In the grand scheme of things, is this really a good thing? Are we reverting back to the days of Hoover where the FBI has a free pass to just go around those little parts of the constitution that hinder them? The FBI is a very screwed up agency right now, so why are we not focusing on fixing the problems, rather than assuming that giving them more power will help them do their jobs better?
Ashcroft just gets scarier and scarier.
The FBI should be given free reign to surf public forums, visit public places, and keep their eyes peeled in public areas.
What I’m worried about is that this new policy apparently gives the FBI the right to say, “Hey, that guy is writing some weird stuff on the SDMB, I think I’ll start an investigation on him and see if there’s any dirt on him…”
The Internet is notorious for misinformation. Terrorists, which this is designed to stop, could throw out all sorts of red herrings to mess up real investigations.
Furthermore, lets say I were to go onto your account without your permission and post instructions for building pipe bombs. I would be the real culprit, but you would be the subject of an embarrassing investigation, with little no proof to exonerate you. Also, if you don’t even know you’re being investigated, you can’t prove your innocence.
rjung,
To some extent I agree but since the SDMB is a public place, wouldn’t what you wrote in the first paragraph then give him the right to do what you are worried about in the second? Or are you saying they can go to public places, just not use information they may find there? I’m confused.
What worries me is that Hoover used to keep files on many public figures which, in effect, helped him keep his job for 40 years because everyone feared what was in those files.
I want the FBI to be able to do their job. I just don’t trust that Ashcroft is being entirely honest when he say that this will only be used to fight terrorism and just means that the agents are now allowed to surf the web without permission.
I need to go back and read the news blurb a bit more, but I was surprised to find that agents now have the ability to, say, hang out on street corners, go to a church, etc., in order to conduct surveillance. You mean they couldn’t do this before?
My beef with this is that conservatives who support this say “Well, the FBI has the right to conduct surveillance in public places. It’s not like they are sneaking into your house, where you have an expectation of privacy.”
Uh, excuse me? Where does it say that my “expectation of privacy” ends at my front doorstep? If I am not a criminal, do I not have the right not to have Big Brother looking over my shoulder, whether I am in my bedroom or at the mall?
Qwertyasdfg wrote:
Gasp! Say it ain’t so!
I can’t. It’d be bad grammar.
I believe that, under the “old” system, if an FBI agent read something inflammatory I wrote and got suspicious, he’d have to get a warrant to investigate me, spelling out why he suspects I am a danger. He’d then get a judge to agree with him and okay the warrant, then he could poke into my Visa purchases and vacation plans and see if I’ve been taking a lot of trips to Afghanistan.
Under the “new” system (again, just my guess here, as I’m still looking for details on this), all of that is circumvented in the name of “efficiency”. If the agent finds me suspicious, he can go and start digging – there’s no need to get a warrant, no need to convince a judge or a supervising director of why there’s a need.
And that worries me.
Well, I hate “me too” responses but…
Yeah, me too
The FBI can surf all they want-I just hope they have sunscreen.
d&r
Qwertyasdfg posted a link to a New York Times article (requires free registration to read) over in the other thread. Based on what it says, it’s not entirely to me clear if that second paragraph is true or not:
“Public databases or on the Internet” sounds kosher to me. I don’t think checking the Manhattan phone directory to see if Osama bin Laden is listed in the Yellow Pages under “Terrorists–International, Islamic” violates anyone’s privacy or constitutional rights, and of course if the Feds want to hang out on the Death to the Infidels Message Board, that’s OK with me too. (This is assuming I am understanding what they mean by “public databases”.)
Again, I don’t see a problem.
This one bothers me. Exactly what is available in these commercial databases? If it’s personally identifiable information about my life, I have a problem with that; and not necessarily just with the FBI having it, but with it being available to businesses. But that’s probably part of a thread about the larger issue of privacy rights and control over your information: Can some commercial enteprise buy up information about what movies you go see and what books you buy, and if so, should they be able to?
The FBI and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies are the “good guys”. They are the ones who protect this country from very real threats from our enemies, foreign and domestic. There are enough real threats in this world without inventing Orwellian conspiracy theories about the people who are supposed to be protecting us.
Some people are worried about their rights. First of all, there is no constitutional right to privacy. If you are in a public place or posting messages in a public forum, you have no reasonable expectation that others won’t watch you (including law enforcement).
Rights are not protected by hamstringing law enforcements ability to enforce the law.
Oh…where do I start? First, Google up the name “J. Edgar Hoover” and tell me again about “the people who are supposed to be protecting us.” Yes, I know Hoover’s been dead a few decades. As far as I’m concerned, the Eff Bee Eye is still on probation because of what that nutball did.
“No constitutional right to privacy.” Not in those words, no. However, one can interpret the Fourth Amendment’s protections against “unreasonable search and seizure” to mean that the government should, in the absence of probable cause of a genuine crime, keep its nose out of my business, regardless of whether I happen to be home at the time or not.
I’m not trying to “hamstring” anybody’s ability to enforce the law. I’m just against opening the door to systemic abuse of people’s rights.
I don’t have time to do an exhaustive study of the life and times of Hoover. Conventional historians generally portray Hoover to be a somewhat controvertial but effective FBI director. Other than rumors of wearing a dress, maybe you could enlighten us as to what makes him a “nutball”?
One can interpret a lot of things. The founding fathers understood that there is a balance between personal privacy and effective law enforcement. Ashcroft is not talking about bugging peoples homes and tracking their whereabouts. He is talking about allowing the FBI the same access as anyone else to public events or web sites. I just cant see how that violates anyones rights.
Common sense would dictate that if you are doing something illegal, you generally want to not do it in public.
Nutball? Not sure. Scary? Absolutely.
No, no, a thousand times NO!
One of the major concerns about the changes is not related to the Fourth Amendment, but to the First Amendment, particularly the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly. Suppose you’ve been invited to speak at the annual meeting of the Radical Peacniks, to nominate a candidate for a local election. You’ve got a rip-tearin’ speech all ready to go, lambasting the effect that the federal government is having on some local issue. And as you step up to the podium, you notice that there’s half a dozen burly guys in blue suits and shades in the front row.
“Who’s that?” you ask.
“Oh, just six FBI agents, here to monitor your speech and report back to someone - we don’t know why.”
You’ve not committed a crime, there’s no indication that the FBI has reason to believe you’ve committed a crime, or any grounds to get a warrant - but they’re there to monitor you.
Still feel like giving your speech?