From technology to politics to video games; these are the random thoughts of a geek with too much time on his hands
From the Dept. of Thoughtcrime...
Published on June 9, 2005 By Zoomba In Current Events
Yes, that's right... everyone's favorite Big Brother bill of recent memory is slated to be expanded, not cut back like it was supposed to be as time passed. What started out as a law designed to give law enforcement and intelligence agencies a greater amount of leeway in pursuing terrorist activities, and has faced criticism as overstepping basic liberties and freedoms we've come to expect of America is now set to have a fairly scary addition tacked onto it.

Fun powers like the FBI being able to subpoena documents from companies without having to get a court order... or the fact that such subpoenas can not be disclosed, not even the fact that they exist if they're designated as "secret"

From the article on news.com:


But the proposal appears to grant the FBI more power to seek information from banks, hospitals, libraries, and so on through "administrative subpoenas" without prior judicial oversight. The subpoenas are only supposed to be used for terrorism or clandestine intelligence cases.

One other detail: the FBI may designate that the subpoenas are secret and punish disclosure of their existence with up to one year in prison (and five years if the disclosure is deemed to "obstruct an investigation.")




No specific details on the latest draft of the bill are available because the session in which the Intelligence Committee voted on these expansions was closed to the press and public. The best anyone has is a draft from a few months back.

Already the Patriot Act allows for law enforcement to make an end-run around court-approval for wire taps and the like if a case can be spun as something related to national security. Now, if this expansion gets passed, you won't need a court to issue a subpoena... hell, if you are subpoena'd, you can't even say you were if it's a "secret" one. The courts act as a check against unreasonable police action... but that's being taken away.

Lets say you get an FBI agent who decides to abuse his power, or say there's some sort of internal agenda being pursued (don't say it can't happen... it can, it has, it likely will again) and you get caught in their crosshairs. They somehow spin something up on grounds of terrorist ties (you at one time were on the same mailing list as the brother's cousin of a known terrorist) . All of your financial and medical documents are subpoena'd and you may never know. If you do for some reason know about it (i.e. they require some directly from you) you have NO recourse. Can't go to a lawyer to fight it, since if it's a "secret" one you can't even tell anyone it happened. The courts aren't required to issue them, and you can't run to them when there's an abuse.

I think there is a line in the sand that represents the balance between personal freedom and security. The Patriot Act is setting us up for a nice running long-jump OVER that line.

Comments
on Jun 09, 2005
*Does the ForumBump dance...*
on Jun 09, 2005
Well if we're going to become a police state, might as well jump in at the deep end, none of this slippery slope nonsense. Running long jump over the cliff, without a bungee cord all the way to the bottom. But apart from that, I think the patriot act and all that stuff is bad. Checks and balances good, secret police bad.
on Jun 09, 2005
I still think we're a far far cry from a police state, or anything resembling 1984... but I do think we're taking those first steps down the path that leads to that.
on Jun 09, 2005
Right, we're not there yet, but it sure looks like that's where we're heading...
on Jun 09, 2005
It's been a while since I read up on my history so correct me if I am wrong. The Romans started out kind of the same way. Organized a government where you have representatives for the people. At first they actually did that. Later on the senate gained more power and then it became about their own pursuit for power and not serving the needs of the people.

Then Caesar came along and he had even more ambition. So decided to use something they had in their laws. The head of the state can remain in power if the state is at war. So he declared martial law and took absolute power. That act did get him killed but someone with more charisma that followed managed to pull it off and after that it stuck.

Seems like we are slowly follow the lead of the Romans and we know where they ended up. Maybe we should look to history and learn from it or we just might end up a footnote in history ourselves.