New Federal Patriot Act Turns Retailers into Spies against Customers

The Boston Globe ^ | 11/28/2001 | By Scott Bernard Nelson, The Boston Globe

[Dr.Deth]

Even if the government were inclined to act like the Gestapo many people on this thread seem to fear, they don't have the time or the resources to follow up on every cash purchase.

Not right now. But believe me, if history teaches one thing, it's that a government that is granted an arbitrary and excessive temporary power, will never give back that arbitrary and excessive power, and will use that arbitrary and excessive power in ways you never imagined. It's called: Unintended Consequences.

The accretion of power to the center acts like a black hole, a gravity-suck pulling more and more authority, until you have full-blown totalitarianism. Wiser men than you or I have known this: they wrote the Constitution specifically to shackle the central government and curtail this inexorable phenomenon for as long as possible.

Or maybe they just realized that people are inherently dumb and/or corrupt, I haven't decided which.

[JD86]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized", then (for instance) photo-red traffic cameras would be illegal since there is no accuser?

Well, if the photo-red traffic cameras are in your house....I might agree with you.

As for 'charge property with a crime' I have no clue what you are talking about...
unless it is the forfeiture laws for property used by a person in the commission of a crime.
Been raising a little weed out back, have you?

[JD86]

Even if the government were inclined to act like the Gestapo many people on this thread seem to fear, they don't have the time or the resources to follow up on every cash purchase.
Not right now. But believe me, if history teaches one thing, it's that a government that is granted an arbitrary and excessive temporary power, will never give back that arbitrary and excessive power, and will use that arbitrary and excessive power in ways you never imagined. It's called: Unintended Consequences.

Two questions:
1)Have you heard we are at war?
2)Have you heard of sunset provisions for statutes?

[Dr.Deth]

As for 'charge property with a crime' I have no clue what you are talking about...

It was a nifty contrivance during the War On (Some) Drugs to circumvent little things like unlawful search and seizure and the presumption of innocence. Sounded like a good deal at the time, right? Take drug dealers money so they can't hire Johnny Cochran and beat the rap.

I don't need to point you to the seventy-billion threads that provide concrete examples of how these procedures have been used by LEOs to harass, extort, and outright steal from citizens who have nothing to do with drugs, do I? Unintended consequences.

Been raising a little weed out back, have you?

LOL, I love seeing the Stupid Party thought process in action; particularly the automatic link between ardent proponents of { personal freedom | personal responsibility | inalienability of rights } and users of drugs. Constantly trying to legislate the unlegislatable - morality. Really, you can't buttress your argument better than to impugn that I must be either high, a drug dealer, or both?

Hell, you're so cocksure who I am, why don't you go ahead and report me to the DEA while you're at it. You'll illustrate the points made here about the Patriot Act better than I ever could.

I mean, I must be behaving awfully "suspiciously" by not being another bleating sheep expecting nanny.fed.gov to gladly repay next Tuesday the inalienable rights I loan them today.

[Dr.Deth]

1)Have you heard we are at war?

We are? Then we're back to square one in this thread: link me to our Declaration Of War, and I'll believe it.

[JD86]

Been raising a little weed out back, have you?

I apologize for my feeble attempt at humor. Perhaps I should explain that is a major cash crop in my home state and that, in my experience,
most people who are fully aware of the forfeiture law have had personal knowledge of it...

[JD86]

We are?

I am certain our troops appreciate your support.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

2)Have you heard of sunset provisions for statutes?

Sneak & Peek (among a few others) is not subject to the sunset clause...refreshing isn't it?

[JD86]

uummmm, not that I am doubting you, but I thought it was a 3yr with a possible one time extension...for a max of 5 years....No?

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

It comes as a surprise to most people that not all of the changes sunset. For the record, I am not against the objectives of this bill nor am I against some of the changes made. What has always been my concern is :

a. No one really knows what is in the bill; lack of specificity

b. it is ripe for exploitation and manipulation by less than honorable gov't officials. It can and will be used against innocent citizens. From :

EFF Analysis of Bill

IV. Sunset Provisions

USAPA sec. 224. Several of the surveillance portions of the USAPA will expire on December 31, 2005.

The EFF is pleased that at least some of the more severe changes in the surveillance of U.S. persons contained in the USAPA will expire on December 31, 2005 unless renewed by Congress. We are concerned, however, that there is no way for Congress to review how several of these key provisions have been implemented, since there is no reporting requirement to Congress about them and no requirements of reporting even to a judge about several others. Without the necessary information about how these broad new powers have been used, Congress will be unable to evaluate whether they have been needed and how they have been used in order to make an informed decision about whether and how they should continue or whether they should be allowed to expire without renewal.

A. The provisions that expire include:

• Sec. 201. Authority To Intercept Wire, Oral, And Electronic Communications Relating To Terrorism.
• Sec. 202. Authority To Intercept Wire, Oral, And Electronic Communications Relating To Computer Fraud And Abuse Offenses.
• Sec. 203(b), (d). Authority To Share Criminal Investigative Information.
• Sec. 206. Roving Surveillance Authority Under The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Of 1978.
• Sec. 207. Duration Of FISA Surveillance Of Non-United States Persons Who Are Agents Of A Foreign Power.
• Sec. 209. Seizure Of Voice-Mail Messages Pursuant To Warrants.
• Sec. 212. Emergency Disclosure Of Electronic Communications To Protect Life And Limb.
• Sec. 214. Pen Register And Trap And Trace Authority Under Fisa.
• Sec. 215. Access To Records And Other Items Under The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
• Sec. 217. Interception Of Computer Trespasser Communications.
• Sec. 218. Foreign Intelligence Information.
• Sec. 220. Nationwide Service Of Search Warrants For Electronic Evidence.
• Sec. 223. Civil Liability For Certain Unauthorized Disclosures.

B. The following provision do not expire:

• Sec. 203(a),(c): Grand jury sharing of info
• Sec. 208. Designation Of Judges: increases number of FISA judges
• Sec. 210: ECPA Scope of Subpoenas for records of electronic communications--clearly allowing e-mails routing information :
• Sec. 211: ECPA Clarification of scope: privacy provisions of Cable Act overridden for communication services offered by cable providers (but not for records relating to cable viewing)
• Sec. 213: Sneak & Peek: delay notification of execution of a warrant
• Sec. 216: Modification of pen/trap authorities: (in original PATRIOT, would have sunsetted)
• Sec. 219: Single jurisdiction search warrants for terrorism
• Sec. 222 Assistance to law enforcement
  Sec. 225. Immunity For Compliance With Fisa Wiretap. Can continue all investigations active at the time of expiration.

[JD86]

For the record, I am not against the objectives of this bill nor am I against some of the changes made. What has always been my concern is : a. No one really knows what is in the bill; lack of specificity b. it is ripe for exploitation and manipulation by less than honorable gov't officials. It can and will be used against innocent citizens.

Thanks for the clarification. I was not aware of the two categories. I also agree with your analysis.

[exodus]

To: JD86
"But until someone from the government
asks you why....
the 4th Amendment does not apply."
# 176 by JD86
You're a lawyer?!
Assume government agents come into my house,
uninvited, without my permission.
They catalog all my possessions,
copy my hard drive, copy my written records,
and then distribute copies of all that
to any government agency that's interested
in seeing my collected personal data.
By your lawyerly reasoning,
that's not a search unless
they ask me to explain myself.
# 360 by exodus
*******************

"All of the comments I have made on this thread are about the Federal Patriot Act....
NOT about wild scenarios that people make up and say what if the government did this....???
Your comments above are a prime example....
if you can show me any language in the Patriot Act that allows the behavior in your hypothetical....
then I will respond.
Otherwise, your made up example has no value in this discussion."
************

Lawyer, are you telling me that you have never used a hypothetical argument in court? Jesus himself used hypothetical arguments that had no direct bearing on the question being addressed, but still served to provide understanding of the issue under discussion.

You, lawyer, are passing yourself off as an authority on the Constitution. You have not convinced me that you could pass a high school reading comprehension test. You ignore the context of my replies.

[JD86]

You, lawyer, are passing yourself off as an authority on the Constitution. You have not convinced me that you could pass a high school reading comprehension test. You ignore the context of my replies.

And your question is what exactly? Perhaps you could use little words so I will understand.

[exodus]

Lawyer,
look what you wrote in your second paragraph,
immediately after accusing me of a
"...made up example (that) has no value in this discussion..."

*******************

"...Let me try to give you an example for comparison.
Let us say we were discussing the right of a parent to discipline their child without government interference. Let us say my position was that the parents should be allowed to discipline the child. And then you ask well, what if they tie the child up and torture the child and then they kill the child and then they bury the child in the backyard...is that okay? Do you still believe parents can discipline the child? Obviously torture and murder are not within the realm of discipline considered appropriate by most parents. Your example is just as extreme. There is NOTHING in the Patriot Act about going into your house and doing ANYTHING so your example does not apply in this discussion.
# 361 by JD86
************

What?!

What possible relevance does an example of punishing a child
have in a discussion of the relationship
between the 4th Amendment and the un-Constitutional "Patriot Act?"

Is it possible that there is a place for parables in this discussion?

[exodus]

I love ya, JD86.

Don't fuss at me just because I don't agree with you.

[JD86]

You ignore the context of my replies.

And you ignore my answers. Since you didn't read it the first time. Here is a copy of my last response to you.

Let me try to give you an example for comparison. Let us say we were discussing the right of a parent to discipline their child without government interference. Let us say my position was that the parents should be allowed to discipline the child. And then you ask well, what if they tie the child up and torture the child and then they kill the child and then they bury the child in the backyard...is that okay? Do you still believe parents can discipline the child? Obviously torture and murder are not within the realm of discipline considered appropriate by most parents. Your example is just as extreme. There is NOTHING in the Patriot Act about going into your house and doing ANYTHING so your example does not apply in this discussion.

[JD86]

Nope...:) My hypothetical matches your hypothetical...about the limits on your "absolute" right to do whatever you want in your own home.
Neither your hypothetical nor my hypothetical have anything to do with the Patriot Act.

[exodus]

To: JD86
"...You ignore the context of my replies."
# 392 by exodus
*******************

And your question is what exactly?
Perhaps you could use little words so I will understand.
# 393 by JD86
************

That's another example of taking things out of context.

I didn't ask a question.
I made a statement.

[JD86]

I love ya, JD86.

You have a funny way of showing it....:)

[JD86]

I didn't ask a question. I made a statement.

That's why I am confused. I thought you were interested in my opinion. My mistake.