Slashdot Mirror
National Security Letters Reform Act Reintroduced
eldavojohn writes "A bill introduced today, similar to one that died in 2007, would reform the plague of National Security Letters and greatly narrow their scope. On top of that, it would mandate the destruction of any wrongly obtained information discovered in audits by the Inspector General that uncovered widespread improprieties in NSLs."
That is supposed to be what the courts and judges are for. Try reading the constitution some time.
Who will guard the guards?
... information discovered in audits by the Inspector General ...
Now, how about the vast amount of information I'm quite certain wasn't discovered in these audits? Remember who we're talking about here.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
It was introduced by a Republican.
According to Thomas it was introduced by a Democrat.
But, sure, Republicans can sign on to bills that restore the rule of law to the USA, too.
> On top of that, it would mandate the destruction of any wrongly obtained information discovered
Why not toss out any court case based on such wrongly discovered info?
Why not criminal prosecutions of those issuing the letters from which information was wrongly discovered?
Why not remove the muzzeling of anyone issued such letters? After all if they were improperly issued letters in the first place any inducement to STFU about such a letter must also be wrong.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Looking back at the pre-american-revolution era, it's incredible the similarities the to-be-americans faced with what we are going through now.
Things like the Writ of Assistance etc. Basically "we're going to ignore any laws or rights you thought you had for a little while here, please step aside." These NSLs are basically doing that sort of thing.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Hard to believe something like this was ever introduced in this county. And supported by...a lot of you. At least many of you voted and stuck up for the dirt bags who proposed it.
Obama bailing out the auto industry and trying to fix health care is the path to socialism, but spying on Americans without due process and then trying to forbid them from talking to an attorney, you're okay with that.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
go after the F'ing neo-cons that PUSHED THIS CRAP. More importantly, time to ungag ppl like Sibel Edmunds. Let her talk. There are also several NSA guys with gag orders, who would LOVE to testify to the dems. Ungag them and pursue charges against those behind all this.
All of our government officials are sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. "Exceptions" to the bill of rights such as NSLs, particularly when they are abused, weaken the Constitution as a whole, and officials responsible should be held responsible, preferably with criminal charges of their own.
Without enforcing the protections provided by the bill of rights, those principles become mere historical curiosities as the "antiquated" ideals of the founding fathers.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...
At the same time the NSL's are being curtailed, the current administration is seeking expanded powers for the IRS to go after imagined "tax cheats". The IRS will have broader and sweeping powers to go after people who are guilty of not paying their taxes until they prove themselves innocent.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123802635823642761.html
Some things on tap: requiring small businesses to use bank accounts for all transactions, implying that the IRS can scan your bank. Having the government track all your transactions - even internationally.
This administration doesn't see any attack on personal freedom when the IRS rifles through your bank accounts or papers. Nor does it see any attack on personal freedom when guns are regulated and fire is essentially taxed until banned and all of our interactions with the environment are monitored.
But... if you call someone overseas in Iran, and the government listens in, now THAT's when the government crosses the line. What a token joke! Civil rights in the Obama administration is like having a choice of a dildo to get ass raped with.
This is my sig.
Do I smell ponies?
Never saw it.
What?
A provision that amounts to "if you abuse the statute, stop, don't pass go, report directly to the US Attorney for your district and make plans for spending at least a year in federal prison with 'cop' written with a sharpie on your forehead every morning." Based on the way the IG has found that the FBI routinely violates it, and there is so little accountability, the law needs to allow the IG to go damn near Napoleonic (law) on the FBI agents involved.
As you may or may not recall, during the Bush administration the Justice Department had this problem where some political appointees decided that they'd hire and fire people at Justice based on political affiliation (and possibly sexual orientation, in at least one case). Then the matter was investigated, by Congress, who couldn't get some individuals to show up to testify, which is contempt of Congress. When referrals for these contempt charges were passed to the Justice Department, they were promptly ignored, on the orders of - surprise - a political appointee of the President whose administration was being investigated in the first place.
Which is all to say, investigative powers are great, so long as the ability to compel testimony and subpoena (and obtain) documents is unimpeded, and that the investigative process is unimpeded and apolitical. What we saw over the last 8 years was the willing complicity of the legislative branch (till 2006, after which we saw some true cravenness), coupled with an executive that felt it was above the law. No simple IG provisions were going to fix that.
Obama.
Now, in turn, remind me which President it was that asked the CEO of AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac to step down?
What's that? Did you happen to squeak out George W. Bush?
Stop apologizing for the atrocity against our country that was his presidency.
Apparently, you are right, but in the parent's defense:
First sentence of the second paragraph.
Without further clarification being given in the entire Fine Article, it is easy to see where his comment(while biased) was not entirely wacked out.
I would put more faith in the site you linked to compared to TFA linked in the summary.
Two Thumbs Up(tm), and a standing ovation from me for:
1. The link with the info
2.* The motivation to double-check the source. That is too rare these days.
Well done!
Having said that, while information and documentation should be accurate, this is a small blip on the RADAR* overall.
Wat's important here for the current discussion is the possibility of increased openness and manner of redress in regards to National Security Letters, and due process.
I'm not trying to demean you or the above applause I gave, just adding some perspective overall. You do point out by example how discussion of a topic can break down into useless partisan flamewars though.
This is apparently what happened.
In my mind, who introduces a bill carries slightly more weight in my mind than the co-sponsors.(although the more the merrier in regards to co-sponsors for a 'wanted' bill-YMMV!)
Again, well done! You have shown admirable restraint with your reply.
*I'm not shouting, it's an acronym.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
I'll go out on a limb here, and assume that the folks that are doing the investigating here are probably aware of, maybe, 10% of the actual information gleaned by the use of NSLs. Most of it has probably been squirreled away for later use.
But, the requirement that all information be destroyed doesn't look as "after-the-fact-useless" as it may seem at first glance. Even if the information is not destroyed, it can no longer be USED in any real sense, at least in a courtroom. Although, I can imagine a few lawyers out there would beg to differ.
Essentially, once deemed "fit for destruction", it is as useless as if it HAD been destroyed. Any information that isn't has probably already served its purpose, or has been "used".
I would be paranoid too, if everyone was plotting against me.
Now go take some anti psychotics and have a nice lie down.
These posts are modded down because they repeatedly spam discussions with long winded boring irrelevant paranoia.
Suckers. I bet you thought Obama would bring real change. Well this "National Security Letters Reform Act Reintroduced" sure proves you wrong. All Democrats and Republicans are identical tools of corporate executives.
RON PAUL 2012!!
Yes! I prefer my paranoia relevant, concise, and exciting.
This bill has 17 cosponsors: 15 Democrats and 2 Republicans. I will admit that, on the issue of National Security Letter reform, there are two Republicans so far who have shown an interest: Ron Paul and Jeff Flake. And Ron Paul is well known for his frequent divergence from the party's positions. What about everyone else? Of course, they can still vote for this when it hopefully comes up; Representatives need not consponsor everything. But there seems to be a decidedly lopsided enthusiasm in the 15 vs. 2 cosponsors there.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
That was actually the previous introduction, in 2007, which died at the end of the last Congressional session. This reintroduced one is here. It was introduced by the same person, though, so no substantive disagreement with your post.
The 2007 version had 30 cosponsors, who were 27 Democrats and 3 Republicans. The 2009 version has 17 consponsors so far, who are 15 Democrats and 2 Republicans. So I wouldn't say it's hugely bipartisan, especially since one of the few Republicans in both cases was Republican-with-an-asterisk Ron Paul (Jeff Flake is the other).
The Thomas link you give shows that the 2007 version was passed out of subcommittee in 2008 by a 7-3 vote. I'd be curious who the votes on each side were. By which I mean, of course, I want the names of those 3 fellows.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I agree with most of your post except the apparently unrelated bit about hate-crimes legislation. How does that help you to have all of your rights? It establishes more severe penalties for identical crimes if there's a finding that they were influenced by a specific category of hatred. By implication, there are lower penalties if you are a victim of the same crime but it wasn't because of one of those categories of hatred. That somehow doesn't seem like much comfort to me if I'm "only" assaulted because someone wanted my wallet, not because they hated me; or if I'm assaulted because someone hated me for a non-enumerated reason, like my political viewpoints.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I love browsing at -1
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.
That's not Greek or Chinese. The government has a bad habit of ignoring the constitution, but it is nevertheless the entire legal basis for their power. If they don't want to follow the constitution, then they have no claim to legitimacy.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Sorry, but fiddling with the wording of an unconstitutional statute is pointless. What we really need to do is refuse to comply, go to court, and fight it.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
:)
Which is worse than "beating up someone who was mouthy to me" because some people can't stop being black.
Why do you think there is murder, second degree murder and so on down to death by misadventure when the actions were:
someone died and someone else's actions caused it
?
Because of the reason for the action.
Reason == thought
So should negligent death of a worker be treated like first degree murder because you won't accept "thought crime"??
Until one of two things happens:
1) A non-honest, non-benevolent leader rises to power (hey, how often does that happen, right?)
2) The upper class gets tired of paying the freight for all you slothful, entitled losers.
Other than that, I love socialism! Now who wants some?
While it would still permit high-ranking FBI officials to issue NSLs with temporary gag orders attached,
I think you lost me right there. The government can still issue blanket gag orders and demands for information without a judge. Oops.
the Bureau would have to petition a judge in order to extend that order beyond an initial 30 days.
Wow, that's some pretty weak oversight. My guess is that they will just issue a new security letter instead of extending the old one.
the agency would have the burden of showing a court specific facts justifying each six-month extension of the gag.
A 6 month extension is pretty long IMHO. The judge should set the duration, not the NSL.
the law would radically narrow the scope of National Security Letters, which can currently be used to obtain financial or telecommunications transaction records
I don't want a list of what things they can and can't get. They should be able to get nothing at all, without a court order. Anything else violates the 4th amendment.
NSLs would have to certify that the target to whom the information sought pertained was believed, on the basis of "specific and articulable facts," to be a "foreign power or agent of a foreign power."
That does nothing.
They should be abolished, not reformed.
ters, and periodically i update that fact.
(for those too lazy or with not enough time to read ALL of this, just skip to the last para)
If am EVER asked whether or not i have received one, I WILL tell the truth. If the person asking queries as to whether s/he or any s/he was the subject, i WILL tell the truth. I might not go so far as to divulge the exact questions, but i'll be damned if cloak-and-daggger will go in in MY face. Besides, way too many technical means and illegal sneak-and-peak ops occur for most of us to be traditionally interrogated unless, unless the act of questioning is to cause someone who is lying to actually try to contact the subject. Even still, it could end up being a dead-end query.
I once was questioned by the FBI in mid 03 about a "the plane", which was actually a smashed-up RC craft. They might have been interested in the F-16, which never had an engine installed in the some-8 years of it's having been built. It was owned by a relative who didn't retrieve it before i moved to Portland, OR. I believe the spooked-ass rat was the apartment complex (Trammel Crow(e)) manager who it seems ran inspections every 3 months, looking for whatever was forbidden, since Oregon housing/public law permits such quasi-zone-inspections, in the name of combating illegal drugs and non-lease occupants violations. She had me remove EVERY SINGLE BOX from the closet, as if looking for trap doors or pipes or tunnels or whatever. She saw the RC F-16 and made a note, and IIRC, her face seemed concerned. (Note: I'm black (born on the Presidio, Leterman General Hospital, when my father was in the USMC), but don't always look it, and she was white, and this was, to remind readers, Q1 of 2002. They let me move in based on cash in my bank account (money from selling my home in California, but of that $30,000, only $10,000 was mine, since $20K was really loans keeping me from going into foreclosure during my attempt to sell it on the market), and specifically said it was OK to count it as income. Of course, when i burned thru that cash, i got eviction notices.
Anyway, about 1 month later, the FBI knocked on my door, fucking hailed hailed my name and said, "We're from the FBI. We've been trying to reach you for WEEKS!".
My first thought was BULLSHIT! I had had my cell phone ON for the entire time I was in Oregon. I had no home phone, and by that time i had sold my car for rent money. I was even going onto California unemployment because i didn't manage to find a job. I was trying to start a business, and even before that had registered with the Department of Revenue in Salem, and file articles of incorporation, and then filed those in Washington county. I had made cash, debit and money order transactions for books purchases and rent/other payments. I rode public transit. So, i call bullshit. They could NOT have failed to find me since i was in the mode of evading tails.
What shocked them was when i said, "Ah, so you're here after that little one-man plane buzzed the complex at less than 300 feet, circled a few times. Yeh, i saw his face. He was caucasian, had greenish earphones one, and looked to be about 180 lbs, maybe 50-ish years old. Yeh, i figured he was doing radiological checks. But, you know it's clean here."
The older of the two agents produce a fucking BEAUTIFUL pic of me, which they obtained from OR DMV. I was stunned at the crisp, clear colors. I don't know if i got a boner looking at myself, or if i was impressed that Oregon is much more efficient than California in DMV matters. I wanted to ask them for a copy but deferred. They said, "We're here for "the plane"....". I took them down to the garage (oh, they were nice, tho, having removed their shoes since i told them i don't wear shoes in my home (i picked that up from living with Vietnamese friends, and ever since left street shoes at the threshold, ESPECIALLY in San Fransideshow with the shit-infested streets...)...), and when they saw the smashed-up Snoop-The-Red Baron plane, they wee quite annoyed. The older one gro
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
That would be the case for a general definition of hate crimes as something that's intended to intimidate a group of similarly-minded people. But hate crime statutes generally only protect specific, enumerated groups of similarly-minded people. So, for example, the federal Hate Crime Sentencing Enhancement Act provides for enhanced penalties if the victim was selected due to "actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation".
Note that your example, violence based on hair color, is not covered; similar lists, differing usually in one or two of the enumerated categories, are part of most state hate-crime legislation. They exclude a number of things that conceptually fit your definition that actually happen; for example, no statute of which I'm aware provides for considering assaults motivated by political beliefs to be a hate crime, despite the fact that e.g. assaulting Communists for their political beliefs intimidates a class of people. But assaulting Communists for their atheism might be covered in states that enumerate religious belief. Do these kinds of special categories for protection actually make sense?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Dude, if there's anything less productive than arguing with an AC, it's arguing with an AC that mouthing racist right-wing crap that somebody has already modded down.
And yet I still have far more relevance than you, someone who chimes in well after the fact to futilely point out the unimportance of things that don't matter.
When you die, not a single soul will mourn you, as is proper and right.
You spend half your waking life writing post after post on a web site you claim to despise, and you say I'm irrelevant?
Look at my posting history. I actually convince people of stuff. When was the last time you convinced anybody of anything, except, "This guy is so full of himself"?
No offense (seriously), but if you think you actually convince people of anything they're not already convinced of, you're a pretty naive person. I won't even bother calling out the silliness of you calling me full of myself - you're just not sufficiently grown up to know what you're talking about.
Bored now.