Re: U.S. Senate Blocks Patriot Act Renewal

[Matthew Murphy <mattmurphy () kc rr com>]

Paul Schmehl wrote:
> --On December 16, 2005 5:57:49 PM -0600 Matthew Murphy
> <mattmurphy () kc rr com> wrote:
>
> > > This is false.  The only part of the Patriot Act that doesn't mandate
> > > judicial oversight is section 501, which has to do with payments
> > > authorized by the US Attorney General of rewards (like the $25 million
> > > for Saddam.) The rest of the act requires judicial approval before they
> > > can obtain anyone's records.
> >
> >
> > Wrong.  Ever heard of National Security Letters?  These executive
> > subpoenas can be delivered to individuals or organizations for records,
> > and those subpoenaed are forbidden to disclose the existence of the
> > subpoenas.  They can be issued for any information "relevant" to a
> > terrorism investigation.
> Please cite the section, paragraph and subparagraph of the Patriot Act
> that authorizes this.  I defy you to do so.

Section 505.  505 extends the authority of the FBI to issue NSLs (as
granted by FISA) to "an authorized investigation to protect against
international terrorism".

There need not be any reason to suspect that the person whose records
are being requested be at all involved in terrorist activity.  Also, 505
places the authority to issue NSLs (previously only vested in the
Director and Assistant Director of the FBI) to a "designee" of the FBI
director -- in practice, any FBI agent.

The FBI is allowed to seize a variety of records of your activity
(billing, financial statements, and so-called "consumer records" which
include a vast array of items like your usage/purchase histories).

> > The NSL framework, as enacted under Patriot, forbids individuals to
> > inform *ANYONE* (even their lawyers) that they've even been served with
> > a letter.  There's no right of contest.  There are cases where judges
> > certify warrants that are baseless.  Without that check, the right of
> > contest becomes indispensable.
> Chapter and verse please.

NSL recipients were forbidden from disclosing the existence of an NSL by
Title 18, Section 2709(c) which states that an NSL recipient shall not
"disclose to any person that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has
sought or obtained access to information or records".  PATRIOT's
broadening of the NSL power effectively expands this prohibition to
domestic cases.

> > For the record, it's not organized crime investigations where they have
> > the powers granted under FISA, but foreign intelligence investigations.
> >  These are investigations where the parties involved are in the U.S.
> > illegally, and are non-citizens.
> Of course I never said that, but feel free to construct all the strawmen
> you need.

In fact, you did.

"The Patriot Act amended the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act
of 1978 (as well as the USA Act of 2001, which also amended FISA) to
give the government the *same* abilities that they *already* have for
organized crime investigations in terrorism investigations."

(http://linuxbox.org/pipermail/funsec/2005-December/001860.html)

It demonstrates that you have no understanding of the law, because FISA
has absolutely nothing to do with organized crime.  In fact, many of
these powers for "organized crime investigations" that you cite do not
exist.  They are powers (particularly in the case of NSLs) only
previously usable to obtain information about suspected foreign
intelligence operatives, NOT American citizens.

> > There's no such power granted to any organized crime investigation.  The
> > seizures permitted under Patriot include so-called "library records"
> > which include records at libraries, bookstores, retailers, etc.
> Please cite the section, paragraph and subparagraph of the Patriot Act
> that mentions libraries.  You can't do it.

As already stated, the consumer records power of Section 505.

> > You're being ridiculous.  For one, the standards to tap the line of a
> > mobster are higher.  It requires proof of probable cause to a judge.
> > Seizing your records from an ISP only requires an FBI agent's assertion
> > that the records are "relevant" to a terror investigation.  And if you
> > thought you could challenge the subpoena: wrong.  Doing so is a felony.
> Please cite the section, paragraph and subparagraph of the Patriot Act
> that says this.  You can't do it.

Already cited... Section 505.

> > You should re-read it, too, Paul.  And maybe you should read some of the
> > analyses from folks like... the American Bar Assocation, who call the
> > law out as the abuse of power that it is.  It's obvious you don't know
> > much about the statute.  It's pretty arrogant to tell people to "read
> > the damn thing before making claims about what it does" when you offer
> > such obviously misinformed opinions about the true scope of the law.
> I could care less what other people say about it.  I've read it.
> Repeatedly.  You're obviously ignorant of it, because the things you
> claim are in it are not in it.  I defy you to cite the section,
> paragraph and subparagraph where these things you claim exist actually
> exist in the Act.

You may have read it, but you clearly don't understand it.  Leave
offering legal opinions to legal experts, Paul.  There's a reason your
viewpoint stands in disagreement with groups like the ACLU, EFF, ALA,
American Bar, etc., etc.

You know why it is?  Because you're wrong.

I did exactly what you "defied me" to do with about 10 minutes of
searching.  Though it doesn't sunset, 505 goes to show why people who
oppose PATRIOT on principle aren't just paranoid morons.

- --
"Social Darwinism: Try to make something idiot-proof,
nature will provide you with a better idiot."

                                -- Michael Holstein

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.