Take My Privacy, Please!

NY Times ^ | June 13, 2005 | TED KOPPEL

[neverdem]

THE Patriot Act - brilliant! Its critics would have preferred a less stirring title, perhaps something along the lines of the Enhanced Snooping, Library and Hospital Database Seizure Act. But then who, even right after 9/11, would have voted for that?

Precisely. He who names it and frames it, claims it. The Patriot Act, however, may turn out to be among the lesser threats to our individual and collective privacy.

There is no end to what we will endure, support, pay for and promote if only it makes our lives easier, promises to save us money, appears to enhance our security and comes to us in a warm, cuddly and altogether nonthreatening package. To wit: OnStar, the subscription vehicle tracking and assistance system. Part of its mission statement, as found on the OnStar Web site, is the creation of "safety, security and peace of mind for drivers and passengers with thoughtful wireless services that are always there, always ready." You've surely seen or heard their commercials, one of which goes like this:

Announcer The following is an OnStar conversation. (Ring) OnStar OnStar emergency, this is Dwight. Driver (crying) Yes, yes??! OnStar Are there any injuries, ma'am? Driver My leg hurts, my arm hurts. OnStar O.K. I do understand. I will be contacting emergency services. Announcer If your airbags deploy, OnStar receives a signal and calls to check on you. (Ring) Emergency Services Police. OnStar This is Dwight with OnStar. I'd like to report a vehicle crash with airbag deployment on West 106th Street. Emergency Services We'll send police and E.M.S. out there. Driver (crying) I'm so scared! OnStar O.K., I'm here with you, ma'am; you needn't be scared.

Well, maybe just a little scared. Tell us again how Dwight knows just where the accident took place. Oh, right! It's those...

[coloradan]

Note to Ted: OnStar is voluntary. (At least for now.) Patriot act is not. Patriot's violations of privacy penetrate everyone's lives.

[Dat]

I'd like to know what these people are doing that has them so scared.

[Millee]

Exactly. I haven't noticed any change to my day-to-day life, have you?

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"Patriot's violations of privacy penetrate everyone's lives."

Specify the "violations of privacy" inherent in the Patriot Act.

[coloradan]

The power for FBI to grant itself warrants, without the need for judicial review. "Gee, let's go write ourselves a search warrant here, boys."

[botsnack]

Exactly. If you're not a Muslim terrorist or black criminal, what do you have to be afraid of? I haven't done anything wrong, so they can "snoop" on me all they want.

[highball]

Sure, with this President in office.

We dare not give any power to the Bush administration that we wouldn't have given to the Clinton administration (the past one or the next one).

[coloradan]

Please don't confuse the desire for privacy for the attempt to conceal criminal conduct. Please also don't confuse the desire for a limited and accountable government for a desire to engage in terrorist activities.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"The power for FBI to grant itself warrants, without the need for judicial review. "Gee, let's go write ourselves a search warrant here, boys.""

There IS judicial review after the fact. Nobody wants to be the guy who wrote out a bad warrant and get slapped down by the judge afterwards--it's a career-limiting move.

[coloradan]

I'm not impressed with the judicial slap-downs of rogue FBI agents you speak of, to date. The FBI is counting on it being easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

[BMIC]

My concerns exactly. When, one day, "hate speech" becomes a crime and a powerful Demonrat administration decides to track down everyone who has ever said anything politically incorrect on the internet, I'm not so sure I'll be very pleased with all that the Patriot Act has accomplished.

[theBuckwheat]

While most provisions of the PATRIOT ACT are in harmony with the Constitution, why can't we have a public discussion about which provisions are not and why?

A few years ago, the right of privacy was discovered to be almost absolute when it came to a woman's womb. Indeed the issue of the status of the unborn child is so "private" that the Supreme Court declared the child to be her private property to dispose of as she pleases, until she allows it to be born.

Conversely over that same time span, a series of laws such as the Orwellian-named Bank Secrecy Act, have operated hand-in-glove with the PATRIOT ACT to totally destroy other aspects of personal privacy. You could say that outside of sexual matters, the word "private" now really means "transparent to government".

So, someone may ask how it affects everyone? It means for example that everyone with a bank account is now under continual scoring of every transaction and mandatory reporting of anything out of the ordinary, as the bank defines it. This concept stands the 4th Amendment on its ear.

But such data goes begging for energetic bureaucrats and it won't be long for the bank scoring data to be matched against income tax filings to "increase the level of compliance".

I recently ran into this mindset at the bank when I deposited a check that was slightly more than $10,000. On a whim, I asked if I could just have the cash. The teller gave me a real odd look. I then asked if, after handing me the cash, if I changed my mind and put the cash right back into my account, would she have to fill out a Suspicious Activity Report? Of course!

Just try to get your bank to tell you what activity will trigger their reporting your activities to the government. They will tell you they can't. So, thanks to these laws, you can trigger a criminal investigation or flagging of your account totally by accident.

Of course, all this is for our own good. Never mind that the 9/11 hijackers had triggered SAR reports that the government did not follow up on, that is after another department let them into the country on clearly faulty visa applications.

see:
http://www.ffiec.gov/ffiecinfobase/resources/info_sec/fdi-12_cfr_353_suspicious_activ_reports.pd.pdf


On another "feature" of the PATRIOT ACT, anytime a government bureau can grant itself a way to circumvent your privacy by simply giving itself permission, look out. If anyone thinks that bureaucrats remember every word of their oath of office, just remember how several bureaus ran amok at Waco.

But one objectionable provision allows secret searches. It is just a matter of time before a federal agent conducting one of these searches in the dark of night runs into a homeowner who acts to protect his property from this lurking intruder. If the agent is killed, will the homeowner be charged with his death? If the agent kills the homeowner, can his estate file a wrongful death lawsuit against the government?

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"I'm not impressed with the judicial slap-downs of rogue FBI agents you speak of, to date. The FBI is counting on it being easier to ask for forgiveness than permission."

Forget the judicial slap-down.

The annual performance review would generate an adverse result, and probably be a permanent career-killer.

"Embarrassing the Bureau" is the one unforgivable sin.

[TBP]

I haven't noticed any change to my day-to-day life, have you?

You will when Hitlery is President. We saw what they could do to their opponents with the previously-existing powers. Imagine them with the enhanced powers of the Patriot Act.

[TBP]

The power for FBI to grant itself warrants, without the need for judicial review. "Gee, let's go write ourselves a search warrant here, boys."

And it's illegal to tell anyone about it.

[coloradan]

Was the bureau embarrassed at Ruby Ridge? (Did Lon lose his job? - No, he was promoted to sniper team lead at Waco.) Was the bureau embarrassed at Waco? Did anyone lose their job there? No? Who lost his job because of false accusations against Richard Jewell? Who lost his job because several terrorists already on watch lists boarded flights on 9-11-2001?

[TBP]

There IS judicial review after the fact. Nobody wants to be the guy who wrote out a bad warrant and get slapped down by the judge afterwards--it's a career-limiting move.

Meanwhile, your rights have still been violated.

Your house has still been invaded, your computer files have been monitored, copied, and cleaned. The government has secured a list of your reading materials from the library. And the fact that the person responsible is slapped down and penalized after the fact does nothign to redress teh violations of your rights.

[Gondring]

From the article:
In return for the convenience of zipping through toll booths, you need to have in your car a wireless device. This tag contains information about your account, permitting E-ZPass to deduct the necessary toll - and to note when your car whisked through that particular toll booth.

E-ZPass is "voluntary," too...
...but I have a dollar bill in my wallet that says, "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE"....yet this dollar bill cannot be used for some exits off the Pennsylvania Turnpike. You must turn over your privacy to use an exit on a road for which your tax dollars are already being spent.

But the point is well taken...you can choose not to use OnStar, but you can't choose to avoid the PATRIOT ACT's privacy violations.

[Sybeck1]

If this guy needs it, I'm all for it!

[Terpfen]

Good thing the Patriot Act has set expiration dates and must be renewed by Congressional vote, eh?

I really doubt that if Hillary wins in 2008, she'll have much of a window to exploit the PA.

[Alia]

bookmark

[JerseyHighlander]

Gov. Codey of NJ has proposed privatizing sections of either the NJ Turnpike or Garden State Parkway. The Turnpike Authority has already issued tickets to EZPass holders who drove too quickly between two EZPass toll booths. So the technology is already available and installed in all EZPass vehicles. BUT, the NJ Turnpike authority's charter does not grant the Authority the right to ticket motorists. For the mean time the new revenue collection engine was stopped by a judge.

So, here comes an idea to privatize the tollway. Which leads to what, private speed ticketing to raise revenues for the investors of the privatre NJ Turnpike Corp?

[Drammach]

I haven't noticed any change to my day-to-day life, have you?

How will you feel when Hillary and her cohorts are in office, and have these extra-legal powers??
Will you still be so confident??

[Kay Ludlow]

bump for later

[Coleus]

Operation Eroding Freedom

 

Repeal The Patriot Act

[Gondring]

Don't you love how the group running the EZPass made their money from violations--so New Jersey was having several times more violations than other states (often caused by faulty EZPass system!) Trucking companies had to hire full-time auditors to check the EZPass system, etc. But the system lost money because there were so many false violations, it cost the Turnpike $6 million more than it netted from actual fines in the first year it ran. Hint to officials: never give someone incentive to do a BAD job. In fact, wasn't it WorldCom that ran the system early on?

I might have gotten some details wrong on above...if anyone has corrections, please post them!

[highball]

Riiiight. After they've spent seven years screaming that we need it to fight terrorism, this gutless Congress will let it expire? And risk having their opponents hit them over the head with it in the next election? The Patriot Act will look like the tawdry, cheap political move that the left has been saying that it is.

If these powers are required to fight the War on Terror, they're required to fight the War on Terror. What you seem to be saying is that they aren't actually required to fight terrorism, you just like Bush having these extra police powers.

If you wouldn't let a Democrat have these powers, then you shouldn't give them to a Republican. Anything else is selling out your liberty, and selling it cheap.

[Oztrich Boy]

I'd like to know what these people are doing that has them so scared.

They're probably the same people opposed to to gun control and comprehensive firearm registration (needed to control crime)

[neverdem]

LOL!

[Utilizer]

Good points, all.

[steve-b]

There IS judicial review after the fact. Nobody wants to be the guy who wrote out a bad warrant and get slapped down by the judge afterwards--it's a career-limiting move.

It would be easier to trust the Feds if they actually had an acceptable track record of punishing their own when they step out of line. Get back to me on that when Lon Horiuchi is living in a 6 x 10 concrete and steel room.

[Old Professer]

Already done; remember that last cookie you ate last night? It had a CIA "chocolate" chip in it and it's coming in, loud and strong.