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 Dactyl on 9/7/2007 1:33:12 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think people read the post I was replying to.

That poster claimed that terror attacks were "pretty much unpreventable!" so we shouldn't even try if any liberties were at stake.

I pointed out a few things:

1 - liberties are always at stake when we investigate crimes

2 - crimes are not "unpreventable" if you can prevent them by arresting the people who want to commit them


RE: Thank God.
By rdeegvainl on 9/7/2007 5:00:55 AM , Rating: 2
But did you read the post you responded to?
He just said that it was unpreventable, and you went off about not prosecuting those who commit the crimes.


RE: Thank God.
By Proteusza on 9/7/2007 5:33:09 AM , Rating: 2
Did he say it was unpreventable and we shouldnt try to stop terrorists?

No, he said it was unpreventable, therefore we should not infringe upon our rights to catch crooks, because there are always more crooks and terrorists to catch.

Believe it or not, you can do good without doing harm.


RE: Thank God.
By ZmaxDP on 9/7/2007 8:08:44 PM , Rating: 1
Guys, it's called satire. You know, Gulliver's travels, good ol' Mr "Eat Babies" in england. Here's how it works.

You start with a simple logical statement you disagree with. "Terrorist attacks are unpreventable" therefore "we should not do a certain thing to try and stop them" Check off item number one...

You then develop a ridiculous scenario hypothesizing what would happen if the same logic was applied to another marginally or even completely unrelated situation. Rape, Murder, Babies, Testicular cancer, pick your topic! Hmm, check off item number two...

Oh wait, that's the whole checklist! Yes, satire has been confirmed. Oops! Ya'll must have missed that. I know it is a complicated process.

Let's test it for funnies: I'll take your post and turn it into a satire.

Item one, you disagree with his assumption that to fight crime you have to sacrifice civil liberties, so we should just accept that sacrifice. Check item number one!

Satire time...

Yes, I agree completely, we should totally sacrifice our civil liberties to prevent crimes. Personally, with all the crimes going on in schools these days, I think all the kids should have to walk around nude. I mean, they're always hiding things in their clothes: condoms, guns, knifes, cell phones, gang paraphernalia, you name it! So, all the kids have to go nude. Period. Especially in high school. The teachers too of course. I mean, they could be hiding things for the kids. Backpaks? No way, you can hide things in there too. Books? Folders? Ditto! Keep em out. All digital learning. Of course, having a bunch of hormonally imbalanced teens running around naked can generate it's own problems, so we had better sterilize every last one of them. With the guys it isn't a problem as the surgery is reversible half the time. As for the girls, who needs them anyway? We'll have test tube babies in another 50 years right? Then we can do away with women altogether. Woo hoo! Gotta love giving up civil liberties!

See, utterly ridiculous. But, that doesn't mean there isn't some meaning with merit hidden within...


"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg











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