# Act - NOW - to Preserve Privacy! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 11, 2001, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/act-now-to-preserve-privacy/86833 "2001-10-11T17:45:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2001, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/act-now-to-preserve-privacy/86833/1 "2001-10-11T17:45:47Z")
The (rather cynically named) [PATRIOT and USA Acts](http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/57/22152.html) are working their way through Congress right now. Both are startlingly broad in application, and grant tremendous, unchecked powers to the Federal Gov’t. I support their proposed _goals_, but they are dangerously broad and ill-defined. Sen Fiengold has courageously come forth to offer ammendments to S1510, to protect privacy and define the focus of this act. From a mail I’ve recieved from CDT: > [@](#): > > Center for Democracy and Technology > 1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100 > Washington, DC 20006 > [http://www.cdt.org/](http://www.cdt.org/) > voice: 202-637-9800 > fax: 202-637-0968 > > Things are moving very fast on Capitol Hill. Legislation to expand > government surveillance will be considered by the Senate (and > maybe the House) on Thursday, October 11. > > In the Senate, Sen. Russ Feingold is planning to offer amendments > Thursday morning that will address some of the privacy concerns > raised by the pending bills, by requiring government surveillance to > be more focused and subject to meaningful judicial controls. CDT > supports the Feingold amendments. > > You can make a difference. Call your Senators in Washington right > away and let them know that you think civil liberties should be part of > the balance as we move forward to protect our country from terrorism. > Urge them to support the Feingold privacy amendments > > BACKGROUND > > Following the horrendous attacks of September 11, it is clear that US anti-terrorism efforts need to be improved. Unfortunately, there has been little time to develop a response that is effective and does not unnecessarily infringe civil liberties. Legislation moving quickly through Congress involves some fundamental changes in the surveillance laws. Most of the changes are not limited to terrorism cases, but concern all crimes and all intelligence investigations. > > Among other things, the bills would: > > - Allow FBI to seize any and all stored records (medical records, educational records, stored e-mail) in intelligence cases without a search warrant. > > - Allow computer system operators to authorize government > surveillance without a court order (the computer trespasser > provision). > > - Authorize roving taps in intelligence cases without clear guidelines, allowing government to monitor pay phones, library computers, cell phones without first determining who is using the device. > > - Allow secret searches (searches without notice at the time of the search) in all criminal cases. > > - Extend government surveillance under minimal standards to broad categories of Internet data - all “routing, addressing and signaling > information” (the “pen register” provision). > > For full background the current civil liberties issues with the bill, please see CDT’s latest policy post – > [http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp\_7.10.shtml](http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_7.10.shtml) > > Also, the New York Times on October 10 explained the current situation in the Senate and Sen Feingold’s concerns-- [http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/10/national/10RIGH.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/10/national/10RIGH.html) What can you do? Call your Senator. Do it _ **NOW** _. If you don’t know what to say, try this script: > [@](#): > > Staffer: Hello, Sen. XXXXX’s office. > > You: Hello. I’m a constituent calling to urge the Senator to supportthe Feingold privacy amendments to S 1510, the USA Act, the anti-terrorism bill. Government needs to fight terrorism, but the current bill fails to protect privacy. I’m concerned about the provisions on Internet surveillance and roving wiretaps. I support the Feingold amendments setting clear limits on government surveillance. > > Staffer: I’ll tell the Senator. Thanks, bye! You need to move fast. Calls after 9:00am on friday, 12 Oct will likely be too late. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2001, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/act-now-to-preserve-privacy/86833/2 "2001-10-11T18:38:00Z")
Sorry, Tranquilis, but you might as well face it. The great American experiment with liberty is over. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2001, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/act-now-to-preserve-privacy/86833/3 "2001-10-11T19:10:18Z")
I’m not convinced liberty is gone yet, but this is one of those threats that needs stomping _immediately_. If it passes and is signed without the Feingold ammendments, I’ll be contacting the ACLU and other organizations to challenge it in court. It’s, IMO, unconstitutionally broad, and stomps all over the Bill of Rights. This one ain’t getting by without a fight. Read my sig! ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2001, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/act-now-to-preserve-privacy/86833/4 "2001-10-11T19:34:06Z")
I wish you all success, but you won’t have it. Justice Ginsberg believes our rights […brace yourself…] come from the Constitution. If they come from those scribbles, then they can come from all new scribbles as well. They have decided it’s time. A new era now dawns. They will likely call it “enlightened”. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2001, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/act-now-to-preserve-privacy/86833/5 "2001-10-11T19:40:28Z")
Has anyone tried to verify the language of this resolution independently? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2001, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/act-now-to-preserve-privacy/86833/6 "2001-10-11T19:47:38Z")
Every time I try to pin someone down on just what part of the Bill of Rights is being pummelled, I get nowhere. So I’ll try again. **Tranquilis** , specifically, what part of the Bill of Rights is infringed by these provisions? If you say “the Fourth Amendment,” then I wonder why you have failed, for all these years, to rise up in protest of CURRENT FRICKIN LAW, which permits pen registers on telephones, taps on telephones, government surveillance when allowed by property owners, subpoenas _duces tecum_ of stored records… in short, the pre-Internet law permits these things now. Why are you complacent about the current state of the law, but in a forthing fury over changes to permit law enforcement to treat electronic transmission of data the same way they now may treat phone calls? I have news for you: it is very unlikely that the proposed law will be found to violate the Constitution. So please… QUIT SAYIN’ IT! If you think this is a bad direction for the country to go… fine. But that’s not the same thing as claiming that the proposed laws will “stomp all over” the Bill of Rights. et’s focus the discussion on where it belongs: this either is, or is not, a good idea for the country. Period. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2001, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/act-now-to-preserve-privacy/86833/7 "2001-10-11T19:50:38Z")
Go here: [http://thomas.loc.gov/](http://thomas.loc.gov/) Search for: S1510; H.R.2975 Read and weep. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2001, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/act-now-to-preserve-privacy/86833/8 "2001-10-11T19:57:38Z")
**Bricker** , the current law is out-of bounds also, but challenges against it are pretty much over. This is new, is broader, and will allow things that current law doesn’t. I wasn’t informed and aware when existing law was enacted, but I am now. Telling me that I can’t play now, because I didn’t play then, isn’t going to wash. We have a _narrow_ chance to nip this in the bud, and it would be a shame if people didn’t try to do so. A crying shame. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2001, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/act-now-to-preserve-privacy/86833/9 "2001-10-11T20:15:00Z")
I dunno … I for one do not mind the slight abridgment in personal liberties these new bills may bring about. I don’t believe that the every day Moe & Joe really has much to fear. I have never accepted the “evil government out to get us” mindset. I believe that cases where these new laws will be used to shaft law-abiding citizens will incredibly few & far between – and I can morally handle a stray case or two or three. However, I do concede that one day – way, way down the road – I could end up totally wrong about all of this. I would, at that time, be fairly surprised. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2001, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/act-now-to-preserve-privacy/86833/10 "2001-10-11T20:19:35Z")
Well, there you have it. From this: > [@](#): > > I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. — Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791 to this: > [@](#): > > I for one do not mind the slight abridgment in personal liberties these new bills may bring about. — bordelond, SDMB Member, 2001 It’s over. ---
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2001, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/act-now-to-preserve-privacy/86833/11 "2001-10-11T20:20:16Z")
The Senate has two entries for the text of the bill: > [@](#): > > [S. 1510](http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_bills&docid=f:s1510is.txt) (is) To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes. [Introduced in Senate] > > [S. 1510](http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_bills&docid=f:s1510pcs.txt) (pcs) To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes. [Placed on Calendar Senate] Mostly, this act seems to be about amending present law. So, what **Bricker** said. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2001, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/act-now-to-preserve-privacy/86833/12 "2001-10-11T20:31:54Z")
First: I’m not a member of the “Evil Government” squad. A quick perusal of my posts will show that. Second: I _am_ suspicious of the Government. They’ve done plenty of good things, but also many bad things. I belong to the group of people who think that Gov’t is big dog best kept on a short leash. More to the point, I’m suspicious of the _individuals_ within the Government. Does anyone in here remember Dick Nixon? _He_ didn’t tell his folks to go out and act-up, but they sure as hell did anyway. Does anyone else in here think that broad new powers and looser restrictions will encourage misbehavior? Oops! Under the new rules, should they be passed, it won’t _be_ misbehavior! When there’s that _much_ power available, it’s best kept tightly leashed. Oh, and I won’t have to call the ACLU, except on how to help. They’re already on the [case](http://www.aclu.org/congress/patriot_chart.html). The linked chart clearly points out the concerns. Read what it says, and tell me you’re still unconcerned. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2001, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/act-now-to-preserve-privacy/86833/13 "2001-10-11T21:01:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*Well, there you have it. From this: > > > [@](#): > > > > I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. — Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791 > > to this: > > > [@](#): > > > > I for one do not mind the slight abridgment in personal liberties these new bills may bring about. — bordelond, SDMB Member, 2001 > > It’s over. \*\* Oh, come on **Libertarian**! I do not speak for the nation! I am just an average shmoe. I concede that I could be full of bull. The basis of my feelings on this subject is that I am not scared for myself, or people I know and love – or any law-abiding citizens. I can’t see the inherent danger to me & mine in allowing a suspect to be wiretapped wherever they may roam. If a stranger overhears or reads a compromising e-mail or cell-phone conversation? I may be embarrassed if I ever knew about it, but otherwise, what might happen? Would an FBI agent come around out of the blue and blackmail me with some tape of a phone conversation I had? What are the specific threats to my law-abiding self that exclude a rogue federal agent or any other one-in-a-zillion factor? I understand where **Tranquilis** is coming from. He’s arguing the principles of the matter. Rather than the principles, I am more interested in the practical, likely results that may fall out should this bill pass. If you tell me “The government shouldn’t have more power because … because … because … uh, someone will definitely abuse it for sure! Because our Founding Fathers wouldn’t have wanted it that way! Yeah, that’s it!”, I won’t be particularly moved. But if you tell me “Look, if these laws pass, an FBI agent is likely to come out of the woodwork and tap you to death and mess with you, blackmail you, harass you and shake you down just because it entertains him,” then I’ll listen to you. BTW, **Tranquilis** , after reading the ACLU link, I can agree with sunsetting these ATA laws. That’s a compromise I can make. ---
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2001, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/act-now-to-preserve-privacy/86833/14 "2001-10-11T21:12:29Z")
**Tranquilis** , the trouble I have with an OP like this is that one way or another you end up relying on what someone else says. I looked up S1510. Its a bit of a jumble to read. It amends sections of existing laws. That means a meaningful analysis of the bill requires a decent knowledge of existing law. I’d like the ACLU link a great deal more if they would tell me which section is causing which problem. Without such links, it is difficult to tell if the is a problem and where it lies. For example, I quote this section because it at least as an ominous title. > [@](#): > > TITLE II–ENHANCED SURVEILLANCE PROCEDURES > > SEC. 201. AUTHORITY TO INTERCEPT WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO TERRORISM. > > ``` > Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- > (1) by redesignating paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 434(2) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132; 110 Stat. 1274), as paragraph (r); and > (2) by inserting after paragraph (p), as so redesignated by section 201(3) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-565), the following new paragraph: > ``(q) any criminal violation of section 229 (relating to chemical weapons); or sections 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332d, 2339A, or 2339B of this title (relating to terrorism); or''. > > ``` I don’t prosecute federal crimes. Without a great deal of study, I can’t read that and tell you what it does, although it does read rather inocuously. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2001, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/act-now-to-preserve-privacy/86833/15 "2001-10-11T21:33:18Z")
**Robb** , I understand, but unfortunately, I’m in a similar boat. So, instead, I read what I can, try to make the best sense of it I can, and research learned opinion. It all, save what the proponents say, adds up to: Bad. If _you’re_ having a tough time understanding this, then why is Congress acting so hastily? Do they really understand it any better? There’s plenty of time to work this through, while not sitting on our asses. A properly researched and debated law, passed two months from now, or, hell, even six months from now, will be just as, if not more, useful, and _far_ less likely to be destructive. From the ACLU: > [@](#): > > Security and civil liberties do not have to be at odds. Law enforcement authorities already have great leeway under current law to investigate suspects in terrorist attacks - including broad authority to monitor telephone and Internet communications. _In fact, under current law, judges have rejected only three federal or state criminal wiretap requests in the last decade_. \ These are what concern me: > [@](#): > > Neither House nor Senate defines what is content or provides for judicial oversight, leaving law enforcement officials (using methods like Carnivore) to decide for themselves what is content… Carnivore has already been debunked, having been shown to be an indiscriminate tool, lacking in granularity or selectivity, and relying on the individual integrity of _every_ person that reviews it’s intrecepts. > [@](#): > > Marginalizes the judiciary. **Allows for blank warrants explicitly barred by the Constitution.** Makes it difficult for judges to meaningfully monitor orders… Trampling on the Constitution. > [@](#): > > Extends the same inadequate standards that currently govern e-mail to voice mail, which is content and should be subject to the same standard as a wiretap. Article 4. > [@](#): > > Disclosure to intelligence agencies about U.S. citizens effectively puts the CIA back in the business of spying on Americans. A _little_ over the top, but not by much. > [@](#): > > The provision is too broad. It removes judicial oversight from the process, and isn’t limited to terrorism cases. Innocent targets will never know of surveillance. Except under Senate version, anyone who violates an ISP’s or employer’s “terms of service” can be surveilled. Due process, unreasonable search. > [@](#): > > Intercept is not limited to the target and will lead to interception of many innocent conversations not involving the target Article 4. > [@](#): > > Bypasses the 4th Amendment’s probable cause standards by extending weaker intelligence-gathering wiretap standards to criminal searches. Article 4, explicitly. > [@](#): > > No definition or limitation of “foreign intelligence.” No judicial authorization required. Due process, unreasonable search. > [@](#): > > Eliminates “agents of foreign powers” restriction that protects Americans from improper spying by [domestic] intelligence agencies. Allows rampant use of PR/TT surveillance. Unreasonable search, violates CIA & NSA charters. > [@](#): > > Both ATA provisions allow sweeping access to sensitive information about Americans under a rationale of intelligence. Due process, unreasonable search. > [@](#): > > Severely limits FISA Court’s power to ensure that surveillance is continued only when productive. Due process, unreasonable search. This worries and scares me. Help me, help _everyone_ who cares, put this to a stop. Current law is more than sufficient, _we don’t need to do this to ourselves_. ---
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2001, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/act-now-to-preserve-privacy/86833/16 "2001-10-11T22:01:17Z")
> [@](#): > > If you’re having a tough time understanding this, then why is Congress acting so hastily? A good question. I bet most of us prefer our legislation to be understood before passed. I’ll try to look for the other act. So far, I just do see blank warrants in the Senate bill. ---
**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2001, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/act-now-to-preserve-privacy/86833/17 "2001-10-11T22:27:50Z")
I found the House bill. [2975](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.2975:). (if the link isn’t temporary). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2001, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/act-now-to-preserve-privacy/86833/18 "2001-10-11T22:46:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tranquilis \* > Bricker, the current law is out-of bounds also, but challenges against it are pretty much over. This is new, is broader, and will allow things that current law doesn’t. I wasn’t informed and aware when existing law was enacted, but I am now. Telling me that I can’t play now, because I didn’t play then, isn’t going to wash. I’m not saying you can’t play - I’m noting that current law is generally understood to be constitutional – that is, unless a law is relatively new, it’s generally been challenged and upheld. So – the existing law does not “trample the Constitution.” Does the proposed law depart dramatically enough from the existing law that it’s likely to be found unconstitutional? Let’s look at what you’ve said: > [@](#): > > _To Robb_If you’re having a tough time understanding this, then why is Congress acting so hastily? Do they really understand it any better? There’s plenty of time to work this through, while not sitting on our asses. A properly researched and debated law, passed two months from now, or, hell, even six months from now, will be just as, if not more, useful, and far less likely to be destructive. Acts of Congress enjoy a strong presumption of constitutionality. In short: yes, they do understand it better. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Neither House nor Senate defines what is content or provides for judicial oversight, leaving law enforcement officials (using methods like Carnivore) to decide for themselves what is content… > > Carnivore has already been debunked, having been shown to be an indiscriminate tool, lacking in granularity or selectivity, and relying on the individual integrity of _every_ person that reviews it’s intrecepts. To the contrary, the proposed legislation requires judicial oversight. 18 USC § 2516 (current law) allows law enforcement officials to make “…an application to a Federal judge of competent jurisdiction for, and such judge may grant … an order authorizing or approving the interception of wire or oral communications by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” The proposed new law adds “…electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom…” to wire and oral communication. (See Sec. 201, Authority to Intercept). Where do you get the idea that judicial oversight is lost? There’s no more judicial oversight on this than there is now on wiretaps: the judge authorizes the tap, and law enforcement decides what use to make of the information gathered. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Marginalizes the judiciary. **Allows for blank warrants explicitly barred by the Constitution.** Makes it difficult for judges to meaningfully monitor orders… > > Trampling on the Constitution. Indeed. Please state precisely where “blank warrants” are authorized by this new legislation. The only blank warrants are the anticipatory warrants already authorized by current law, in cases where, for example, a delivery will be made, and once made, probable cause will exist. This is CURRENT LAW, not part of the new legislation, and has been found constitutional. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Extends the same inadequate standards that currently govern e-mail to voice mail, which is content and should be subject to the same standard as a wiretap. > > Article 4. Assuming you mean the Fourth Amendment, not Article IV - your post acknowledges that the proposed law extends “the same inadequate standards” to a new area. These “inadequate standards” have been held to be Constitutional. How can you claim they are inadequate? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Disclosure to intelligence agencies about U.S. citizens effectively puts the CIA back in the business of spying on Americans. > > A _little_ over the top, but not by much. I don’t see an allegation that this violates the Constitution, so I will not comment. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > The provision is too broad. It removes judicial oversight from the process, and isn’t limited to terrorism cases. Innocent targets will never know of surveillance. Except under Senate version, anyone who violates an ISP’s or employer’s “terms of service” can be surveilled. > > Due process, unreasonable search. I believe I have disposed of your allegation about the lack of judicial oversight above. As to the notice requirement, it’s not true that “innocent targets will never know of surveillance.” The notice provisions are changed to require notice, not immediately, but within ninety days, unless a longer period is authorized by a judge. This is the first time you’ve identified a substantive change from current law. Under current law, the subject of a search must be immediately served with notice of the search. Under the proposed law, that notice can be delayed - but not eliminated. I fail to see how this change could possibly be held to violate the Constitution, but I’ll admit that (a) it’s a major change, and (b) no court has yet ruled on a similar provision. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Intercept is not limited to the target and will lead to interception of many innocent conversations not involving the target > > Article 4. Indeed? So do wire-taps, now. If I call a Mafia crime-king on his tapped phone, I, an innocent person, have my call intercepted. This has been found perfectly Constitutional. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Bypasses the 4th Amendment’s probable cause standards by extending weaker intelligence-gathering wiretap standards to criminal searches. > > Article 4, explicitly. Specifically, where does the proposed law do this? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > No definition or limitation of “foreign intelligence.” No judicial authorization required. > > Due process, unreasonable search. I am beginning to think you haven’t even read the damn proposal! There is a very specific definition offered; foreign intelligence is: > [@](#): > > _(A) information, whether or not concerning a United States person, that relates to the ability of the United States to protect against– > (i) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; or > (ii) sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; or > (iii) clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign power; or > (B) information, whether or not concerning a United States person, with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates to– > (i) the national defense or the security of the United States; or > (ii) the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States._ What more did you want? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Eliminates “agents of foreign powers” restriction that protects Americans from improper spying by [domestic] intelligence agencies. Allows rampant use of PR/TT surveillance. > > Unreasonable search, violates CIA & NSA charters. If you have any case law that defines domestic intelligence agency searches as unreasonable, let’s hear it. The mere fact that one agency, as opposed to another, conducts a search does not render the search unreasonable. It may well violate CIA or NSA charters, but your argument has been that the proposed law “tramples the Constitution.” The CIA and NSA charters are not relevant to that point. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Both ATA provisions allow sweeping access to sensitive information about Americans under a rationale of intelligence. > > Due process, unreasonable search. Again, the mere fact that information is “sensitive” has no bearing on whether the search that uncovered it was unreasonable, and therefore violative of the Fourth Amendment. And what, specifically, is the Due Process violation here? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Severely limits FISA Court’s power to ensure that surveillance is continued only when productive. > > Due process, unreasonable search. And this is different from current wiretap law, already constituional… how? Again: you may argue that this is bad… you may not argue that it is unconstitutional. The constitutionality of a given law is not a matter of opinion. You may believe that current law is unconstitutional - but if the Supreme Court has upheld it, or refused to hear cases challenging it - your opinion (and mine) is of no authority. Please stop screaming about how this tramples the Bill of Rights. You can scream that it tramples what you’d like the Bill of Rights to mean, or what the Foundiung Fathers wanted it to mean – those are all opinions. What it DOES mean, though, is a matter of settled law. Nothing, except possible the notice provisions, in the new law stretches the bounds of search and seizure law neyond its current markers. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2001, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/act-now-to-preserve-privacy/86833/19 "2001-10-11T23:32:55Z")
At the risk of stating the obvious, like forfeiture laws were recently, these laws (if passed) can someday be reformed or repealed. So if the sky is falling, it can be pushed back up once the exigency abates. **Bricker,** good arguments. What do you think about all the exceptions carved into the Fourth Amendment over the last 20 or so years? Consider “public safety,” and “automobile,” given how easy it is to get a judge on the phone. It would seem as though “exigency” is assumed to be the norm and not the exception. Exceptions swallowing rule? ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2001, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/act-now-to-preserve-privacy/86833/20 "2001-10-12T01:05:07Z")
> [@](#): > > Acts of Congress enjoy a strong presumption of constitutionality. In short: yes, they do understand it better. Yes, they _do_ carry a presumption of constitutionality. That doesn’t say anything about legislature’s level of understanding. The DMCA is a great example of poorly thought-out law, and while it’s survived challenges to date, it clearly demonstrates that Congress is quite capable of passing legistlation it doesn’t understand. > [@](#): > > To the contrary, the proposed legislation requires judicial oversight. 18 USC § 2516 (current law) allows law enforcement officials to make “…an application to a Federal judge of competent jurisdiction for, and such judge may grant … an order authorizing or approving the interception of wire or oral communications by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” The proposed new law adds “…electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom…” to wire and oral communication. (See Sec. 201, Authority to Intercept). Where do you get the idea that judicial oversight is lost? There’s no more judicial oversight on this than there is now on wiretaps: the judge authorizes the tap, and **law enforcement decides what use to make of the information gathered**. Precisely. Are you familiar with the operation of [Carnivore](http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/publications/carniv_final.pdf)? It has no audit trail, all users are logged in as “Admin”, and are anonymous to the system. The suppression remedy for illegal interception of other communications in Title III is not extended to electronic communications, so ‘over-collection’ has no counter-motive. There appears to be no lock-out for text-string searches, nor any measure to enforce the limits of a particuar order. The requirements for obtaining a PR/TT warrant are ridiculously simple: The government must only certify to a judge, without needing proof, that such a warrant would be “relevant” to an ongoing investigation, The judge does not even have the authority to reject the application, making it entirely possible, and quite simple, for a single operator to turn a PR/TT order into a full-blown search. The ISP doesn’t have any method for determine what Carnivoe/DCS1000 is sampling, as _everything_ that passes through the ISP also runs past the box, but the ISP has no access to the collected data. I reiterate: Carnivore/DCS1000 relies on the integrity of it’s operators, and admits no readily available remedy for mis-use, nor even any means for exposing mis-use. > [@](#): > > Indeed. Please state precisely where “blank warrants” are authorized by this new legislation. The only blank warrants are the anticipatory warrants already authorized by current law, in cases where, for example, a delivery will be made, and once made, probable cause will exist. This is CURRENT LAW, not part of the new legislation, and has been found constitutional. With “nationwide service” of PR/TTs, the Act would authorize the virtual equivalent of a blank warrant: The court issues the order, and the law enforcement agent fills in the places to be searched. The Fourth Amendment requires that warrants must be written “particularly describing the place to be searched”. A judge can’t even monitor the results of these national warrants, as he doesn’t know where they’ve been served. > [@](#): > > Assuming you mean the Fourth Amendment, not Article IV - your post acknowledges that the proposed law extends “the same inadequate standards” to a new area. These “inadequate standards” have been held to be Constitutional. How can you claim they are inadequate? Well, taken from that angle, you’ve a point. So, let me rephrase: These standards fall below what _I believe_ to be reasonable. > [@](#): > > I believe I have disposed of your allegation about the lack of judicial oversight above. As to the notice requirement, it’s not true that “innocent targets will never know of surveillance.” The notice provisions are changed to require notice, not immediately, but within ninety days, unless a longer period is authorized by a judge. > > This is the first time you’ve identified a substantive change from current law. Under current law, the subject of a search must be immediately served with notice of the search. Under the proposed law, that notice can be delayed - but not eliminated. I fail to see how this change could possibly be held to violate the Constitution, but I’ll admit that (a) it’s a major change, and (b) no court has yet ruled on a similar provision. Well, I missed the 90 day provision. Got me. However, without immediate notice, a person has no ability to protect himself or herself against inaccurate or overbroad warrants. Per SCOTUS, notice is a key element of Fourth Amendment protections (Richards v. Wisconsin - 1997), (Wilson v. Arkansas -1995). > [@](#): > > Indeed? So do wire-taps, now. If I call a Mafia crime-king on his tapped phone, I, an innocent person, have my call intercepted. This has been found perfectly Constitutional. New circumstance: Roving wiretaps, PR/TT orders will follow our putative Mafia Kingpin around, allowing access to IP traffic to any and all facilities used by him. As discussed above, that means that _all_ traffic on that system is now monitored. In your phone call example, it means that _every_ phone our Crimelord uses is now tapped, even when he’s not using it, _even if it’s a public system_. You know, libraries, cybercafes, university systems? > [@](#): > > Specifically, where does the proposed law do this? The House and Senate bills would allow use of FISA surveillance authority even if the primary purpose is a criminal investigation if intelligence surveillance remained a “significant” purpose. \ ***Section 215** ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT. Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the following: SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS. ``` ``(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director... ...may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things... ...for an investigation to protect ``` against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.\* \ > [@](#): > > There is a very specific definition offered… Right you are. I missed that, and retract that charge. > [@](#): > > …but your argument has been that the proposed law “tramples the Constitution.” The CIA and NSA charters are not relevant to that point. Right enough. I should have expanded my charges to include domestic espionage by the CIA (contrary to the National Security Act of 1947) and NSA. Overall, and realizing that I’m not a Constitutional law expert, I think my asertions are pretty reasonable, and have sufficent grounds. The Chair of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism & Property Rights has strong concerns, too, and I’m reasonably sure _he_ knows what’s what. As for my over-all concerns, I have so far only assertions that I’m mis-reading what the bill of Right means. Will you _show_ me where I’m wrong? As I have previously stated, there are other paths to follow, should this be passed. That doesn’t mean, **beagle** , that this should be passed in a hasty, and I believe, fundamentally flawed, fashion.Sure, we could try for a repeal, but that’s rather difficult, as I’m sure you know. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/act-now-to-preserve-privacy/86833.md?page=2)