamp of righteousness. We used to be the shining beacon of freedom and liberty for all the world to see. Now we're reviled and hated in many parts of the world and shunned by our friends and allies.

We've changed a lot since 9/11. Government agents can search your home and seize your property without anybody ever knowing what happened. They have even made talking about it a "national security" crime. These are things are supposed to happen in Cuba. These are things that happen in China. These are things that are supposed to happen only in the farthest, darkest, most oppressive corners of the world-- not in America, "the land of the free".

It has been said that people who give up their liberty for safety have neither. It would seem that since 9/11, Americans have looked away while lawmakers stripped away fundamental freedoms that are guaranteed to us under our constitution. Since the birth of this nation we have championed against tyranny, oppression, and the subjugation of humanity all around the world. What an irony that we must now remind ourselves of these very principles and warn our politicians to step lightly to avoid leading us into the abyss.

Step away from that edge! Guide us back into the light and liberty. America was great before, and shall be great again. All that is required is the wisdom and the courage to stand up and speak against what we all know is wrong. America has a mighty weapon, and its not our tanks, its not our ships, its not our weapons of mass destruction-- America's mightiest weaspon is ourselves. Our love for humanity, our reaching out to stop the oppressors of the world, our zest for life and our yearning to be free.

The terrorists who aim to defeat us can never win because they simply can't understand our spirit. But the politicians who govern us can defeat us. They are charged with protecting our spirit and keeping the beacon of liberty lit for all the generations that come. It is not the terrorists I fear. We have mighty armies and very smart people that will eventually defeat them, of this I am ce