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

New Fugitive Bill gives Feds wide snooping powers

By redelm in News
Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 03:37:59 PM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)

A new bill Fugitive Apprehension Act of 2000 (S. 2516) gives the Feds the powers they've always lusted after: Search your "electronic data," such as bank records, school records, medical data, phone bills, and e-mail account. Demand that a third party, such as your bank or ISP turn over your records without telling you and give them immunity from civil suit. Note that a "fugitive" is anyone merely accused of a crime, and the powers extend to friends & associates of the "fugitive". For more, see this article


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


Related Links
o Fugitive Apprehension Act of 2000 (S. 2516)
o Also by redelm

Display: Sort:
New Fugitive Bill gives Feds wide snooping powers | 37 comments (36 topical, 1 editorial, 0 hidden)
OMG (1.23 / 13) (#1)
by reshippie on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 02:44:07 PM EST

Big Brother is out there. And it won't matter if you've been "bad or good" cause he's watching, and you're not allowed to know about it.

Those who don't know me, probably shouldn't trust me. Those who do DEFINITELY shouldn't trust me. :-)
Additional information (4.93 / 16) (#2)
by aphrael on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 02:58:16 PM EST

The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent (ie., they didn't even vote on it) and is currently sitting before the Crime Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.

The members of the SubCommittee, if you want to send them your opinion, are:

* Bob Barr, R-Georgia

* Charles Canady, R-Florida

* Howard Coble, R-North Carolina

* Steve Chabot, R-Ohio

* George Gekas, R-Pennsylvania

* Asa Hutchinson, R-Arkansas

* Shiela Jackson-Lee, D-Texas

* Martin Meehan, D-Massachussets

* Steve Rothman, D-New Jersey

* Lamar Smith, R-Texas

* Robert Scott, D-Virginia

* Anthony Weiner, D-New York

unanimous consent?? (3.60 / 5) (#4)
by molo on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 03:20:34 PM EST

The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent (ie., they didn't even vote on it)

Is this for real?! How can this happen? I thought the senate needed to at least vote for bills before passing them on. Can someone clarify?

Whenever you walk by a computer and see someone using pico, be kind. Pause for a second and remind yourself that: "There, but for the grace of God, go I." -- Harley Hahn
[ Parent ]

Unanimous consent (4.85 / 7) (#5)
by aphrael on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 03:28:03 PM EST

Actually, most business in the Senate is conducted by unanimous consent, for historical reasons. This applies mostly to rules changes and scheduling, but it often applies to laws; someone tried to pass NAFTA by unanimous consent, for example.

A senator asks 'unanimous consent the bill be read the third time and passed', and unless someone objects, it is ordered, and the bill is passed. If someone objects, then they can request a recorded vote. In this case, it looks from the record like nobody objected ...

[ Parent ]
good idea, bad implementation. (3.22 / 9) (#3)
by djx on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 03:08:48 PM EST

I actually have mixed feelings on this one.

The upside:
- this will actually be useful for law enforcement types.
- I like the idea of being able to track real criminals.

The downside:
- this bill is way too vague.
- I don't like the idea of allowing the powers to extend to people associated with the "fugitive." This will lead to much abuse.

Since this bill would give law enforcement types basically a blank warrant for everyone (it's not that hard to accuse somebody of shoplifting, then go poking around until you do find something they've done), I fear that it is going to lead to abuse of it's intended purpose. If this one makes it through, we are in serious trouble.

With that said, I'm probably going to spend some time kindly reminding my two reps on the Crime Sub-Committee that this is a Bad Thing(tm).

-<end of transmission>-
Dangerous Thinking (4.00 / 1) (#20)
by DJBongHit on Sat Oct 14, 2000 at 06:02:45 AM EST

- this will actually be useful for law enforcement types.
- I like the idea of being able to track real criminals.

This is dangerous thinking - you can't be willing to give up a single one of your Constitutional rights in order to "track real criminals." Once one right is gone, more are sure to follow. Our Government would like nothing better than to be at the head of a police state, and this is where we're quickly heading. The Constitution was put in place for a reason, and is one of the most beautifully constructed documents of the last thousand years. And our founding fathers even warned about this thing - to quote Thomas Jefferson: "Those who are willing to give up their rights for a little security will end up with, nor do they deserve, either."

I'd much rather have 10 criminals go free than have 1 innocent person investigated under this bill.


GNU GPL: Free as in herpes.

[ Parent ]
Is it significantly different? (4.33 / 3) (#7)
by cthulhu on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 05:23:30 PM EST

`(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraphs (1) and (2), the Attorney General may apply to a court for an order requiring the party to whom an administrative subpoena is directed to refrain from notifying any other party of the existence of the subpoena or court order for such period as the court deems appropriate.

With a clause like this, I'm not sure if it's much different from the existing system. It appears as if these clauses do exist, but throughout they appear to require the approval of a court, and not just a rogue administrator.

Whether this is acceptable in our society is one question. Whether this bill significantly extends the abilities of the current system is another.

Freedom and government (4.41 / 12) (#9)
by dj@ on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 05:31:36 PM EST

One of the most incredible and mind-blowing concepts I have ever come across "belongs" to Constitutional scholar Alexander Bickel. He said something like, "The more you have to define freedom the less freedom you have".

When I first read this, I could not stop saying it. It seemed so obvious, and explained so much. We look to government to define and secure freedom, and the more we do so, the less freedom we end up having.

I see this as a play on the "Freedom is Slavery" concept in Orwell's 1984. We will start living in a bizarro world where everything is an opposite, largely because people increasingly interact with other people through the interface of government, essentially a formal statement of mistrust. That is, not the government that provides services, but the government that protects people from one another. Pretty soon the scope of government, defined as simply who feels included in it, will become limited to the "representatives" themselves. You can't artificially impose a feeling of belonging simply by forcing people to be a member through a national identification. I'm an American in the sense that I was born in the physical territories that many people call America, but beyond that, I'm starting to wonder.

Anyway, I'm utterly flabbergasted. This is the most rediculous law I have ever seen in my whole life. It's just so absurd. I thought about writing my Congress woman/man, but I realize they are only reacting to the forces they perceive in the role they perform. From their perspective, these laws make total sense. If I object, they can point to all the forces that necessitated the introduction of that law in the first place, and since I must recognize that they objectively exist, i.e. crime, hate, etc., I will be certain to acquiesce.

Forget Congress, Write the Supreme Court! (2.50 / 8) (#10)
by Signal 11 on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 06:59:50 PM EST

Forget about Congress.. appeal to the Supreme Court - this is a violation of the bill of rights... this is unreasonable search and seizure. Being able to go after your friends? With no evidence that they even know about your criminal activities? When there isn't even evidence OF criminal activities?

This is practically begging for the Supreme Court's attention.

Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.

fine for now... (3.66 / 3) (#11)
by jmc on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 08:35:10 PM EST

The courts have sometimes been good in saving us from fascist laws that clearly violate the Bill of Rights... i.e in overturning the CDA. But Democrats and Republicans in congress keep this stuff coming, with the full support of both major presidential candidates. Given a few more decades of court appointees, we're going to lose some rights due to overly narrow judicial interpretation... remember, "freedom of the press" could apply only to printing presses, not the internet!

We need to work to build a viable alternative which might eventually be a serious challenge to the two major parties, which is why I'm voting for Nader this year.

[ Parent ]

Skipping a step (4.50 / 2) (#12)
by shook on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 09:51:35 PM EST

The Supreme Court rules on laws, not bills. The court isn't involved until the law passes.
Even then, they don't look at every law that gets passed. For this to be struck down:
1. It has to be passed.
2. The gov't has to excercise this new power, e.g. a person has to be convicted of a crime based on evidence obtained under this new law
3. The person convicted has to appeal his/her conviction on the bounds that evidence used in the case was obtained in violation of the constitution.
4. This appeal has to work its way through the court system, until it finally reach the supreme court.
5. At this time, the supreme court can declare the law inconsistient with the Constitution.

As you can imagine, there is usually a significant time lag between when a law is passed and struck down. Note: I am not a lawyer. It is possible what I said is not entirely accurate. But I think it is, for the most part.

Often, it seems congress will pass laws (Internet Decency Act, the law making guns in school a federal offense) they know are unconstitutional, so they can look tough on crime. Maybe they think, "No big deal, it will only be on the books a year or two anyway."

[ Parent ]
Re: Forget Congress, Write the Supreme Court! (none / 0) (#18)
by DJBongHit on Sat Oct 14, 2000 at 05:33:00 AM EST

Forget about Congress.. appeal to the Supreme Court - this is a violation of the bill of rights... this is unreasonable search and seizure. Being able to go after your friends? With no evidence that they even know about your criminal activities? When there isn't even evidence OF criminal activities?

Dude, there are so many ridiculously unconstitutional laws right now that the Supreme Court could be busy for years hearing all the cases. We need to worry about getting this one overturned before it ever makes it to the point of being law.


GNU GPL: Free as in herpes.

[ Parent ]
the chains of the constitution have been broken... (2.00 / 5) (#13)
by Anon6731 on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 10:34:06 PM EST

...over most of this century. It's been quoted many times before.. either the people are in chains or the government is in chains.

In this election season, I strongly urge people to vote for Harry Browne who will strictly adhere to the constitution.

I have provided a link to his campaign speeches at www.PhDepot.com

Vote Browne! (1.00 / 1) (#14)
by The Holy Chicken on Fri Oct 13, 2000 at 11:45:59 PM EST

A vote for Browne is a vote for Bush. Be my guest.

[ Parent ]
It's people like you that put us in this position (5.00 / 3) (#19)
by DJBongHit on Sat Oct 14, 2000 at 05:48:54 AM EST

A vote for Browne is a vote for Bush. Be my guest.

This is exactly the kind of propaganda that put us in the position we are in now. A vote for Browne is just that - a vote for Browne. It is not a vote for Bush, a vote against Gore, or anything else. And people need to vote for who agrees with their ideals most, not who they think is going to win. It's not a fucking popularity contest.

And it's not like Gore would be any better than Bush anyway - especially not with a wife like Tipper "The Censor" Gore. Both Bush and Gore are arguing over who is better suited to run your life - while Browne is saying you should be allowed to run your own life.


GNU GPL: Free as in herpes.

[ Parent ]
More Propaganda (none / 0) (#24)
by The Holy Chicken on Sat Oct 14, 2000 at 03:16:25 PM EST

I don't see how people like me could have put us in this position. If anybody, it's the mindless masses that believe all the candidates' propaganda that put us in this position. There is basically no way that anybody but the two main parties could win just because the world is full of dumb people and they don't realize that they could have better. From that you have to realize that you really only have two candidates from which to choose.

This isn't propaganda. It's the truth. Although I agree with the idea that you should just vote for who agrees with your ideals, that's not always realistic. The fact of the matter is that a vote for Browne is, in most instances, a vote that doesn't go to Gore. That is bound to help out Bush since, realistically, either Bush or Gore is going to win, not a third party. This is how the US electoral system works. I think it would be better if we required a majority vote for a candidate to win (much like the systems in place in other countries or as was done in the ICANN elections.) Then you could vote for the person you really felt was best for the job. But that's just not how it works right now.

Oh, and the presidential election is a fucking popularity contest.

[ Parent ]

Don't throw your vote away! (3.50 / 2) (#28)
by swr on Sat Oct 14, 2000 at 06:44:14 PM EST

The fact of the matter is that a vote for Browne is, in most instances, a vote that doesn't go to Gore. That is bound to help out Bush since, realistically, either Bush or Gore is going to win, not a third party.

Self-fulfilling prophecy.

Are you so worried about "throwing your vote away" that you would vote for someone you don't even want as president? Now that is throwing your vote away!

I'm not even going to bother to vote in the next presidential election. For me it's just not worth the hassle- I would probably get arrested, being a Canadian and all. :)

[ Parent ]
Tactical voting sucks (4.50 / 2) (#30)
by Potsy on Sat Oct 14, 2000 at 10:16:56 PM EST

The reason the previous poster referred to you that way was, I think, because you advocated "tactical voting" (i.e., don't vote for X, because Y might win, vote against Y's most powerful opponent instead).

The trouble with tactical voting is that it is a stopgap measure at best. It might serve a purpose if there is a candidate you believe to be dangerous and you really want to keep that person out of office, but if you rely on it in every election, you soon wind up with a bunch of people in power who do not represent your views.

In the last few presidential elections, the Democrats have pushed tactical voting hard in order to keep their support base from eroding. Even if their candidate is a complete arsehole, they will play up people's fears of what will happen if their opponent gets elected. And it ususally works. They've been especially bad this election, bringing up the spectre of Supreme Court nominations, and repeating the line "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" over and over. They want to keep people from defecting to alternative parties, and they have so far done a good job of it. A lot of people may be ready to move to alternative parties, but the FUD spread by the two main parties is still holding them back.

The previous poster was correct ... tactical voting has gotten us into a lot of trouble.

[ Parent ]

Holeee Shit! (2.20 / 5) (#15)
by Dr Caleb on Sat Oct 14, 2000 at 03:13:07 AM EST

I'm glad I don't live in the US. Wow! I kinda feel sorry for you guys, but then again - you did elect them! (directed of course at those of you who voted a couple years ago...)

This kind of crap would never have passsed the Canadian Parlament. All bill have to have 3 readings, and everyone present must vote on it, each time. Assuming that it passed third reading in Parlament, it would have got shot down in the Senate.

See, our lower house (Parlament)is elected. The leader of the party with the greatest representation in the house is Prime Minister. The PM gets to pick senators when a seat opens up in the Senate. Here's the trick - the lower house is Representation by Population, so the provinces with the greatest population (Ontairo, Quebec) tend to make up the majority of the house. But the Senate is appointed - FOR LIFE! And there are an equal number of Senators from each province/territory. So if the provinces with the greatest population are trying to pull a fast one on the other 8, they get squashed. And the senators can do what they like, without fear of it being brought up at the next election.

Something like this would never make it through the Canadian Senate...I hope ;-)

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

There is no K5 cabal.

Canadian Senate? Remember the GST? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Barbarian on Sat Oct 14, 2000 at 05:29:17 AM EST

If the party in power wants something to pass the Canadian Senate when the Senate is holding it up, the PM just adds more senators (he has the power to do so in an emergency). Remember Prime Minister Mulroney and the GST?

[ Parent ]
Mulroney and the GST? (none / 0) (#34)
by rongen on Sun Oct 15, 2000 at 06:49:57 AM EST

I thought we all agreed never to mention Brian Mulroney again. Ever. :) You can't even sue the guy! He seems to come out on top (in everything but opinion polls) no matter what, so I just suggest we ignore him and never speak of him again. Okay?

read/write http://www.prosebush.com
[ Parent ]

Mulroney and GST (none / 0) (#36)
by Dr Caleb on Mon Oct 16, 2000 at 12:58:52 AM EST

True, just like we aren't supposed to mention his sucessor, Kim..Kim...something or other...;-)

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

There is no K5 cabal.
[ Parent ]

UK House of Lords is similar (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Paul Johnson on Sat Oct 14, 2000 at 06:21:42 AM EST

In the UK we have the House of Lords instead of the Senate. Lords, aka Peers, are either Life (i.e. appointed for life) or Hereditary (senior son inherits title from parent). The Hereditaries are currently being phased out, and not before time.

Our experience is depressingly similar to Canada. Whenever laws which threaten civil rights come up, the (elected) Commons supinely follows the Government line, and the only real opposition comes from the House of Lords.

The reason is that at the next election the party has a great deal to say about who stands in which constituency seats, so a Member of Parliment (MP) who annoys their party by voting against the party line is likely to be deselected (i.e. kicked out) by their party at the next election. Occasional battles between local and national parties have shed some light on this murky process. The system is even institutionalised, with the party line defined by "the Whip" (a system of documents telling MPs how to vote) and "the Whips" (party officials in Parliment who give recalcitrant MPs a stiff talking to). The whole thing is way overdue for serious reform, but since it is the main mechanism that the executive branch has to control the legislature, the executive has no incentive to do anything. (Mind you, I prefer this system to the US campaign finance problem)

Meanwhile the Lords don't have to worry about any of this, so they can genuinely vote with their consciences. The only problem is that typical Life Peers are ex MPs, Prime Ministers, senior industrialists, trade unionists and so on. As a result they usually start late middle aged and get older. The system probably needs either a mandatory retirement age or some other system for removing the senile.

Unfortunately because the House of Lords is not elected it is in an inferior position to the Commons. If it comes to a straight fight between Lords and Commons then the rules say that the Commons wins. The most recent case in point was the Regulation of Investigatory Practices (RIP) act, which (surprise surprise) gave the government (not just police and security officials) wide powers to tap, search and spy with little or no judicial oversight. The Lords were able to force in some critical limiting amendments, but ultimately were unable to stop the government passing the thing.


You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
[ Parent ]

Canadian rights (none / 0) (#29)
by CentrX on Sat Oct 14, 2000 at 07:35:34 PM EST

In Canada, search warrants are only required for residences (and then not in all circumstances). Police are given discretion to perform searches of persons, vehicles, and premises (other than homes) for illegal weapons and to seize weapons, use of registration lists (such as gun registration lists) as the basis for "reasonable grounds" to authorize search and as consent to search is commonplace.
-- "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
[ Parent ]
Bzzzzzt - but thanks for playing. (none / 0) (#37)
by Dr Caleb on Mon Oct 16, 2000 at 01:10:19 AM EST

Search warrants are not required for probable cause - true.

Let's say, you get pulled over for speeding. And you have a few grams of weed in the trunk. Cop asks you "Can you open your trunk for me?". Most Canucks will say "Yes" and get busted for the weed.

The police have the right to search anywhere accessable to the driver or any passengers. If you are the only person in the vehicle, the cop can check the glove box, under the front seats etc. But NOT the trunk.

Let's say, I get pulled over for speeding. And I have something I don't want the cops going through, in the trunk. Say, last weeks underwear. So the officer asks "Can you open the trunk for me?" I say "No." He says "I suspect alcohol/narcotics are in use and I want to see the trunk." I say "You have the right to search inside the car, or give ma a breathalizer if that is what you suspect. You pulled me over for speeding. Do you think you are going to find more evidence of speeding in the trunk?"

Of course, this plan can backfire, but it will keep nosy cops from rummaging through your trunk just because you'll let them. But if you aren't doing anythng wrong, no harm no foul!!

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

There is no K5 cabal.
[ Parent ]

i'm insane (2.00 / 4) (#16)
by no carrier on Sat Oct 14, 2000 at 03:37:01 AM EST

ok, i've read

so i think i have a grasp on this whole thing about tending your own garden and how our world is a reflection of ourselves. now how the hell do i get rid of the military/industrial/aol/timewarner/disney/digital::convergence/sony/riaa/mpaa/united states/un/insert monopoly or tyrant/mabell/at&t/worldcom/doubleclick/realnetworks/whatever

could it be we're all just staring at das blinking lights in front of us? why do laws like this get passed? without even a vote? are these the people we put in power? i'm pretty sure they do not represent my opinions. hell, i can't even represent my opinions.

the revolution is overdue, but when it comes, what will we change to? there has to be some new idea out there, communism doesn't work because there will always be corruption in positions of power (there i go assuming we are all criminals) and capitalism, though it may last longer, will eventually collapse on top of itself. we can always try to start one or the other over again with a clean start and try to learn from our mistakes, but that only delays the inevitable.

so are we just doomed to crash and start over? that's what stats 301 taught me, it's all a bell curve in the end. just another broken record spinning around round round. bloody hell, more jack & coke and omm for everyone! singularity is a bitch.

I stab people.
I'm afraid so, bud. (3.00 / 1) (#21)
by Quark on Sat Oct 14, 2000 at 06:20:02 AM EST

are these the people we put in power? i'm pretty sure they do not represent my opinions

I'm afraid so, these are the people making the rules. Just by voting for other people you will never solve the problem. The only thing aside from total anarchy is convincing your fellow countrymen (from whichever country they may be) to start voting for the "right" politician, assuming there is one:-( Or you could do as I hope to do, go into politics yourself and some serious overcompensating.

So much bandwidth, so little time...
[ Parent ]
Oh dear... (3.00 / 2) (#23)
by Stargazer on Sat Oct 14, 2000 at 01:55:22 PM EST

This is pretty scary. Not the bill itself, though. Oh, don't get me wrong; the bill is scary, all right. However, what's by far scarier is the fact that we have so little to say about it. Thoughts on frontiers have done far more to spark our inspiration and desire to write than this bill.

What's the problem? Do we have nothing to say? Hardly. The problem is the fact that we've had to say those things so often, they're getting old. So many stories have come out of the pipeline within the last year or so about new laws ready to strip us of any semblance of Constitutional rights we had, that anybody who has been reading the typical geek weblogs for any substantial amount of time already knows the umpteen logical arguments against them.

This is indicative of a scary trend: quite simply, Congress has been accepting of far too many proposed laws which will do unmeasureable damage to our society.

This being an election year, we need to take a hint. It is time for a desperate change in the make-up of our government (obviously, we can only replace one third of the Senate, but there's still plenty of opportunity), especially with a Presidential election in our lap, to make that change. I'm not going to tell you who to vote for to best accomplish that; others could do it better. However, all of the elections need to be given serious thought. Do your research on all the candidates in all the races in your area. Sure, you might be able to rattle off the major policy stances of every Presidential candidate like sports fans rattle off batting averages, but what about your House and Senate races? They're arguably more important, since they have been the source of so many of these bills. Take some time to look into them, too.

Once you've done that, don't just horde the information for yourself -- share the wealth! Tell any of your friends who are willing to lend you an ear for a few minutes. There are ways to fix this recurring problem -- we need to act upon them. I, personally, do not want "Yet Another Rights-Killer" to become yet another four-letter "YA*" acronym.

-- Brett

I'd like the "Big Brother Combo", please (2.00 / 2) (#25)
by trinitishwar on Sat Oct 14, 2000 at 06:07:58 PM EST

The powers given to the federal government by this bill, combined with Carnivore, make for a truly frightening situation. The capability to obtain any unencrypted electronic document or transmission, and the legal powers to do so. All that without the civilian watchers involved in phonetapping, or the judicial oversight of a search order. Riiight.......

I'd like the "Big Brother Combo", please (1.00 / 3) (#26)
by trinitishwar on Sat Oct 14, 2000 at 06:09:20 PM EST

The powers given to the federal government by this bill, combined with Carnivore, make for a truly frightening situation. The capability to obtain any unencrypted electronic document or transmission, and the legal powers to do so. All that without the civilian watchers involved in phonetapping, or the judicial oversight of a search order. Riiight.......

Sorry.... (1.00 / 2) (#27)
by trinitishwar on Sat Oct 14, 2000 at 06:10:24 PM EST

about the double post :p

Paranoia! (4.00 / 1) (#31)
by acestus on Sat Oct 14, 2000 at 11:16:23 PM EST

I think that the immediate reaction of much of the 'hacker' community is to believe that any law involving the right of law enforcement to search for 'clues' is a move towards a fascist police-state America. I also think that this is a pretty silly reaction. Certainly, I value my freedom and I don't want it taken away. I don't even take it for granted. I've got a good number of relatives and friends in Cuba and other police-state nations, and I see how bad it is. That doesn't mean, though, that I think that our right to privacy outweights any possible legal search. Even beyond this basic value judgement, the Fugitive Act has been the victim of some serious mis-reading. First of all, fugitives are not just people accused of a crime. They must be accused by the government (ie, indicted) and must be attempting to avaid the government. That is: just because you're incarcerated, you're not a fugitive. You're a fugitive if, say, you get charged, go out on bail, and head for the border. If that happens, you are, I'd say, giving instant probable cause for search of your goods. That just seems like common sense. A lot of hubub has come of the fact that the investigators don't need to tell you or your friends ASAP that they've read your electronic journal, your email, or your phone bill. Why? If I have to tell your ISP that I read your email, the ISP might go and tell you, and you'll get one step ahead of me in my hunt for you. However, the Act states that this non-disclosure is for a length of time that the court feels is apropriate. I can't imagine that any court in the land would decide that 'forever' or even a few years is a good duration of non-disclosure. If you are running from the law, your footsteps and paper-trails are fair game for investigators. This just states as much. If the government wanted to legalize Hoover tactics, they'd have to write much more robust laws. These simply aren't the "repeal" of the 4th Amendment that they're made out to be.

This is not an exit.
Common sense is an uncommon commodity. (none / 0) (#33)
by ehintz on Sun Oct 15, 2000 at 01:37:23 AM EST

What seems obvious to you or I is incomprehinsible to Joe Beercan. Therefore, since many members of these law enforcement agencies ARE Joe Beercan, your point is moot. If we could trust law enforcement to use common sense, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. Qui custodiet ipses custodies?

Ed Hintz
[ Parent ]
The Honorable Joe Beercan (none / 0) (#35)
by acestus on Sun Oct 15, 2000 at 11:55:18 AM EST

Maybe lots of the FBI agents are boobs. Personally, I don't really believe that, but I'm willing to cede it for the argument. However, the application of the more questionable points of the Fugitive Act require court orders. Federal judges are not boobs, even if they're not always our heros. Who watches the watchmen? We have a couple groups of them, and they watch each other. So far, so good. Acestus

This is not an exit.
[ Parent ]
Your right to be buried in paperwork (none / 0) (#32)
by trinitishwar on Sun Oct 15, 2000 at 12:18:00 AM EST

I have not mis-read this act. I AM worried about this act in combination with the carnivore project. The act reads: (A) having been accused by complaint, information, or indictment under Federal law or having been convicted of committing a felony under Federal law, flees or attempts to flee from or evades or attempts to evade the jurisdiction of the court with jurisdiction over the felony; With this wording, if a complaint is made against you, (it just says complaint or information, who's to say where they got it) and you're outside of their jurisdiction, (i.e. in another state or out of the country) they now have the legal standing to perform searches or survailence ( I know I spelled that wrong) on you or anyone else for that matter: any records (including books, papers, documents, electronic data, and other tangible and intangible items that constitute or contain evidence)

R-Utah is not on my team (1.00 / 1) (#38)
by nontoxic on Mon Oct 16, 2000 at 07:36:32 AM EST

According to this article at Salon, Mr Hatch and his judicial commitee restricted the protections and rights that would be extended to someone who reported to the authorities the fact that they were being held in slavery.

The bill, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, would also increase the penalties against those convicted of such heinous crimes.

In all amity and brotherhood, could those of you on those shores please send a loud message to Mr Hatch the next time he is due for re-election. I'm sure it would be appreciated!

New Fugitive Bill gives Feds wide snooping powers | 37 comments (36 topical, 1 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:


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!