Slashdot Mirror
Utah Considers Warrantless Internet Subpoenas
seneces writes "The Utah State Legislature is considering a bill granting the Attorney General's Office the ability to demand customer information from Internet or cell phone companies via an administrative subpoena, with no judicial review (text of the HB150). This represents an expansion of a law passed last year, which granted that ability when 'it is suspected that a child-sex crime has been committed.' Since becoming law, last year's bill has led to more than one non-judicial request per day for subscriber information. Pete Ashdown, owner of a local ISP and 2006 candidate for the US Senate, has discussed his position and the effects of this bill."
This is a case study in why you can't pass exceptional legislation aimed at exceptional crimes. Just because a crime is particularly repugnant does not mean that we should lay down our rights to try and stop it. Don't be so lazy, find a better solution.
Eh, you must be knew here. That's how fascism works. You trick people into voting for these sorts of morons by scaring the crap out of them by theoreticals and what ifs. Then you do whatever you need to to do to take their rights.
His amended bill limits the power to suspected felonies and two misdemeanors -- cyber-stalking and cyber-harassment
As always, Big Brother comes in small, fairly digestible steps. Note
the progression below:
> Last year, the Legislature granted prosecutors subpoena power
> when they suspect a child-sex crime has been committed.
Here it was one crime...of course the one, where it's really hard to
say no to such a bill. Then we continue, as is not just to be
expected but a given:
> Daw's bill initially had sought to expand the authority to any
> crime, but committee members balked at such broad power last
> Friday. His amended bill limits the power to suspected felonies
> and two misdemeanors -- cyber-stalking and cyber-harassment.
So now it's child-sex crimes + SUSPECTED felonies + 2 misdemeanors.
In a couple of years, give or take, it'll become standard-operating
procedure applying at will to *everyone*. And that, ladies and
gentlemen, is the problem with taking away basic rights from the
people. It will always get worse, because nobody wants to lose their
shiny new toys anymore that give you almost god-power over other's.
Except, of course, you're in Soviet Russia. There Big Brother
doesn't subpoena your ISP records but the actual user for, uh,
re-education. A bit more of this stuff above and we'll be there too.
Under the Patriot Act, FBI agents may issue National Security Letters to obtain comprehensive financial and communications records about anyone, including people suspected of no wrongdoing and no connection to terrorists or foreign powers. To do this, the FBI merely needs to claim the information is relevant to an investigation. Anyone receiving one of these orders is prohibited by law from speaking about it to anyone else, except their attorney. The FBI issues tens of thousands of NSLs each year, most of them directed at U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.
I don't get it. Isn't Utah the home of a lot of those militant constitutional crusaders? So giving health care coverage to poor people and making people have health insurance to cut out the freeloaders in the health care system is socialism and unconstitutional, but law enforcement reviewing GPS cellphone data and their ISP logs without a warrant is all okay? You want the government out of our lives...unless it's abortion or right to die, then government intervention is okay.
How do you rationalize positions like that?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Child sex crime is horrible.
No argument there. I have children. The mere idea indeed, horrifies me.
But I am dismayed to see such crimes being used as leverage to obtain ever more far-reaching powers.
There is no question that "all power corrupts". It's not a standard quote for nothing - it is, all too sadly, true.
I believe that no special powers are needed here - just sensible application of the ones that the already specially privileged police forces already have, is sufficient. I see no realistic problem with getting a search warrant from a judge. Like for searching a house.
Suspicion indeed - I'd like to feel the police would need a little more than suspicion - suspicion with enough basisi to convince a judge, perhaps? Isn't that what they are for, as a counterbalance to "over zealous" police forces?
After all, anybody can suspect anybody of anything - with no basis whatsoever. And I don't think that's a good basis for a law. It's more like a license to harass, I'd say. And isn't there already enough of that?
"Cats like plain crisps"
How I wish that my sig was only a joke.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Atty: Your honor, the suspect is a Morman Fundamentalist.
Judge: And you have proof of this?
Atty: He cliams 35 dependants on his state taxes.
Judge: Subpoena granted.
Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
If a LEO sees something on a forum or in real time in a chat room, they cannot wait for paperwork from a judge to be filed, signed, stamped, sealed, delivered back to a LEO and then driven out to an isp to try its best searching a database for an ip and address 24-48 h later.
Just trust the city or state police. Its not like the 1960's or 1970's, they have cleaned up at all levels - really.
They work on multi year federal and international cases and there has been decades of quality law reform in every state of the union.
Cointelpro was in the distant past, the Missouri Information Analysis Center report was a misunderstanding and quickly cleared up in the mainstream press.
Just give your local LEO the tools they need to make the internet safe from power points of demonic activity.
New net laws will allow the modern Utah internet user to have a faster internet again, ensuring shorter working hours, more safe time with the family online and lower mortgages.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
>>>Under the Patriot Act, FBI agents may issue National Security Letters to obtain comprehensive financial and communications records about anyone, including people suspected of no wrongdoing and no connection to terrorists or foreign powers. To do this, the FBI merely needs to claim the information is relevant to an investigation
>>>
This is why we can no longer depend upon the U.S. Supreme Court. They've had almost ten years to nullify this unconstitutional law and have not done so. Therefore I propose this:
The "Protect the 9th and 10th Amendments" Act.
----- Proposed Amendment XXVIII.
Section 1. After a Bill has become Law, if one-half of the States declare the Law to be "unconstitutional" it shall be null and void. It shall be as if the Law never existed. ----- Section 2. This article shall be inoperative, unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths* of the several States by the date January 1, 2050.
With this amendment, there'd be no need to wait for the 9 old people on the court. You (and your neighbors) could collectively instruct the State Legislature to declare the law "unconstitutional". Once 25 other legislatures have done the same, then the U.S. law would be voided, and there's be no more Patriot Act.
My proposed amendment would simplify the process, shorten the time that an unconstitutional law sits on the books (2-3 years, not decades), and most-importantly, not require citizens to sit in jail or otherwise be spied upon.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I agree with H.L. Mencken when he said:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
And to the AG I say get a real warrant if you suspect someone of committing a crime. If you can't prove that to a judge move on to another case.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1044817/constitution_day_review_of_laws_recently.html?cat=37
"The Sun Sentinel reported this week that a Riviera Beach law prohibiting the wearing of pants low enough to expose underwear or skin was declared unconstitutional after three young men were arrested and jailed after police spotted their boxer shorts showing above their pant waists." -- you can't give back to those men the time they spent in jail.
"Two years ago a North Carolina court struck down as an unconstitutional infringement on liberty a 201 year old law prohibiting cohabitation by unmarried couples. From 1997-2006, there had been 36 arrests for violation of the state cohabitation law, according to USA Today." -- same.
It only takes a few moments on your preferred search engine to fine plenty of other past examples of people who have served time for "violation" of laws which were later found to be unconstitutional.
There has been a tool in most states since long before 9/11, allowing the cops to come into your house and search at any time, with or without a warrant. Your friendly local game commission dude is a member of law enforcement. He accompanies many raids, here in Arkansas. The laws regarding game are considered "special". If the game commission thinks you've poached a deer, they can come in, search your house, and find it, at gunpoint, all without a warrant. The cops want to make a drug bust? No warrant necessary. Just call the game warden, tell the warden there's some suspicion that some guy poached a deer, and, oh yeah, there may be drugs and/or guns in the house, so we'll accompany you for "protection".
Few people seem to realize that the erosion of rights has been going on for decades, rather than just the past nine years.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Exactly, and just as I predicted. Child abuse and kiddie porn should be added as a clause to Godwin's law when it comes to legislative discussions: sooner or later someone is going to bring up "The Children" to defend their side of the argument.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Not that my opinion ever matters to the talking heads on tv but whenever someone uses something along the "think of the children" line (in a non-satirical way) I consider their argument lost.
Someone should pass a law enforcing that. If you use a "think of the children" argument you lose. And you get ground glass poured in your eyes.