Maybe it’s just all the fuckwit fundamentalist garbage I’ve seen in the last few days, but I’m starting to wonder why Ashcroft, our beloved fundamentalist DA, is pushing for further rights to wiretap, etc. The measure the senate passed last week would seem to be exactly what he’s talking about:
**
Like I said, maybe it’s just all the assholian fundamentalists I’ve been seeing the last few days, and I am NOT intending to dis the government in any way. I realize it’s going to take a lot of work, etc, to actually start hunting these monsters down. But I didn’t trust Ashcroft when he was appointed, and I’m not sure I trust where this could go now…
If the Senate passes a law that infringes upon our Constituional rights, you may be sure that the Supreme Court will rule that law unconstitutional. If the law is not unconstitutional, then your argument boils down to an urging that the country adopt your view, rather than the views of either Ashcroft or Congress.
Such an argument is, of course, yours to make.
But I won’t join you. I see very little troubling about Ashcroft’s request. In fact, the federal RICO statutes arguably give the government more latitude in pursuing illegal gambling operations than suspected terrorism operations. I wouldn’t mind seeing that changed.
My understanding of this (I could be wrong) is that he wants to be able to tap whichever phone the suspected terrorist is using.
Right now, they need a court order to tap a phone. Then the suspect goes and uses another phone. What they want is to be able to track the suspect from phone to phone (after getting a court order of course).
I personally don’t have a problem with this. If they have enough evidence to suspect someone, and present it to a judge, it seems kinda silly to have to present the same evidence over and over everytime they change phones.
IANAL(Jodi, minty, where are you?) but I believe that a wiretap is considered a search and there is a 4th Amenedment issue. IMHO, if they have cause to suspect someone of being a terrorist, they should get a warrant. If they have cause, it shouldn’t be too hard or too much trouble.
I, personally, have a problem with the Feds going all willy-nilly with the wiretaps. Same as I would being searched at anytime without cause.
Do you really think they’ll stop at suspected terrorists?
These measures were also proposed after the Oklahoma bombing - here is an excellent overview of the problems of anti-terrorist legislation by a political anylist from the Cato Institute. Obviously, we now have a different situation on our hands, but the majority of concerns are still very relevant.
That testemony highlights the Prevention of Terrorism Act we have here in the UK, which gives UK police similar powers to the ones sought by Ashcroft, and how it has been abused time and time again. There are problems with defining boundaries - who says what is suspicious activity? What do I have to do to get wiretapped? I am not in favour of legislating powers that are so easy to abuse, and have been shown to be abused in the past.
An additional paper on the threat of cyber-terrorism and the need for governmental measures to protect against it, which I’m imagining would be covered by wire-tapping legislation. Or would it?
The whole idea of, “I am not doing anything wrong so why should I care?”, is so extraordinarily dangerous. It means you are willing to allow people to erode freedoms that don’t mean a whole lot to you. Well I would like to point out that there are freedoms that you hold dear that someone else wouldn’t mind seeing eroded, because it doesn’t mean all that much to them. So if you don’t mind YOUR fourth amendment being shredded don’t be surprised when YOUR first or second amendments are shredded as well.
The thing that concerns me most is that someone is pushing a bill to make encryption illegal. Now that’s frightening. A lot of people use encryption to hide information from business competitors and not just the government.
I’m less worried about the specific reasons for easing these laws -to go after the bad guys- but more worried about it’s possible abuse.
If I remember correctly, and it’s not assured, I believe the RICO laws were a same kind of call to go after the meanies. In the end, RICO laws were and are being used against all kinds of people that weren’t intended to be included in it.
And just because I don’t have much of interest in either my phone conversations or e-mail, it still doesn’t mean I want someone listening in to make sure. I don’t.
I said it before, and I truly hope it doesn’t happen, but trampling on the rights of the many, to nail the few, would, in my opinion, only add to recent losses.
The unforeseen consequences of this newfound zeal are issues that need to be looked at closely.
I’ve been trying not to be pessimistic about this stuff but I do worry about potentially unconstitutional stuff coming out of this tradgedy. As far as I understand it, Ashcroft is seeking legislation that would make it easier to get wiretaps for suspected terrorists without a court order. Since they’re suspected, I don’t have much of a problem with this. If the Gubbermint starts wiretapping people without any evidence of probable cause, then I will get worried, find a bunker and stock up on ammo and canned goods.
Actually, at the moment, they can’t get a warrant. But the bill that has passed the senate will give them the power to do so in suspected terrorist cases. What worries me is not these measures so much, as I can see that ability as being necessary to stop all of this. The thing that really worries me is that Ashcroft wants ***MORE *** power than this bill provides. Yet according to the details posted:
If the measure that is being put in place now allows U.S. Attorneys to approve wiretaps, what other powers does Ashcroft want in place? What other powers would the A.G. or the Justice Department need? I thing the vagueness is what worries me most. What constitutes Probable Cause??
And Puk, as for the significance of this, if you don’t know or don’t care about privacy issues in regard to the government, then as Mswas said, it may be a non-issue for you. But I care about my privacy and my rights.
If you want more info on privacy, especially related to computers, go to The E.F.F. page and Privacy.org for more particular info on why this might be a problem.
Well isn’t it really just a case of keeping the law up to snuff with technology? Right now they can only get a warrant to tap a particular phone number, but given the “disposability” of cell phones, they want to change it so they can get w warrant to “tap” the individual. And computer communication seems a reasonable area as well, given it’s increased use as a main source of communication.
Survellience is clearly necessary to be effective in combating criminals. I think that they do need to update the laws to keep up with technology. Care must be taken in drafting new legislation so that abuses cannot occur or at least make it difficult, but in principle I do not object.
I understand the problems people have with this. No one ever asked for enhanced wiretapping abilities so they could spy on innocent people, even though they do. It’s always in the name of catching criminals.
I realize America has no COnstitutional right to privacy (though many people think we do). I don’t like the idea of the government watching people without probable cause and the people happily letting them because “I’m not doing anything wrong”. But I disagree with that on a level of pricipals, rather than any specific violation. I was commenting to a friend the other day that child pornographers should be really thankful for this whole event, since they have now been replaced by terrorists as “group of people we need to sacrifice all our freedom for the catching of”.
I’m not a militia member hiding in a bunker and worrying about the gummint abusing its power, nor am I an EFF-fellater, waiting for them to tell me what rights of mine are being violated so I can get upset about it. But I do get concerned when the government starts saying they need it to be easier to spy on us. Something about that seems to be wrong, to me.
I’m not hiding in a bunker, either. Though I could resent the comment about “Eff-fellater”, I won’t, since I wouldn’t consider myself to be such a person, either. I just happen to use information from them in addition to other sources, in order to keep myself apprised.