Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
EFF Analysis Of The USA PATRIOT Act

By Prominairy in MLP
Thu Nov 01, 2001 at 03:33:57 PM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation has published an analysis of the provisions of the USA PATRIOT act that relate to online activities. H.R. 3162 of the 107th Congress: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 was signed into law by George W. Bush on October 26th, 2001 and gives both the domestic law enforcement and international intelligence agencies more powers in combatting terrorism, powers that may or may not prove to be invasive with respect to the freedom of citizens.


    The EFF analysis paints a glum picture of the possible results of the USA PATRIOT Act (USAPA), which among others this quote exemplifies:
The civil liberties of ordinary Americans have taken a tremendous hit with this law, especially the right to privacy in our online communications and activities. Yet there is no evidence that our civil liberties posed a barrier to the effective tracking or prosecution of terrorists. In fact, in asking for these broad new powers, the government made no showing that the previous powers of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to spy on US citizens were insufficient to allow them to investigate and prosecute acts of terrorism. The process leading to the passage of the bill did little to ease our concerns. Instead, they are amplified by the inclusion of so many provisions that, instead of aimed at terrorism, are aimed at nonviolent, domestic computer crime. In addition, although many of the provisions facially appear aimed at terrorism, the Government made no showing that the reason they failed to detect the planning of the recent attacks or any other attacks was the lack of sufficient surveillance powers.
    The analysis is well worth reading and describes in detail the various changes the act brings to already existing laws.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Electronic Frontier Foundation
o analysis of the provisions of the USA PATRIOT act
o H.R. 3162
o Also by Prominairy


Display: Sort:
EFF Analysis Of The USA PATRIOT Act | 38 comments (38 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
ACLU doesn't like it either (4.20 / 5) (#1)
by wiredog on Thu Nov 01, 2001 at 01:47:16 PM EST

A press release.

If there's a choice between performance and ease of use, Linux will go for performance every time. -- Jerry Pournelle
I don't trust 'em! (4.25 / 4) (#2)
by Blue Aardvark House on Thu Nov 01, 2001 at 01:49:15 PM EST

From the EFF analysis: That law enforcement and the intelligence agencies will use these new powers carefully and limit their use to bona fide investigations into acts of terrorism.

Good luck. AFAIK, they can tap all your Internet activity, even if your'e just downloading the latest Britney Spears song.

And that has nothing to do with terrorism. This law is just a backdoor into gaining the powers the government wanted all along.

Something that disturbs me (4.80 / 5) (#3)
by theR on Thu Nov 01, 2001 at 03:43:20 PM EST

Aren't people like George W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress generally pushing the idea that they are against bigger and more powerful government? Excuse me if I'm mistaken, but I thought part of the Republican platform was basically of the mind that the federal government should have less power and fewer regulations.

If that is the case, why do they use something like this to make the federal government that much more powerful (in legal terms -- they had this power all along, it just wasn't legal to use it in most cases)? I suppose it just goes to show that politicians are generally dishonest, either to us or to themselves. It's very sad, because the Patriot Act seems unlikely to have any of its intended effect on terrorists and will certainly take away from our civil liberties at some point, if it hasn't already.



War (4.66 / 3) (#17)
by wiredog on Thu Nov 01, 2001 at 08:08:54 PM EST

Government always gains power during wartime. The trick is to get the government to give the power up after the war.

To tell the truth, the USAPA is a great argument for a short violent war. Such a war would preserve our rights, but at the expense of the Afghan people (at least). It's a tough choice. Do we preserve our rights at the expense of others, or preserve them at the expense of our rights?

If there's a choice between performance and ease of use, Linux will go for performance every time. -- Jerry Pournelle
[ Parent ]

A short war (none / 0) (#29)
by dachshund on Fri Nov 02, 2001 at 08:41:18 AM EST

Your argument assumes that we can fight a short war, then know that we've wiped out Al Queda worldwide... Even if we do get Bin Laden, I doubt we'll have enough assurance of this to let down out guard (and currently, USAPATRIOT is Congress's idea of a guard).

It also assumes that Congress is going to relax about the possibility of terrorism, even if this particular threat is eliminated. Somehow I think 9/11 was a genie that'll be hard to put back in the bottle. By the time we succeed in rolling back some of these laws, some other terrorist group will be at work in the world, and the laws'll be back with a vengeance... But that's only my pessimistic opinion.

[ Parent ]

True (none / 0) (#30)
by wiredog on Fri Nov 02, 2001 at 09:30:24 AM EST

And I'm not sure that I agree with the argument. It rests on the assumption that, if the war is violent enough, it will deter others from attacking. Deterrence has worked. The US, USSR, and other nuclear were never directly attacked, even by proxies, because of the threat of escalation. No arab nation has directly attacked Israel in decades, though they have used proxies. Iraq didn't use chemical or biological weapons in the Gulf War, apparently because of the threat of escalation to nuclear weapons.

Where the theory of deterrence breaks down is in its assumption that the enemy is rational by our standards. If his standards are different, he may not fear retaliation. Nation states tend to be rational. They want to survive. Individuals, and small groups, may not have their own survival as a goal.

Terrorist groups can be defeated, but it takes time, as well as measures that we may shrink from. The original Assassins were defeated. The solution to the problem of the Assassins was the hoof and mouth disease solution. If there's no hoof and mouth disease, there's no hoof and mouth disease problem. But do we want to spend years, even decades, hunting down every single member of Al Quaeda and killing them, regardless of the cost? And what if that turns out to be the only solution? If the only choices end up being to kill them all, or surrender to their demands.

If there's a choice between performance and ease of use, Linux will go for performance every time. -- Jerry Pournelle
[ Parent ]

republicans vs. democrats (3.00 / 1) (#19)
by krkrbt on Thu Nov 01, 2001 at 11:24:08 PM EST

Democrats are for bigger government for social programs, and smaller government for military purposes. (ie, Clinton's health-care-for-everyone plan & military base closures)

Republicans are for bigger government for military projects, and smaller governmnet for social programs. (ie, G.W.B's Missle Defense Program)

Both are for bigger government overall.

Libertarians are the only group who consistently advocate reducing the size of government.



[ Parent ]
Libertarians and national defense (none / 0) (#28)
by dachshund on Fri Nov 02, 2001 at 08:36:15 AM EST

Libertarians are the only group who consistently advocate reducing the size of government.

And yet, for all of the capabilities that the Libertarian party would like to take out of the national government, they state that "National Defense" is one capability that a national government should have.

I'm not sure how a government stripped of environmental protection, social programs, etc. is necessarily going to be a whole lot less oppressive than the one we have today-- if both are free to maintain enormous national defense programs, with all of the potential oppression that such forces can generate. Sure, you'll pay a lower tax rate... But can you guarantee that the government is going to be kinder and gentler, just by stripping education funding?

Look at the Taliban-- they opress their people from the back of pickup trucks. Money and size is not the determining factor of that government's oppressiveness.

[ Parent ]

Respectful opposing argument (none / 0) (#35)
by Wondertoad on Sat Nov 03, 2001 at 03:13:06 PM EST

But can you guarantee that the government is going to be kinder and gentler, just by stripping education funding?

That depends on whether the system is intended to help the children or the bureaucrats who operate the system.

It used to be the former. Now anyone could make a good case that, particularly in the inner city, the people who need the most help are getting the least; the people who can opt out of the system have done so, taking with them the will and power to improve the system, leaving the crappy "public" setup for only the least powerful and most needy.

Of course if you believe by definition that "public" equals "good", the conversation can end right here. But it seems to me that all you have to do is drive into a major US city and look around to determine whether all the "benefits" are doing the good they were intended to do.

Look at the Taliban-- they opress their people from the back of pickup trucks. Money and size is not the determining factor of that government's oppressiveness.

If the people do not have pickups trucks and the government does, why then yes, it's a simple matter to oppress them.

If the people have their own trucks, and more importantly their own guns, printing presses, and voting rights, it's quite a bit harder.

Nevertheless, it remains true that if you give a government the right, ability, and power to enforce human behavior of any sort, you give it the same power to do so for its own goals, or any goals for that matter. For example, public education is also public indoctrination, whether the parents are in favor of that or not. Now you will argue that mandatory cultural socialization and indoctrination is a good thing, and the conversation will have to end again.

Of course, if the public doesn't KNOW it's being oppressed, there is a whole 'nother set of conversations we can't have.

[ Parent ]

Guns (none / 0) (#37)
by dachshund on Tue Nov 06, 2001 at 12:33:10 PM EST

If the people have their own trucks, and more importantly their own guns, printing presses, and voting rights, it's quite a bit harder.

That's a good point. But presumably, if we're willing to give the gov't the resources to mount an effective National Defense operation, we're giving them sufficient resources to oppress us.

Now anyone could make a good case that, particularly in the inner city, the people who need the most help are getting the least; the people who can opt out of the system have done so, taking with them the will and power to improve the system, leaving the crappy "public" setup for only the least powerful and most needy.

...

Of course if you believe by definition that "public" equals "good", the conversation can end right here.

I didn't really sign on for a public vs. private school system argument. These things can go on for days.

Just let me say that I don't understand your implication that by dismantling the public education system, you guarantee those inner city kids will get an education equal to the rich-and-powerful's children. It seems to me that leaving education entirely to the private sector virtually guarantees that the quality of education received will be a function of wealth. And I can't imagine that the wealthy and powerful will care at all about the prospects of the poor, once the voters have been taken out of the equation.

Of course, if you believe by definition that "private" equals "good", the conversation can end right here.

Seriously, though. The Libertarian approach to this problem (actually, it's not strictly Libertarian) appears to throw the baby out with the bathwater. A lot of the problems with our system can be traced to a combination of selfishness and apathy (on the part of parents and voters.) If you change "parents" and "voters" to "customers", I don't see the straight-line guarantee that all of our societal problems will be solved. It takes one look at GM and Ford's vehicular contributions from the 1970s to realize that consumers and private business can revel in mediocrity.

If, under an ideal Libertarian society, every American suddenly begins to fight daily for his or her freedoms, and the best opportunity for their children... Then yes, it'll be a dream. On the other hand, if they continue to behave as they do now (allowing Congressman to take money, letting education funds be squandered on endless testing), I can't imagine that we'll get a better situation. It'll just be a little bit easier for the wealthy and powerful to get their way.

For example, public education is also public indoctrination, whether the parents are in favor of that or not. Now you will argue that mandatory cultural socialization and indoctrination is a good thing, and the conversation will have to end again.

Just as an addendum, what makes you think that the Government is the only force capable of indoctrination? I'm much more comfortable with my education's clumsy "USA is good, USSR is bad" indoctrination than with Coca-Cola's recent attempts to force kids to drink Coke from grade 5 up. Or with Disney's "Intellectual Property is good" indoctrination experiments.

[ Parent ]

My impression (none / 0) (#31)
by theR on Fri Nov 02, 2001 at 10:27:02 AM EST

I get the impression that Republicans (I'm generalizing, of course) state that they don't just want smaller government in terms of social programs, but also in terms of the power of the government over its citizens. Aren't Republicans generally pushing the platform of States' rights rather than federal?

And, if that is the case, it makes me wonder why they constantly push for federal laws related to abortion, right to bear arms, etc. Isn't this a huge contradiction? Not that huge contradictions are rare in politics, but this story made me think of it, although not for the first time.



[ Parent ]
Encrypted mail (4.50 / 2) (#4)
by M0dUluS on Thu Nov 01, 2001 at 04:08:56 PM EST

Just out of interest, does everyone here encrypt their email regularly? How about signing their email?

"[...]no American spin is involved at all. Is that such a stretch?" -On Lawn
Yes (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Nater on Thu Nov 01, 2001 at 04:41:52 PM EST

I sign regularly. I would encrypt regularly, as well, if my correspondents had keys.

That, I believe is the crux of the problem. I know it's been said many times, but so few people actually use encryption for tasks like email that having the ability to do it yourself is next to worthless. Of course, the fact that one person uses it makes the proposition more worthwhile for that person's correspondents. So if you're not using any cryptography yet, then I highly recommend starting your own snowball. Also, with more people using it for legitimate purposes, making crypto illegal would be harder.

Of course, this is all broken-record type stuff for anyone who is concerned with the matter.


i heard someone suggest that we should help the US, just like they helped us in WWII. By waiting three years, then going over there, flashing our money around, shagging all the women and acting like we owned the place. --Seen in #tron


[ Parent ]
Me too. (4.50 / 2) (#24)
by priestess on Fri Nov 02, 2001 at 07:18:35 AM EST

I also sign most of my email, and I also have yet to convince anyone I talk to much to get a key of their own.

Not only this, but some people using some windows software or another don't see my email if I sign it either. Apparently they get a blank message with just he signature attachment. I think it's something to do with a firewall, who knows.

I encourage everyone to get an email client which makes it easy to sign and encrypt and tell everyone who asks "What's this attachment" exactly how easily they're spied on and exactly why they should get a key so you can encrypt.

I still won't work though, least not if your friends are as lazy and computer illiterate as mine are. Windows PGP is still too hard for them, it seems

Pre.........

----
My Mobile Phone Comic-books business
Robots!
[ Parent ]
How about (none / 0) (#22)
by FredBloggs on Fri Nov 02, 2001 at 05:19:08 AM EST

sites like K5 and `the other one` allow you to encrypt comments/stories with PGP (or GPG or whatever)?

[ Parent ]
Seeems... redundant... (none / 0) (#23)
by Akaru on Fri Nov 02, 2001 at 07:18:31 AM EST

That doesn't make sense... isn't this sorta a kind of public forum thingy? Now perhaps signing comments and such from people but encryting? seems a little redundant to me.

How about they Spell check it instead.

[ Parent ]
I didnt mean that! (4.00 / 1) (#25)
by FredBloggs on Fri Nov 02, 2001 at 07:55:19 AM EST

(yeah, spell checking would be handy! :)

I meant for K5 etc to decrypt the messages before posting them. But it would increase the number of encrypted messages on the net, and get people into the habit of doing so; the idea being that they`d then maybe encrypt regular email to friends etc.

[ Parent ]
Ok (none / 0) (#33)
by Nater on Fri Nov 02, 2001 at 10:49:01 PM EST

But what's wrong with just using SSL? That would accomplish the same thing, particularly if the web server insisted on valid client certificates. As a bonus, client certificates could be used for automatic passwordless and cookieless login. And it would make it harder for people to use multiple accounts from the same machine.


i heard someone suggest that we should help the US, just like they helped us in WWII. By waiting three years, then going over there, flashing our money around, shagging all the women and acting like we owned the place. --Seen in #tron


[ Parent ]
Wrong link? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by M0dUluS on Thu Nov 01, 2001 at 04:54:56 PM EST

When I click on the second link in your story "analysis of the provisions [...]" I get to an EFF page that merely states that the analysis will be posted on Nov.2nd. Where is the analysis? Thanks.

"[...]no American spin is involved at all. Is that such a stretch?" -On Lawn
same here (none / 0) (#8)
by crayz on Thu Nov 01, 2001 at 05:02:23 PM EST

Looks like some people are getting something though. I'm confused...

[ Parent ]
This might be it... (none / 0) (#9)
by Danse on Thu Nov 01, 2001 at 05:33:13 PM EST

I found this that may or may not be the correct link. It looks like it though.






An honest debate between Bush and Kerry
[ Parent ]
Endoscope Freedom (3.50 / 2) (#7)
by plug on Thu Nov 01, 2001 at 05:02:10 PM EST

When was the last time you saw a taliban yahoo group? Encryption is a beacon to the state's agents. Your average terrorist would know better than advertising the transfer of incriminating information. It's been said before, but it'll be said again - this is not to stop terrorism, this an attempt to control the transfer of all information. If it isn't owned or going to make a profit then it must be evil. This 'war' has been played and perpetuated to suit the needs of the multinational power networks. What's the point in being 'protected' from nasty terrorists when your own government is sticking an endoscope up your ass.

"If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him."Mikhail Bakunin

Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by M0dUluS on Thu Nov 01, 2001 at 06:10:12 PM EST

Encryption is a beacon to the state's agents.
I totally agree with this, but it only applies when a minority of people are using encryption. I have only two correspondents that use encryption, both are European and use windows-based versions of PGP. None of my U.S. correspondents use encryption. Weird.

"[...]no American spin is involved at all. Is that such a stretch?" -On Lawn
[ Parent ]
Lazieness - Freedom's Nemisis (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by plug on Thu Nov 01, 2001 at 06:25:21 PM EST

Absolutly, mass adoption is the key with hashed/encypted email and other peer to peer comunication. It does concern me though. If I was to mail my thoroughly healthy subversion to my friends using pgp I would be regarded as extremely an interesting subject, not just wierd as I probably am at the moment. By the way I am european and very few (if any) people I know use pgp or other encryption. I guess the key thing is that it takes some time to sort out a structured way of encrypting your mail. Once you start it's easy. People are lazy.

"If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him."Mikhail Bakunin
[ Parent ]

not lazy, just don't care. (none / 0) (#38)
by auzten on Thu Nov 08, 2001 at 09:45:04 AM EST

I don't really think I'm lazy as far as using encryption goes. It's just that I don't care if my e-mail is encrypted. I don't send anything that would bother me if some CIA or FBI agent read it. I guess my point is - why should I bother encrypting my e-mail if I'm not trying to hide anything?

[ Parent ]
Exasperation (3.80 / 5) (#10)
by aphrael on Thu Nov 01, 2001 at 05:41:44 PM EST

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has published an analysis of the provisions of the USA PATRIOT act that relate to online activities

No, it hasn't. At least not using the link you provide. That link leads to a comment that
    "The final EFF analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act will be here Friday Nov. 2, 2001. Thanks for your patience."
.

How can anybody have an intelligent comment on an analysis which isn't there yet?

A better question would be.. (none / 0) (#13)
by Dr Caleb on Thu Nov 01, 2001 at 06:46:03 PM EST

where did he get the quote from?

Methinks this is a planted story. But then again, I'm only paranoid if they aren't out to get me.


Vive Le Canada - For Canadians who give a shit about their country.

There is no K5 cabal.
[ Parent ]

The real question. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by kwsNI on Thu Nov 01, 2001 at 06:47:12 PM EST

How can K5 get it Front Page when it isn't there yet?

kwsNI
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. -Jack Handy
[ Parent ]
Is this it? (none / 0) (#15)
by Danse on Thu Nov 01, 2001 at 07:03:10 PM EST

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20010926_eff_wiretap_pr.html






An honest debate between Bush and Kerry
[ Parent ]
nevermind.. (none / 0) (#16)
by Danse on Thu Nov 01, 2001 at 07:05:48 PM EST

*smacks forehead* I should've checked the date. It's just the predecessor to whatever should be there now.






An honest debate between Bush and Kerry
[ Parent ]
Republicans vs. Democrats (1.16 / 6) (#18)
by badturtle on Thu Nov 01, 2001 at 10:43:22 PM EST

Here we see one of the main differences between Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats are always trying to take away our liberties and have no need for an excuse to make the government bigger and more oppressive. Republicans, however, are generally against big government, unless they think they can get away with an expansion of powers. Republicans are opportunists. They sit back and wait for thousands to die before turning into Democrats. This country has the illusion of a two party system. In reality, we have a single party with two sets of leaders and lots of little parties that are repressed by the bigger one. In Ohio, if you are from a minor party, you can't have your party name on the ballot. This is because the Party (Republicans and Democrats) don't want anyone else to appear to have a following, keeping outsiders from holding office and promoting insiders, like the great grandson of a president, to hold offices, such as governor. While I have no problem with the descendant of a holder of high office running for office on his own, I don't like the idea that he should be allowed to say as much as he wants, while the little guys can't say anything. Everyone should have an equal say. Unfortunatly, by having a single party system, we are not allowed to hear the other side. We hear about the minor differences in the two "parties", but we hear nearly nothing about the others. How many people actually heard anything about Harry Browne? It seems the only ways to get noticed if you are not a member of the Party is to be independantly wealthy, like H. Ross Perot, or closely identify with a branch of the Party, like Ralph Nadar. We need to face the fact that we live in an increasingly socialist and oppressive country. Elections are coming up soon. Remember this when you go to the polling place. We must fight all issues that promote big government by voting against them. When you have the opportunity to vote for a federal office, vote Libertarian or Constitutionalist. The Party is destroying our country. Remember, it is our lives and our country. Without those two things, we have nothing in this world.

Some questions... (none / 0) (#27)
by dachshund on Fri Nov 02, 2001 at 08:25:14 AM EST

The Democrats are always trying to take away our liberties and have no need for an excuse to make the government bigger and more oppressive

I think you've got a nice little construct there, and I agree with a lot of your points. What I'm not so sure about is your assertion that the democrats' desire for "big government" translates into increased power for law enforcement. If I'm not mistaken, the only senator to oppose any of the recent "anti-terrorist" law enforcement expansion is a Democrat, Russ Feingold.

Now, Feingold may just be a loose cannon, or he may simply be representing his constituency. It's certainly true that the rest of the dems voted the other way.

I just think you need to stop looking at the world in such an oversimplified way. Although the libertarian mantra says otherwise, the size of government is not directly proportional to its opressiveness. Increased funding for the EPA does not necessarily translate into a loss of personal liberties for you and me. A party could promote smaller government, cutting billions of dollars out of the budget-- and at the same time strengthen law enforcement and "national defense" and erode personal liberties like crazy.

And to ramble in a different direction, on the subject of libertarianism... When the libertarian party says that one of the only functions of a government should be national defense, doesn't it strike anyone that national defense all by itself might be the biggest threat to personal liberties out there? Is the libertarian philosophy really just about saving money?

[ Parent ]

RE: Some questions... (3.00 / 1) (#32)
by badturtle on Fri Nov 02, 2001 at 05:48:24 PM EST

Not every member of the Party is bad. There are others as well. Ron Paul is a Republican, but he fits more in the Libertarian party. My statement about the parties was about the parties. Occasionaly, individuals will vote their conscience and stray from the party line. It happens on both sides of the aisle.

Increased funding for the EPA is a problem because it is giving a government agency whose purpose is to enforce laws that break from the meaning of the Constitution. Every cent spent to enforce an unconstitutional law is one cent that should never have been collected. The Constitution was writen to provide us with a small government. Nothing that can't be Constitutionally justified is illegal.

Libertarianism isn't about saving money, it is about being left alone to succede or fail on your own. In a Libertarianian society, those who now refuse to work would find it impossible not to, unless their families or charitible organizations would do it. It is not the role of government to provide you with a living, unless you are an employee of the government.

As for national defense, under the Constitution, there is no standing army. Even today, we have no need for it. There is a navy, which could be expanded to include limited ground troops, to defend our interests where they are needed. An army could be called when it is needed, but normally, we would be defended by local militias. There should be a national militia advisory, which would train, advise, and supply the militias with weapons that can't be supplied by the members on their own, such as tanks, AA guns, and other large weapons. If there were a national crisis, such as the current war, the militias could be nationalized. When the crisis ends, federal control of the militias would end and the soldiers would go back home.

[ Parent ]
ha (4.00 / 1) (#20)
by cp on Fri Nov 02, 2001 at 12:31:28 AM EST

powers that may or may not prove to be invasive with respect to the freedom of citizens.
You crack me up.

US Patriot Act.... (4.50 / 2) (#21)
by Akaru on Fri Nov 02, 2001 at 05:18:08 AM EST

patriot \Pa"tri*ot\, n. [F. patriote; cf. Sp. patriota, It. patriotto; all fr. Gr. One who loves his country, and zealously supports its authority and interests.

The name seems Ironically appropriate perhaps.

Analysis update (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Prominairy on Fri Nov 02, 2001 at 08:08:00 AM EST

    It seems that shortly after I submitted my MLP article, the analysis, which was first published on October 31st, was pulled off for updating, but seems to be accessible now again. The link provided in my article is still the correct one and not any other. The updated article unfortunately changes the text piece I had quoted, so the updated quotation is:
The civil liberties of ordinary Americans have taken a tremendous blow with this law, especially the right to privacy in our online communications and activities. Yet there is no evidence that our previous civil liberties posed a barrier to the effective tracking or prosecution of terrorists. In fact, in asking for these broad new powers, the government made no showing that the previous powers of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to spy on US citizens were insufficient to allow them to investigate and prosecute acts of terrorism. The process leading to the passage of the bill did little to ease these concerns. To the contrary, they are amplified by the inclusion of so many provisions that, instead of aimed at terrorism, are aimed at nonviolent, domestic computer crime. In addition, although many of the provisions facially appear aimed at terrorism, the Government made no showing that the reasons they failed to detect the planning of the recent attacks or any other terrorist attacks were the civil liberties compromised with the passage of USAPA.

    As for my "may or may not;" yes, I know it's a tautology, but I just couldn't help myself. :-)
    On a side note, I seemed to be unable to post a comment concerning this until now; the 'Post a comment' and 'Reply to this' links refused to show up, no matter how much I refreshed the page.

-~-~-~-~--~-~-~-~--~-~-~-~--~-~-~-~-
"Work like you don't need the money.
Love like you've never been hurt.
Dance like nobody's watching."

The Nation (5.00 / 3) (#34)
by finial on Sat Nov 03, 2001 at 11:33:15 AM EST

A writeup of opinions by several interesting pundits in The Nation

BS (none / 0) (#36)
by kpeerless on Mon Nov 05, 2001 at 07:44:25 AM EST

It's interesting that one of the main reasons for this travesty, that the terrorists used email to construct their plot, has been shown to be apocryphal. They met face to face in Las Vegas in a seedy hotel room according to the FBI. So far the US govt. hasn't shown ONE email detailing their plans in support of their expansion of powers for the coppers.


It's obvious that the only way to prevent terrorists acting in the future, and to keep the US safe, is to ban seedy Las Vegas hotel rooms.

EFF Analysis Of The USA PATRIOT Act | 38 comments (38 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!