More Warrantless Searches on Their Way

First, the background courtesy of the American Civil Liberties Union:

The National Security Letter provision of the Patriot Act radically expanded the FBI's authority to demand personal customer records from Internet Service Providers, financial institutions and credit companies without prior court approval.

Through NSLs the FBI can compile vast dossiers about innocent people and obtain sensitive information such as the web sites a person visits, a list of e-mail addresses with which a person has corresponded, or even unmask the identity of a person who has posted anonymous speech on a political website. The provision also allows the FBI to forbid or "gag" anyone who receives an NSL from telling anyone about the record demand. Since the Patriot Act was authorized in 2001, further relaxing restrictions on the FBI's use of the power, the number of NSLs issued has seen an astronomical increase.

The Justice Department's Inspector General has reported that between 2003 and 2006, the FBI issued nearly 200,000 NSLs. The inspector General has also found serious FBI abuses of the NSL power. The ACLU has challenged this Patriot Act statute in court in three cases.

Today, the Washington Post reported that the Obama Administration is seeking "to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation." According to the Post, the Administration wants to amend the existing section of the law that covers National Security Letters (NSLs) by adding "four words -- 'electronic communication transactional records' -- to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval."

Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user's browser history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the "content" of e-mail or other Internet communication.

But what officials portray as a technical clarification designed to remedy a legal ambiguity strikes industry lawyers and privacy advocates as an expansion of the power the government wields through so-called national security letters. These missives, which can be issued by an FBI field office on its own authority, require the recipient to provide the requested information and to keep the request secret. They are the mechanism the government would use to obtain the electronic records.

Stewart A. Baker, a former senior Bush administration Homeland Security official, said the proposed change would broaden the bureau's authority. "It'll be faster and easier to get the data," said Baker, who practices national security and surveillance law. "And for some Internet providers, it'll mean giving a lot more information to the FBI in response to an NSL."

This is the sort of thing that drives civil libertarians on the left to despair and frustration. What the FBI and the Obama Administration want is to force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to turn over information about a user's traffic habits without a warrant. I have to ask just how difficult is it to seek a warrant? I understand the number of NSLs is now running at 30,000 to 50,000 a year but civil libertarians remain concerned after a 2007 Inspector General report found numerous possible violations of FBI regulations, including the issuance of NSLs without having an approved investigation to justify the request.

Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic has more on the implications and the potential for abuse.

Historic opportunity to re-examine the Patriot Act

On December 31, 2009, three provisions of the Patriot Act expired, creating a perfect opportunity for Congress to examine the Act and its infringement on the rights of U.S. citizens. However the House and Senate rejected an alternative proposal called the JUSTICE Act that would bring in more checks and balances and add long overdue civil liberties protections and instead renewed the expiring provisions for 60 days. Time is running out and so on February 3, 2010, a broad coalition of allies are going to D.C. and they would like you to join them in flooding the halls of Congress in protest of the Act.

Amid the climate of fear and uncertainty that followed the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President George Bush signed into law the Patriot Act, expanding the government’s authority to secretly search private records and monitor communications, often without any evidence of wrongdoing. Many believe that the legislation threatened privacy, intellectual freedom, and sanctioned racial profiling. And more than seven years after its implementation, many more believe there is little evidence to demonstrate that the Patriot Act has made America more secure from terrorists.

The provisions that are set to expire relate to roving wiretaps that allow authorities to monitor an individual instead of a particular phone number, a business record provision that allows investigators to seize “any tangible things” deemed relevant to a terrorism investigation, and the “lone wolf” provision that allows authorities to monitor terrorism suspects not connected to any specific foreign terrorist group or foreign government. But there is hope that this moment can be used as an opportunity to amend other parts of the Act. According to the ACLU this must include,

National Security Letters (NSLs): NSLs are secret demand letters issued without judicial review to compel internet service providers, libraries, banks, and credit reporting companies to turn over sensitive information about their customers and patrons.

Material Support Statute: This provision criminalizes providing "material support" to terrorists, regardless of whether they actually or intentionally further terrorist goals or organizations. Intended as a mechanism to starve terrorist organizations of resources, it has actually undermined legitimate humanitarian efforts such as asylum claims and charitable contributions.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act of 2008: Originally passed to allow the government to collect foreign intelligence information, Congress changed the law to permit the government to conduct warrantless and suspicion-less dragnet collection of U.S. residents' international telephone calls and e-mails in the fight against terrorism.

Even with it cloaked in secrecy, government reports reflect a rapidly increasing level of surveillance and Department of Justice Inspector General reports have revealed misuse of NSL and other aspects of the Act. Moreover, several federal courts have found parts of the Patriot Act unconstitutional.

Add your voice to the demand that Congress uphold the Constitution and protect the rights of its citizens.

Photo courtesy of www.reformthepatriotact.org

Scary Isn't a Kid in a Halloween Costume

Kids in costumes can be scary -- but the greatest fear is what adults in suits have done to the nation.

There's more...

Healthcare Reform Calls for Unthinkable Sacrifice

Crossposted from Hillbilly Report.

Today, there was a lot of news on the Healthcare front. It seems as if everyone is having some kind of problem or another with the way things are going. We have Corporate Democrats and Republicans who seemingly want no reform and are stalling for time, we have others calling for the states to take responsibility for a public option, and we have union middle-class workers crying foul for being expected to sacrifice even more as the drama rolls on.

There's more...

Al Franken's Explicit Language

Oh, thank the heavens above for Senator Al Franken. With the Obama Justice Department seeking renewal of three key provisions of the Patriot Act that are due to expire at the end of the year, it has been a disconcerting time for those of us who are firmly committed to restoring the civil liberties eroded under the Bush Administration. The three powers up for renewal are, first, the Section 215 powers that allow the government to obtain literally any tangible thing held by a third party about you with a secret court order, and that court order does not have to be based on any wrongdoing on your part or any suspicion that you've done anything wrong. The other provision, number two, is Section 206 of the Patriot Act, which relates to John Doe roving wiretaps, which allows the FISA court to issue a secret order to follow people's cell phones, from cell phone to cell phone, if they're suspected of being involved in terrorism. And the third provision is known as the "lone wolf" provision, which allows a full array of searches to be issued by the court secretly, if someone is believed to be a potential threat.

Today Senator Franken took up the gauntlet in defense of our liberties using the some rather explicit language, that of The Constitution.

The story in the Washington Independent:

Just in case he wasn't familiar with it, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) decided to read the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution to David Kris, assistant attorney general of the Justice Department's National Security Division, who was testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee today to urge reauthorization of expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act.

Franken, who opened by acknowledging that unlike most of his colleagues in the Senate, he's not a lawyer, but according to his research "most Americans aren't lawyers" either, said he'd also done research on the Patriot Act and in particular, the "roving wiretap" provision that allows the FBI to get a warrant to wiretap a an unnamed target and his or her various and changing cell phones, computers and other communication devices.

Noting that he received a copy of the Constitution when he was sworn in as a senator, he proceeded to read it to Kris, emphasizing this part: "no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

"That's pretty explicit language," noted Franken, asking Kris how the "roving wiretap" provision of the Patriot Act can meet that requirement if it doesn't require the government to name its target.

Kris looked flustered and mumbled that "this is surreal," apparently referring to having to respond to Franken's question. "I would defer to the other branch of government," he said, referring to the courts, prompting Franken to interject: "I know what that is."

Kris explained that the courts have held that the law's requirements that the person be described, though not named, is sufficient to meet the demands of the Constitution. That did not appear to completely satisfy Franken's concerns.

What's surreal, Mr. Kris, is your lack of appreciation for the civil protections afforded us by The Constitution.

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads