Obama Wants Computer Privacy Ruling Overturned

schwit1 writes "The Obama administration is seeking to reverse a federal appeals court decision that dramatically narrows the government’s search-and-seizure powers in the digital age. Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Justice Department officials are asking the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its August ruling that federal prosecutors went too far when seizing 104 professional baseball players’ drug results when they had a warrant for just 10. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Comments

I am shocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

That it's taking people this long to realize nothing ever changes.

Re:I am shocked!

[MightyMartian]

There are certainly meaningful differences, but at the end of the day the top prosecutors in the United States still want those X-Ray glasses so they can watch the citizens for criminal conduct.

Re:I am shocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

i am pretty sure we are all potential criminals, no such thing as a citizen anymore

Re:I am shocked!

[daath93]

Shamelessly stolen from The Council on Foreign Relations

“Enemy combatant” is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).

The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President’s determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination.

Authority to Detain

The President has unquestioned authority to detain enemy combatants, including those who are U.S. citizens, during wartime. See, e.g., Quirin, 317 U.S. at 31, 37 (1942); Colepaugh v. Looney, 235 F. 2d 429, 432 (10th Cir. 1956); In re Territo, 156 F. 2d 142, 145 (9th Cir. 1946). The Fourth Circuit recently reaffirmed this proposition. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 296 F.3d 278, 281, 283 (4th Cir. 2002). The authority to detain enemy combatants flows primarily from Article II of the Constitution. In the current conflict, the President’s authority is bolstered by Congress’s Joint Resolution of September 18, 2001, which authorized “the President . . . to use all necessary and appropriate force” against al Qaida and against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines” committed or aided in the September 11 attacks.” Pub. L. No. 107-40, 2(a), 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (emphasis added). This congressional action clearly triggers (if any trigger were necessary) the President’s traditional authority to detain enemy combatants as Commander in Chief.

Presidents (and their delegates) have detained enemy combatants in every major conflict in the Nation’s history, including recent conflicts such as the Gulf, Vietnam, and Korean wars. During World War II, the United States detained hundreds of thousands of POWs in the United States (some of whom were U.S. citizens) without trial or counsel. Then as now, the purposes of detaining enemy combatants during wartime are, among other things, to gather intelligence and to ensure that detainees do not return to assist the enemy.

Detainee Rights

All of the detainees are unlawful combatants and thus do not as a matter of law receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. However, the United States armed forces are treating, and will continue to treat, all enemy combatants humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949. Among many other things, this means that they receive: three meals a day that meet Muslim dietary laws; medical care; clothing and shoes; shelter; showers; soap and toilet articles; the opportunity to worship; the means to send mail and receive mail, subject to security screening; and the ability to receive packages of food and clothing, also subject to security screening. In addition, the International Committee of the Red Cross has visited and will continue to visit the detainees privately. The detainees will be permitted to raise concerns about their conditions, and we will attempt to address those concerns consistent with security.

The non-citizen detainees in Guantanamo have no right to habeas corpus relief in U.S. courts. See, e.g., Coalition of Clergy v. Bush, 189 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (C.D. Cal. 2002), affirmed on other grounds, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23705 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2002). As noted above, however, we have permitted the ICRC access to the detainees, and we have notified each detainee’s country of origin that the detainee is in DoD control.

Re:I am shocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

Like it or not there's multiple precedents for doing exactly that. Enemy combatants are only accorded POW status if they obey the laws of war.

The first link is about the execution of the conspirators in the Abraham Lincoln assassination.
The second link is about German saboteurs from WWII who were executed as spies.

1. What the fuck does that have to do with enemy combatants?
2. Those were the first two times military tribunals had ever been convened and they were controversial then.
Yes, 144 years ago, it was controversial to try non-POWs by the military.

The lengths people go to justify the Bush definition of "enemy combatants" never fails to surprise me.

When Al Quada starts fighting in uniforms under a flag and taking steps to prevent civilian casualties (rather then setting out to cause them) then we can start treating them as POWs.

This was written in 1949
Read the last paragraph.

If they aren't POWs (3rd Geneva Convention), then they are civilians (4th Convention).
International law is crystal clear that there is no intermediate status.
How hard is it to comprehend that you cannot throw people down a legal black hole and torture them?

Pay closer attention.

[MindlessAutomata]

Pay attention closer next time. Obama wasn't saying "change", he was saying "chains."

Fr0st Pist

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously... When will Americans realize that both parties have exactly the same goal: To control and manipulate everything that every citizen possesses or can produce - even thoughts/minds/beliefs - for their own gain alone.

Screw investing in gold - invest in lead and brass....

You sound like you're surprised

[Scutter]

Same as the old boss, indeed. What amazes me is that we're still a two party system and that people continue to think that their vote matters.

Re:You sound like you're surprised

[Omestes]

Can't believe you got modded Troll instead of insightful.

It's because I had something bad to say about The Anointed One.

See? Got modded down again.

Perhaps because talking about John Ashcroft is a wee bit off topic?

Also, the last post was a troll, pure and simple. No one, that I know of at least, thinks Obama is "anointed" or any such crap, and most everyone I know is pretty far left. Actually, the further left you are, the more disappointed with Obama you probably are. Most people probably only voted for Obama because they were sick of the right, and deathly afraid of McCain/Palin, and not because he is some special super-politician who can save us from all our ills.

In regards to your first post, it perhaps shouldn't be modded as a troll, but perhaps as "woohoo cliche hip cynicism!" Your vote as an individual counts as much as anyone else's, no, it will never actually count beyond your actual worth though. Now if you organized like minded people, and worked to convince others that your opinion was worthy, then that WOULD count more. But just whinging that your vote doesn't count because a majority of voters don't share your opinion and voted otherwise, thats just silly. The problem with America is that everyone's vote counts, and a vast majority of American's are uninformed idiots, or rabidly idealistic and naive. And worse, everyone "knows better" than everyone else, and would like to impose their views on the rest of us "for their own good".

Re:You sound like you're surprised

[aplusjimages]

what upsets me more is that people defend politicians. When did this become okay? It sickens me when people talk politics and then it turns into a "your guy did this" "well he did it because". Fuck that. Never defend a politician. It's gross. And should be against the law. If the guy I voted for won, I would rag on his ass every day and I would call out all the dumb shit he did and totally ignore the good shit he did because it's his job. Let's get politicians scared of citizens.

Re:So he's a politician

[Anonymous Coward]

A vote for the lesser evil is still a vote for evil.

Asinine example

[whoever57]

The government said the decision was already chilling at least one rape case in Washington State.

"Federal agents received information from their counterparts in San Diego that two individuals had filmed themselves raping a 4-year-old girl and traded the images via the internet," the government wrote. "The agents did not obtain a warrant to search the suspects' computers, however, because of concerns that any evidence discovered about other potential victims could not be disclosed by the filter team. The agents therefore referred the case to state authorities."

So, because a warrant won't let them go on a fishing expedition for other crimes, they don't pursue the crimes that they do know about? That's like a kid saying: "If you don't play by my rules, I'll take my ball away".

Re:So he's a politician

[vux984]

The question isn't whether he's everything the advertising billed him as, it's whether he was a better choice than the alternative.

Not really. The question HERE is whether the article writer has a shred of journalistic integrity at all.

Seriously, first read the article and then post. I doubt Obama is even slightly involved beyond appointing key person who is involved to a broad role of which 'computer privacy law' is a drop in the bucket. This headline is as absurd as printing 'Obama wants to banish ketchup based on an incident where the secretary of defense complained there was too much ketchup on their McDonalds cheeseburger.

Second, the dispute here is pretty benign. Federal investigators had a WARRANT to search a PC for evidence of steriod use for a handful of players, and uncovered evidence of some hundred other players using steroids in the same folder and files as the information for the players in question. The dispute is whether they should be allowed to use the additional evidence of the additional crime.

The court ruled no, citing that the investigators 'actively scrolled the excel spreadsheet past the names of the players in question'. Come on. Even I, a privacy advocate, don't see anything wrong with what the agents did. I don't even think its wrong to admit this as evidence. I'd argue against being able to search inside every document, hack encrypted files, ... but they found evidence of additional instances of the same crime in the same files and folders that their warrant covered.

Clearly this ruling probably should be overturned. I don't think agents should be given carte blanche to search your entire PC and charge you with unrelated crimes. But there is probably some middle ground where if they are investing the PC for evidence you ripped off the Smiths with ScamX, and they find evidence in the same file you that also ripped off the Jones... that SHOULD be allowed.

But bottom line, declaring that Obama "wants" anything at all with respect to this case is absurd.

Hope/Change?

[jwiegley]

Happy now? This is what you all wanted... For the past decade I've read post after post after post about Bush spending too much or having too tight an iron fist on privacy issues.

Well, you all voted for change...

Now you have the highest spending EVER. Now you can see the beginning of security corruption as well. At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy. Obama has no legitimate reason and yet he's going to do it.

When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad; that it is inherently corrupt. And while there are a couple of functions it should provide to maintain civilization, the smaller we keep it the better... for all of us.

Misleading Story

[angelbunny]

The title of the story is, "Obama Wants Computer Privacy Ruling Overturned" except that the story has nothing to do with Obama and calling this the 'Obama Administration' is a bit of a stretch as well.

It is Elena Kagan, not Obama. Her job is the United States Solicitor General. She is represents the US as a prosecutor for the Supreme Court. Isn't she just doing her job?

I don't understand how one person doing what they are suppose to be doing means Obama is against our rights. The connection just isn't there for me.

Re:Misleading headline

[Chaos Incarnate]

By not contradicting his appointee's position, he's supporting it.

Re:Misleading headline

[Shakrai]

He's one guy, and bureaucracy can't keep you up to date on everything.

Interesting. So in the space of just 50 years we've gone from "The buck stops here" to "I can't possibly be expected to know about EVERYTHING that my appointee's are up to"