Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NYTimes Sues US Gov't To Know How It Interprets the PATRIOT Act

Posted by Soulskill on from the however-it-pleases dept.

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."

5 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. Wyden not Ryden by theswade · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hey, that's my senator's name you're mangling there! Ron Wyden of Oregon.

  2. Re:Law should be like code. Not up for interpretat by xstonedogx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. what I find most illumunating by v1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. try looking up ACTA sometimes... by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    oh, you can't. sorry about that...

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  5. Re:Law should be like code. Not up for interpretat by 517714 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.