# FBI can now subpoena info on you w/o a judge and w/o your knowledge: True? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 25, 2003, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-can-now-subpoena-info-on-you-w-o-a-judge-and-w-o-your-knowledge-true/215068 "2003-11-25T00:03:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2003, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-can-now-subpoena-info-on-you-w-o-a-judge-and-w-o-your-knowledge-true/215068/21 "2003-11-25T17:08:38Z")
Perhaps someone can link to the text of the bill referred to in the Wired article (NOT the PATRIOT ACT) so we can see what it says ourselves. Did I miss it, or did the article actually not even mention the name of bill? Talk about shitty reporting. (Or shitty reading, on my part) ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2003, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-can-now-subpoena-info-on-you-w-o-a-judge-and-w-o-your-knowledge-true/215068/22 "2003-11-25T18:52:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\* > As the person making the claim, it’s up to you to produce the evidence that this is so. > > - Rick \*\* Fwuh? Can anyone here read the freaking OP? I quote: > [@](#): > > FBI can now subpoena info on you w/o a judge and w/o your knowledge: **True?** > [@](#): > > **True,** as the first step towards a government that can investigate its citizens without accountability? **Alarmist,** as provisions that have been misinterpreted, as many claimed about the PATRIOT Act? Conservative/legal mavens: care to defend this if it is true? He’s not MAKING ANY CLAIM. He’s ASKING if anyone knows if this is TRUE or FALSE. Focus on part A (True or False?) before you jump on to part B (If True, then begin debate). Sheesh! ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2003, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-can-now-subpoena-info-on-you-w-o-a-judge-and-w-o-your-knowledge-true/215068/23 "2003-11-25T19:31:47Z")
All right, back to the task at hand (namely, doing WIRED’s legwork). WIRED says: > [@](#): > > 02:00 AM Nov. 24, 2003 PT > > …After a joint committee reconciled the two versions of the bill, both houses had to vote to approve the compromise version, which is usually considered a formality. While **Friday’s Senate vote** was a voice vote, on Thursday, 15 Republicans in the House broke ranks and voted against the entire intelligence-funding bill in protest of the national security provision. The bill passed by a vote of 264 to 163. So that would make it Friday, Nov. 21. Going through [Senate.gov](http://Senate.gov), we find a list of bills with major action on that day: [http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bssQuery?&Db=108&stepID=S\*&stepD=o&stepD1=20031121](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bssQuery?&Db=108&stepID=S*&stepD=o&stepD1=20031121) So here’s the possible bill in question: [http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:6:./temp/~c108oxqQBJ::](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:6:./temp/~c108oxqQBJ::) > [@](#): > > H.R.2417 > Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 That’s the only one with the word “intelligence” in it. Now WIRED says: > [@](#): > > The new provision in the spending bill \*\*redefines the meaning of “financial institution” and “financial transaction.” \*\* The wider definition explicitly includes insurance companies, real estate agents, the U.S. Postal Service, travel agencies, casinos, pawn shops, ISPs, car dealers and any other business whose “cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax or regulatory matters.” Maybe they mean this: > [@](#): > > SEC. 374. MODIFICATION TO DEFINITION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTION IN RIGHT TO FINANCIAL PRIVACY ACT. > (a) MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION- Section 1114 of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3414) is amended by adding at the end the following: > `(d) For purposes of this section, and sections 1115 and 1117 insofar as they relate to the operation of this section, **the term `financial institution’ has the same meaning as in subsections (a)(2) and (c)(1) of section 5312 of title 31, United States Code,\*\* except that, for purposes of this section, such term shall include only such a financial institution any part of which is located inside any State or territory of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the United States Virgin Islands.’. > (b) CROSS REFERENCE MODIFICATION- Section 1101(1) of such Act (12 U.S.C. 3401(1)) is amended by inserting `, except as provided in section 1114,' before `means any office’. Which leads us to: > **[U.S. Code | FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/us/)** > > Find U.S. Code in FindLaw's searchable database. > [@](#): > > Section 5312. Definitions and application [note date though: “U.S. Code as of: 01/02/01”; could be different by now] > > ``` > (a) In this subchapter - > > ``` > > … > (2) ‘‘financial institution’’ means - > (A) an insured bank (as defined in section 3(h) of the > Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(h))); > (B) a commercial bank or trust company; > (C) a private banker; > (D) an agency or branch of a foreign bank in the United > States; > (E) an insured institution (as defined in section 401(a) > (FOOTNOTE 1) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1724(a))); > (FOOTNOTE 1) See References in Text note below. > (F) a thrift institution; > (G) a broker or dealer registered with the Securities and > Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 > (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.); > (H) a broker or dealer in securities or commodities; > (I) an investment banker or investment company; > (J) a currency exchange; > (K) an issuer, redeemer, or cashier of travelers’ checks, > checks, money orders, or similar instruments; > (L) an operator of a credit card system; > (M) an insurance company; > **(N) a dealer in precious metals, stones, or jewels; > (O) a pawnbroker; > (P) a loan or finance company; > (Q) a travel agency; > (R) a licensed sender of money; > (S) a telegraph company; > (T) a business engaged in vehicle sales, including > automobile, airplane, and boat sales; > (U) persons involved in real estate closings and settlements; > (V) the United States Postal Service; > (W) an agency of the United States Government or of a State > or local government carrying out a duty or power of a business > described in this paragraph; > (X) a casino, gambling casino, or gaming establishment with > an annual gaming revenue of more than $1,000,000 which - > (i) is licensed as a casino, gambling casino, or gaming > establishment under the laws of any State or any political > subdivision of any State; or > (ii) is an Indian gaming operation conducted under or > pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act other than an > operation which is limited to class I gaming (as defined in > section 4(6) of such Act); > (Y) any business or agency which engages in any activity > which the Secretary of the Treasury determines, by regulation, > to be an activity which is similar to, related to, or a > substitute for any activity in which any business described in > this paragraph is authorized to engage; or > (Z) any other business designated by the Secretary whose cash > transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, > or regulatory matters.** So that IS a pretty broad brush. Now, I don’t know what the previous definition of “financial institution” was. Nor am I well-versed on the ins and outs of subpoenas and National Security Letters/gag orders. And I’m tired now. So someone else can tackle those fact-finding missions. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2003, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-can-now-subpoena-info-on-you-w-o-a-judge-and-w-o-your-knowledge-true/215068/24 "2003-11-25T21:33:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lucwarm > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally posted by David Simmons\* \*\* > > > > Thanks for the correction and I didn’t know that. Don’t you have to show at some point that your subpoena was justified and have a judge ratify it? > > Not if nobody objects to it. Usually the third party just produces the stuff without objection. If another party to the case objects, they can make an application to the Court before the return date of the subpoena. The subpoena’d party can make such an application, or refuse to comply and let you move to compel. Either way, the issue will end up before a judge who can then decide whether the subpeona was justified. > > > [@](#): > > > > And will you be in deep trouble if you issue such a writ without good justification that would have convinced a judge in advance? > > I imagine, although I’ve never tested the limits of my subpoena power. I always make sure that I have a solid reason to back me up. \*\* OK. You are a private citizen don’t have the police powers of, say, John Ashcroft. I guess I would question whether we can trust Ashcroft with that power. Our whole system is founded on mistrust of government officials and checks and balances is intended to make sure that power isn’t abused. In all the new laws passed since the WTC destruction, it appears that the executive can declare that someone is a terrorist threat, or an “enemy combatant” and the checks and balances either are greatly weakened, or disappear completely. Can we really be confident of the good intentions of an executive department that includes, from **toadspittle’s** post (which, interestingly enough, covers the ground from **A** to **Z** ) \*\*(Y) any business or agency which engages in any activity which the Secretary of the Treasury determines, by regulation, to be an activity which is similar to, related to, or a substitute for any activity in which any business described in this paragraph is authorized to engage; or (Z) any other business designated by the Secretary whose cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters.\*\* It looks to me like the only thing left off that list is: **(AA) Any other activity of any kind not previously identified.** ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2003, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-can-now-subpoena-info-on-you-w-o-a-judge-and-w-o-your-knowledge-true/215068/25 "2003-11-25T21:55:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by toadspittle \* > He’s not MAKING ANY CLAIM. He’s ASKING if anyone knows if this is TRUE or FALSE. Focus on part A (True or False?) before you jump on to part B (If True, then begin debate). Indeed? All right, then: FALSE. Debate ended, before it began. I have a feeling it’s not going to work this way. Someone’s going to come along and ask me for a cite that “FALSE” is the right answer, thus impermissibly shifting the burden of proof to me. FALSE is the default answer. A proposition is false until evidence shows it likely to be true. For this reason, you don’t typically begin debate by asking, “TRUE or FALSE?” ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2003, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-can-now-subpoena-info-on-you-w-o-a-judge-and-w-o-your-knowledge-true/215068/26 "2003-11-25T22:16:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\*A proposition is false until evidence shows it likely to be true. \*\* Cite? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2003, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-can-now-subpoena-info-on-you-w-o-a-judge-and-w-o-your-knowledge-true/215068/27 "2003-11-26T00:03:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\* > FALSE is the default answer. **A proposition** is false until evidence shows it likely to be true. For this reason, you don’t typically begin debate by asking, “TRUE or FALSE?” \*\* If you had applied one iota of effort to trying to comprehend the OP, you would see that he is NOT MAKING A PROPOSITION. In effect, this is a two-part post. The first part really belongs in GQ, because the poster DOES NOT KNOW THE ANSWER. Do you understand this? He DOES NOT KNOW THE ANSWER. He is not saying “This is true!” He is asking for our help in getting to the bottom of a poorly written news article. And yes, poor, pooooor you, will have to provide cites one way or the other if you wish to post. Poor sad Bricker, having to find a cite. I weep for thee. Once this part is satisfied, the debate can begin. If there is, in fact, nothing to debate, then the thread will end. Easy. The poster, perhaps, could have broken this into two separate threads, but this is just the sort of contentious subject that invariably becomes GD material, no matter how the thread begins. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2003, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-can-now-subpoena-info-on-you-w-o-a-judge-and-w-o-your-knowledge-true/215068/28 "2003-11-26T00:20:48Z")
I can provide a link to the US Code, and point out that since there is nothing in there that permits the activities described to occur, the answer is FALSE. It then falls to any person wishing to counter that statement to point out where the law DOES permit such activity. So: [Cite.](http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/) Your contention that there is no proposition being made is technically true, but rhetorically false. Example: The admins of this board permit you to post here, but they don’t give you a license to be stupid. \* - Rick - Technically true. No one has a license to be stupid, and even if such licenses existed, the admins of the SDMB are not handing them out. But there is a rhetorical effect of my technically-true statement, and that’s to suggest that you are stupid (which, of course, I do not; this is merely an example). So, too, with this OP. It is clearly slanted to lean the reader in a particular direction without factual predicate. ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2003, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-can-now-subpoena-info-on-you-w-o-a-judge-and-w-o-your-knowledge-true/215068/29 "2003-11-27T03:42:40Z")
Do you reckon they would use this court? [http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/fiscshort.html](http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/fiscshort.html) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2003, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-can-now-subpoena-info-on-you-w-o-a-judge-and-w-o-your-knowledge-true/215068/30 "2003-11-27T09:08:52Z")
Reeder: no, I don’t. If you’re claiming they have, please provide a non-speculative basis for that claim. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-can-now-subpoena-info-on-you-w-o-a-judge-and-w-o-your-knowledge-true/215068.md?page=1)