backtop


Print 57 comment(s) - last by JonnyDough.. on Sep 12 at 11:53 AM

The controversial aspect of the USA Patriot Act has once again been struck down

A federal judge struck down the controversial National Security Letter (NSL) provision of the revised USA Patriot Act, with Federal District Judge Victor Marrera ruling it "unconstitutional." A favorite tool of the FBI, NSLs were found to violate the principle of seperation of powers and the First Amendment.

National Security Letters are a form of subpoena that allows the FBI or other government agencies to gather data from companies or individuals in secret and without court approval. Oftentimes ISPs find themselves targetted and are forced to turn over phone records, web surfing histories, or e-mail. However, the powers of NSLs have also been used against financial, credit, or even library records. NSL recipients are bound under a gag order and forbidden from discussing any aspect of the NSL to anyone, including close family or friends.

Government orders require judicial oversight, wrote Judge Marrera: "as this decision recognizes, courts have a constitutionally mandated role to play when national security policies infringe on First Amendment rights. A statute that allows the FBI to silence people without meaningful judicial oversight is unconstitutional." In a 106-page ruling, Juedge Marrero called the NSL "the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values."

Although only part of the NSL provision was found to be unconstitutional, all of it was struck down as Judge Marrera found the offending parts to be inseperable from the rest of the law.

"The courts play an important role in balancing the requirements of national security against the constitutional protections that safeguard our basic freedoms and liberties," said New York Civil Liberties Union Legal Director Arthur Eisenburg. "We are delighted that the court fulfilled that important function in this case."

While the FBI has had the power to issue NSLs for years, the number of national security letters issued has risen tremendously since the expansion of its abilities as enacted in the USA Patriot Act, culminating with 19,000 NSLs issued in 2005 seeking over 47,000 various pieces of information, sent mostly to telecommunications and ISPs. In an internal audit, conducted by the FBI against approximately 10% of all NSLs issues from 2002 to 2007, it was discovered that these requests violated agency rules or federal law over 1,000 times. Actual numbers are sketchy, however, as the FBI has consistently underreported NSL statistics. A report issued by the Justice Department's Inspector General puts the number of NSLs issued between 2003 to 2005 at over 143,000.

The NSL provision of the Patriot Act was originally struck down in a 2004 ruling also issued by Judge Marrera as part of Doe v. Gonzales, who noted that "democracy abhors undue secrecy." The case, which was filed on behalf of an anonymous ISP that had been served with an NSL, was later appealed by the government -- however the law was changed before the court could issue a decision.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Thank God.
By Ringold on 9/6/2007 7:20:15 PM , Rating: 1
No, what I can't wait for is some guy who cares a little too much to use it in the way the founding fathers would be proud of.

By that I mean some man, who owns his own property and is no direct burden to any other man, who is told he must yield his property to the federal or local government on the terms set by the federal or local government due expressly to the desires of the federal or local government.

At which point he then fortifies as best as he can his property and goes out in a blaze of glory. Imminent domain abuse might actually then get a little media attenion..


RE: Thank God.
By Treckin on 9/6/2007 7:51:21 PM , Rating: 3
Wow, there were to many inaccuracies in your post concerning both US history and general political science to bother correcting...
Simply because John Locke wrote it does not make it true.

Also,
IT EMINENT DOMAIN! Not "imminent domain", although that usage is arguably laughable for the simple pun.

This is the natural course for any liberal democratic society.. a give and take between liberty and governmental power, eventually and necessarily leading towards the democratic ideal - ie. two steps forward, one step back.

And to those complaining of the convoluted bureaucratic process we call our government, realize that the government is DESIGNED INTENTIONALLY to run slowly. Hasty actions make for rash decisions. When you speak of national or international policy, it is inarguably always true to favor inaction over wrongful action, no matter the cost.

Please just attempt to view government through some lens of humility if you can, otherwise just keep the kiddie school Polisci off the message boards...


RE: Thank God.
By mAdMaLuDaWg on 9/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Thank God.
By xeltor on 9/7/2007 1:47:37 AM , Rating: 1
The word liberal comes from the word liberty (freedom). Liberal government means balanced or in the middle of the political spectrum. socialism is on the far left so liberal democratic society (moderate democratic society) makes a fuck load more sense than liberal socialistic society (moderate left wing society) does.


RE: Thank God.
By Martin Blank on 9/6/2007 10:33:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
he must yield his property to the federal or local government on the terms set by the federal or local government due expressly to the desires of the federal or local government.

The last phrase of the Fifth Amendment states that private property shall not "be taken for public use, without just compensation." A public benefit must be stated, and in many areas (perhaps most, after the most recent major Supreme Court ruling over it) the benefit must be narrowly defined within terms of schools, hospitals, roadways, etc.

One of the major reasons that public works projects are so expensive is the cost of eminent domain. In Southern California, building a new freeway costs approximately $1 billion per mile because eminent domain costs require compensating the land and building owners according to fair market value. Many other areas see costs of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars added to projects because of this requirement.

There are occasional cases where people get the short end of the stick, but the courts usually err on the side of caution and award more liberal amounts.


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki