Slashdot Mirror
NYTimes Sues US Gov't To Know How It Interprets the PATRIOT Act
hydrofix writes "Techdirt has been following the story of the DoJ's classified interpretation of the PATRIOT Act. Specifically, it's all about Section 215, the so-called 'business-records provision,' which empowers the FBI to get businesses to turn over any records it deems relevant to a security investigation. Senators Ron Ryden and Mark Udall have been pushing the government to reveal how it uses these provisions to deploy 'dragnets' for massive amounts of information on private citizens 'without any connection to terrorism or espionage,' a secret reinterpretation that is 'inconsistent with the public's understanding of these laws.' After NYTimes reporter Charlie Savage had his Freedom of Information request denied, the NYTimes has now sued the government (PDF) to reveal how it interprets the very law under which it's required to operate."
Hey, that's my senator's name you're mangling there! Ron Wyden of Oregon.
We'll take all your records then tell you if you've done something wrong*.
* After we've raided your offices and taken all your fun little computers out in boxes.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Doesn't the 5th amendment to the constitution require laws to be clear and fair?
That will never happen, but I think we can make it less open to, shall we say, loose interpretation.
Make the spirit of the law explicit. The first part of the law should state "This is the problem we are trying to resolve."
Then let judges determine whether or not the executive (or a plaintiff) is using that law for that particular purpose. If they're trying to use it for another purpose, let them go to Congress to get a new law passed.
They'd have to read them first, so of course not.
Unfortunately, sometimes you need a real entity with some clout in order to bring this kind of information to light. It shouldn't be the case, but it is. And I just can't see a blog having the resources to do something like this, or discovering the wiretaps a few years back, or uncovering Watergate.
Most of the time, news is nothing special... stuff happens and it gets written about - but sometimes it takes significant resources, and I just don't see any news blogs being able to muster up that kind of force. Which is why you won't be finding me cheering the death of newspapers.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
It's easy to say things like this without any thought for the implications of what you propose. The fact is, there will always be at least ONE interpretation, and it will be this interpretation that will be followed. Even if you call it "black letter with no room for interpretation," it's still just one interpretation.
The same thing applies to code. There is no such thing as something independent of interpretation.
The American legal system is so interesting to an outsider ... companies can sue you for patent infringement without telling you what patent was violated
Not entirely true. They can serve you notice of litigation without spelling out what patent you violated, but once it gets to trial they must say exactly what parts of which patent you violated.
The government can sue you based on a "secret" interpretation of the law..... if the law is secret how do I know if I have broken it? Doesn't ignorance of the law become a valid defense ?
The laws themselves are still public knowledge. It's the governments interpretation of them that's secret. Which I think is completely bogus, but hey, a constitutional scholar is currently sitting in the white house - he must think it's kosher, right?
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
is that we have to sue our own government in an attempt to force them to tell us about the laws they are enforcing against us. That alone indicates a huge problem with the system, regardless of the nature of the laws themselves.
If I could vote in one constitutional amendment right now, it would be "No Secret Laws". That alone would fix a great deal of evil by shining some light into the many dark corners of our government.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Yea, that will work.
Like the way many federal laws start with "...interstate commerce..." (one of the few federal powers, so it's the justification for many federal laws), and then go on to legislate on things which aren't interstate commerce, and the courts play along. Wickard v. Filburn, as a single egregious example.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
I highlighted the important part. The heart of the concept of "due process of law" is that no one will be punished until they have been declared guilty of breaking a law in a fair trial. If the meaning of a law is so vague that neither judge nor jury can reasonably ascertain who is guilty of the law and who is not, then the only fair ruling it to acquit everyone accused of it. If the Supreme Court decides that a law cannot be reasonably interpreted, then no other court in the land should attempt to do so. In this case the law is void due to being unconstitutionally vague.
Exactly.
We have so many "weasel words" in the language of law that interpretation is up to the judge and jury. Its not like engineering at all. Its more like the language of statistics.
Every time I try to read a business contract, its like reading some newbies code where its full of undefined variables.
Drives me nuts.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
I think it's even worse than that. A "secret interpretation" doesn't even give us the basis for general expectations based on having an objective, available reference of the -same- code. This is more like having an entirely new spec with no necessary correspondence to the code available as the only means to characterize or evaluate it. Yet, it suggests the veneer of being like the objective reference by mere association with it.
It is, and it is not, this or any particular other thing at the sole discretion of those with access to the "secret" information that actually defines it. It seems like the very definition of institutionalized deception, that doesn't even acknowledge itself as such.
Like it's said... Mystery, mother of the abominations of the Earth...
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
As Nancy Pelosi said we have to pass the law to find out what is in the law. I guess the new line should be you have to be charged with being a terrorist before you can find out how it is defined.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
What a simpleton you are. You can't make it 'not open for interpretation' Not possible. You would need to know future event, and everyone would need to violate it under the exact same circumstance.
Think, think bigger.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
oh, you can't. sorry about that...
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
We don't have to tell you. The PATRIOT act is our shield.
The Constitution is MY "patriot" act, obey it!
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
That reminds me of these lines we put in our requirements.
1.3 Definitions
The following definitions are used throughout this document:
“Shall” defines a requirement that requires a waiver if not performed.
“Will” defines a function that is expected to be performed during the implementation of the Project’s Parts Program, however does not require a waiver when not performed.
“Should” defines a “best practice” and is strongly recommended but does not require a waiver when not performed.
I wrote a contract for a Company to build a test sled that would accelerate a 100 kg mass at 30m/s^2 in the horizontal and vertical orientation. They undersized the system so it could only do it in the horizontal orientation. They tried to claim that in the vertical it is already accelerating at 1g due to gravity.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Many laws do have this kind of prelude and even those that don't have legislative history that may be helpful in ascertaining the purpose of the legislature in making the law.
That said, the law should be like open source code, freely available for anyone to read and analyze. Yes, it might be complicated and confusing to a non-lawyer, but computer code is complicated and confusing to a non-programmer. Even with that complicated nature, either can be analyzed with some study and effort, at least to some extent.
The real problem we have been having, starting with Bush's secret legal memos regarding due process free detention, and Obama's legal memo regarding due process free execution, is that the executive branch is essentially creating laws and keeping them secret making it impossible to know if what you are doing is something that will get you jailed or killed. That's a big deal, a dagger in the heart of what any free society is based upon, a shredding of the separation of powers, and ethically indefensible. There is no circumstance in which the rules of society ought to be secret.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
You don't have to be a Paulite to realize that Wickard v. Filburn was as badly decided as Dred Scott.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Hear, hear! The truth of what you say should be obvious to everyone because as we all know, coded systems never have unintended consequences and can always account for every situation that comes up "in the field".
Additionally, your comparison is quite apt because as everyone knows code is not ever subject to interpretation when it is executed. That is why we use one code to express everything.
I am reminded of the invention of the first formal symbolic logics. Philosophers were rightly excited to have settled all human argument because finally each side could simply write down their arguments as symbolic logic and then whoever was correct would become self-evident.
Bravo, sir. I hope your insights shake the foundations of our legal system and I wish to subscribe to your webinar and such.
Don't worry. They'll only go after the big, bad terrorists...
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
A "secret interpretation" does indeed give us a basis for general expectations. Expect tyranny.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Harry Reid once quipped that the US doesn't have GPS like the rest of the world. He's the guy running the Senate right now.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Impeach Obama for the Extrajudicial Murder of US Citizens in Flagrant Violation of the 5th Amendment to the US Constitut
They got to you too, huh?
Even the Patriot Act is prefaced with
So although it was sold to the public as an anti-terrorism bill, it's right up front that they plan to use it for regular law enforcement too. A lot of other bills have a list of "whereas" in the beginning, listing the reasons and intent of the bill.
Of course none of this matters at all. The intent and history of the Second Amendment is brain-dead clear, but that doesn't stop people from trying to reinterpret it to rid themselves of a right they don't personally like. The 4th is pretty clear too, but it gets reinterpreted so that the contents of your cell phone aren't somehow equivalent to "papers and effects." And there's drug war property seizures in the face of the 5th's "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." You see, the legal action is against the property, not the person, so his rights don't come into play. I am not kidding, the cases read like "U.S. Government v. $10,000."
If the law or amendment is inconvenient to those currently in power, regardless of even the explicitly stated intent and clear history, they will simply reinterpret it so that it no longer is a problem for them.
that's what property rights are about. With gov't out of business, there is no public property, everything is privately owned, and gov't is for protecting personal liberties and freedoms, property rights and border security. That's an expense item that does make sense.
So when a company owns part of the lake, other people own parts of it and properties adjacent to it. If they pollute it, that's what the court system is supposed to be for - protecting the right of individuals to their property, and gov't power can be used in a class action suit.
Given that disasters, like BP, happen because gov't gives limited liability protection, caps their liability for drilling at 70million, while it is clear that actual damages will be thousands if not millions of times that, a company would have to acquire proper insurance if it doesn't want to be destroyed, and limited personal liability for top management wouldn't exist with gov't out of business either. So this would give a pretty good incentive to think about such actions before doing them, because this wouldn't be an offense happening in a fit of passion or rage, this would be a calculated move by an entity, trying to make money on their product. So it's always premeditated.
Gov't giving limited personal liability protection, capping monetary liability and having this 'public ownership', so denying actual property rights, all of this actually provides fertile soil to all of these environmental abuses.
You can't handle the truth.