Does This Justify a "Told You So" Yet?

Julian Sanchez | November 7, 2005

So, one of the earlier Web pieces I wrote for Reason argued against PATRIOT Act apologists who thought civil libertarian "Chicken Littles" should shut up unless they could point to some way the powers it grants had been abused. The nature of the PATRIOT Act, I argued, made this an unfair burden of proof:

Of course, that's roughly what one should expect from a law distinguished by the amount of secrecy it imposes. [National Review Editor Rich] Lowry's demand amounts to: "Show me just one classified, top-secret abuse of power!" As such, the request is disingenuous at the very least. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a Freedom of Information Act request for information on the uses of PATRIOT powers last August, and was rebuffed. "It is literally impossible," observes ACLU staff attorney Jameel Jaffer, "to know in what contexts the government has used these powers unless they tell us of their own accord, which they have so far refused to do."

Well, a story in The Washington Post tries to present at least a rough picture of how the authority to demand records via National Security Letters has been used:

The FBI now issues more than 30,000 national security letters a year, according to government sources, a hundredfold increase over historic norms. The letters -- one of which can be used to sweep up the records of many people -- are extending the bureau's reach as never before into the telephone calls, correspondence and financial lives of ordinary Americans. [....]

The burgeoning use of national security letters coincides with an unannounced decision to deposit all the information they yield into government data banks -- and to share those private records widely, in the federal government and beyond. In late 2003, the Bush administration reversed a long-standing policy requiring agents to destroy their files on innocent American citizens, companies and residents when investigations closed. Late last month, President Bush signed Executive Order 13388, expanding access to those files for "state, local and tribal" governments and for "appropriate private sector entities," which are not defined. [....]

Senior FBI officials acknowledged in interviews that the proliferation of national security letters results primarily from the bureau's new authority to collect intimate facts about people who are not suspected of any wrongdoing. Criticized for failure to detect the Sept. 11 plot, the bureau now casts a much wider net, using national security letters to generate leads as well as to pursue them. Casual or unwitting contact with a suspect -- a single telephone call, for example -- may attract the attention of investigators and subject a person to scrutiny about which he never learns.

A national security letter cannot be used to authorize eavesdropping or to read the contents of e-mail. But it does permit investigators to trace revealing paths through the private affairs of a modern digital citizen. The records it yields describe where a person makes and spends money, with whom he lives and lived before, how much he gambles, what he buys online, what he pawns and borrows, where he travels, how he invests, what he searches for and reads on the Web, and who telephones or e-mails him at home and at work.

Maybe that doesn't count as an "abuse," at least as far as PATRIOT apologists are concerned, in the sense that it all appears to be within the letter of the law. But what the article describes is a process by which law enforcement is just scooping up data, not just on their initial targets or suspects, but on the suspects' friends and friends-of-friends... or maybe just anyone who's been in any kind of contact with the suspect. And that sounds to me like the definition of a fishing expedition.

Comments

|11.7.05 @ 6:28AM|#

I was waiting for y'all to go after that story.

|11.7.05 @ 6:38AM|#

Julian Sanchez,

Its the seeds of the leviathan-state that we all fear.

|11.7.05 @ 7:02AM|#

It just goes to show that in this day and age in has become impossible to be truly invisible unless you want to live without the modern conveniences of digital technology.

This kind of reminds me of an old episode of "The Simpsons" where one of the characters mentions how the government has been using old, discarded pennies to collect every citizen's DNA.

And, of course most law and order types wouldn't have a problem with this. To them, only the ones doing anything wrong have anything to fear. That excuse is just an arrogant proclaimantion that their ideals and attitudes are somehow exempt from suspicion by law enforcement. Most people with this mindset don't really care about what law enforcement does until it effects them personally. Then, everything is a grand injustice. And, law and order types are misguided enough not to realize they are essentially in the same boat as suspected criminals when it comes to their right to privacy. Attitudes like that are what allow things like this to happen.

|11.7.05 @ 7:42AM|#

None dare call it Stasi.

Warren|11.7.05 @ 8:03AM|#

"Only the guilty need fear", and there's nothing here to suggest otherwise. So no, this doesn�t count. Law enforcement knowing everything about everyone is the whole point. It's not an abuse of power unless some innocent is punished. And of course if you oppose the president, have sex for pleasure, or refuse to accept Jesus into your heart, well then you aren't truly innocent are you?

|11.7.05 @ 8:04AM|#

Since ordinary political action is clearly useless in the current climate of fear, it behooves all of us to gamble like mad, buy bizarre sex toys, and visit the weirdest possible pornographic websites, thus flooding the system with white noise and creeping out strait-laced FBI agents everywhere. (Not to mention giving us a noble reason to gamble, buy sex toys and look at porn - as if libertarians needed reasons beyond the obvious...)

|11.7.05 @ 8:18AM|#

TalkLeft has a post that is even more damning

|11.7.05 @ 8:41AM|#

Let me begin by saying I am 100% against the Patriot Act. But I think that defense of this would be: don't law enforcement agents do this when they might be suspicious of someone (maybe look at other public records, the old fashioned stake-out, etc.) anyway? I imagine they would say this is pretty much routine law enforcement.

|11.7.05 @ 8:46AM|#

If it's so bad then why aren't we violently overthrowing the government? Will someone let me know when we get to that point, please?

|11.7.05 @ 8:56AM|#

I suppose that one should be careful about what one types or says or does....or whatever, these days. You never know if Big Brother is watching. But I guess that is the whole point, isn't it?

It's sort of like telling a little kid that God sees everything so that he will behave even when an adult is not there to force him to behave. Except that in the case of the Government, well, we know that IT exists.

|11.7.05 @ 8:59AM|#

Of course, jw. Maybe the reason writers need to add into their posts things like "wink wink nudge nudge" to notify us of the appropriate time.

|11.7.05 @ 9:10AM|#

Ha! And I'm a regular at that Windsor, Connecticut, library mentioned in the article's first paragraph. So now when apologists ask me why I complain so much about the PATRIOT Act, I can honestly say that the FBI has likely used it to read MY private correspondence.

I hope it made their brains explode.

Oh, and in case you were wondering about the size of the huge Arab/Muslim community in Windsor--ain't hardly none to speak of. There are seasonal Mexican immigrants who harvest the tobacco fields (yes, there's a big tobacco crop in Connecticut, used mostly for cigar-wrapping), but this part of Connecticut isn't exactly a hotbed of immigrant activity. I don't know how the FBI reached the "conclusion" that Windsor was where the next big attack would be planned.

|11.7.05 @ 9:12AM|#

I can't help but think there should be a judge involved in the process somehow. And maybe something pertaining to probable cause. That's just me, though.

|11.7.05 @ 9:33AM|#

All right, I've had coffee and most of my synapses are firing and now I am furious. Windsor, Connecticut? What the hell? If this were about the FBI spying on people in some heavily-Arab area like Detroit--well, it would still be grossly un-Constitutional, but at least it would make a little sense. But boring-ass-white-enclave Wonderbread Windsor? They may as well go to Minnesota and infiltrate the Scandinavian-American club at Cornfed High School.

Let me guess--some FBI guy's promiscuous daughter was having sex with a boy from Windsor. Or maybe an agent with stalkerish tendencies was spying on his ex-wife. Whatever the hell it was, I'll bet it wasn't something which any reasonable person would say had a damned thing to do with national security.

Timothy|11.7.05 @ 9:39AM|#

Law enforcement knowing everything about everyone is the whole point. It's not an abuse of power unless some innocent is punished.

Yeah, because that could never go horribly awry!

|11.7.05 @ 9:43AM|#

Jennifer, it could be something even more insidious... like, say, an FBI agent reading Hit&Run, finding out that you were once an, ah, exotic dancer, and then using the long arm of the law to dig up pictures.

Any truth to the rumour that the much-missed "JenniCam" from Slashdot was actually in your house?

|11.7.05 @ 9:48AM|#

The records it yields describe where a person makes and spends money, with whom he lives and lived before, how much he gambles, what he buys online, what he pawns and borrows, where he travels, how he invests, what he searches for and reads on the Web, and who telephones or e-mails him at home and at work.

On a semi-related note, THIS is partially why I cancelled my credit cards and pay cash for everything--to leave slightly less of a paper trail. No, it's probably not a big deal for the government to know exactly how much I spend on hair-care products or what kind of soap I use--but it's nobody else's business, either.

I don't know if I should be creeped out or flattered by the thought of some FBI schmuck pulling down a full-time salary to keep track of the stereoscope cards and View-Masters I buy and sell on eBay.

Is Mona ever going to post again? I want her to explain to me why real libertarians don't mind if the government knows more about them than their own lifetime boyfriends do.

|11.7.05 @ 9:52AM|#

Any truth to the rumour that the much-missed "JenniCam" from Slashdot was actually in your house?

Lordy, no! I never used my real name!

|11.7.05 @ 9:56AM|#

it's probably not a big deal for the government to know exactly how much I spend on hair-care products or what kind of soap I use

On the other hand, knowing these dumbass narrow-minded schmucks, they probably DO think my soap is a big deal. "She uses glycerine soap! And glycerine is one-half of nitroglycerin, which is an explosive! And she just bought four bars at The Body Shop--why, she must be planning to blow up the Charter Oak Bridge! AAAAAAAGH!"

Damned right, you nosey bastards. All praises to Allah the merciful and beneficent.

|11.7.05 @ 9:59AM|#

Here's a good op/ed from today's Washington Times on the Patriot Act...

Our Liberties Under Siege

|11.7.05 @ 10:02AM|#

Man, Nixon is looking pretty good riight now. At least when he did something like this, he gave it an appropriate name: CREEP. When Bush does it, he calls it PATRIOT. Ugh.

|11.7.05 @ 10:03AM|#

If we're going to complain about this, we're going to need to show some actual harm beyond, "well, they're spying on me." The "If you're innocent" argument that we all sneer at does raise a valid question-just what is it that we fear. In concrete terms, what is the harm?

|11.7.05 @ 10:06AM|#

If we're going to complain about this, we're going to need to show some actual harm beyond, "well, they're spying on me."

Does actual harm to the Fourth Amendment count?

|11.7.05 @ 10:19AM|#

Steven Crane- No, unless you can demonstrate how that creates actual harm to cititzens.
To clarify-the question is whether government surveilance of individuals creates a tangible problem. To say those actions violate the 4th Amendment is sort of begging the question.

Jeff P.|11.7.05 @ 10:22AM|#

Actually Jen, there are a LOT of Arabs in Windsor, as well as Suffield, Windsor Locks and East Windsor. Remember all the neighbors we had? WIth the women walking behind the men?
The Hartford Courant did a story about the rapidly growing Arab population, spurred on mostly by tech jobs in the Windsor/Bloomfield area. I'll look for it.
Secondly, within five miles of Windsor you have an international airport, an Air National Guard unit, a division of fighter planes, an AWAC unit, and one of the hubs for the NWS Doppler radar network for the eastern seaboard. There's also a lot of secure archiving done in Windsor by TRW and other companies.

|11.7.05 @ 10:25AM|#

If we're going to complain about this, we're going to need to show some actual harm beyond, "well, they're spying on me."

No, we aren't going to need to show any such thing. The government is going to need to demonstrate the absolute necessity to perform their duties in this manner.

The state exists for my goddamned benefit, and it is accountable to me, not vice versa.

|11.7.05 @ 10:26AM|#

Jeff--

Our neighbors were Indians. The kind from India. Forehead-dotted and everything.

|11.7.05 @ 10:27AM|#

Well, counselor, I know you are merely performing a time honored Catholic tradition, but -

If there is no valid interest in keeping your identity and life story private, then you should be happy to post your name, phone number, address, social security number, children's names, ages, and sex, etc. Further, you have no right to require permission to use your image, name or likeness in advertising.

Either you own your identity and private details, or you don't. Furthermore, either there is a value in privacy, or there is none. If you advocate that there is some value in privacy, no matter how little, non-consensual violation of privacy is a harm to the person.

The fourth amendment explicitly endorses the value of being secure in papers, etc. So it is not begging the question, it is putting the burden in the right place - on the person claiming that the 4th amendment is worthless ink on a piece of paper.

|11.7.05 @ 10:28AM|#

peachy,

Since ordinary political action is clearly useless in the current climate of fear, it behooves all of us to gamble like mad, buy bizarre sex toys, and visit the weirdest possible pornographic websites, thus flooding the system with white noise

This may be our only real way to fight back.

And now you know what stocks to invest in. :)


Attourney,

The "If you're innocent" argument that we all sneer at does raise a valid question-just what is it that we fear. In concrete terms, what is the harm?

How about law enforcement getting their intelligence on somebody horribly wrong? Or do you think the track record is clean enough that they can argue "we've never, ever done that before?"

But to try and be concrete, there is another aspect to this. Why does the idea of Big Brother creep everybody out so much?

Part of it is the fact that if Big Brother exists, then you are subject to the whims of whatever laws legislatures may pass. And those laws often are not rational.

Basically, Big Brother can make it impossible for people to engage in civil disobedience of stupid laws.

Which means, basically we are NOT FREE anymore. "The consent of the governed" is an empty phrase.

Which means, if they pass a law explicitly saying that all good Americans are some kind of Christian, you are at minimum suspect for not fitting the bill. Which now at least increases the odds that they'll get other "intelligence" on you wrong.

Unless you think they can argue -- successfully -- that nobody in law enforcement has ever been prejudiced?

Does that answer your question, attourney?

Jeff P.|11.7.05 @ 10:29AM|#

Jen: Yes, and there were a lot of arabs as well.

|11.7.05 @ 10:33AM|#

Jeff--

Our neighbors were Sikhs. But of course, there's already been cases of our dumbass government not knowing the difference between a Sikh and an Arab. Hell, I'm surprised I haven't been investigated--as a non-blonde, I apparently fit the goddamned profile, too.

|11.7.05 @ 10:34AM|#

If it's so bad then why aren't we violently overthrowing the government?

Because, despite all of patriotic smack-talk, American's, like most humans on this planet, don't really give a damn about freedom. What they care about is safety. As long as the paychecks keep coming in and there is something to watch on TV, you could put the entire Bill Of Rights into a paper shredder and no one would care. As long as they're not the one's being sent off to the secret CIA gulags, then it's OK by them. After all, it's to fight terrorism. You DO remember 9-11... DON'T YOU???

We've truly gotten to the point that Ben Franklin warned us about. The American people deserve neither liberty nor safety. If that is so, then this country deserves to burn.

|11.7.05 @ 10:34AM|#

JimL,

"don't law enforcement agents do this when they might be suspicious of someone (maybe look at other public records, the old fashioned stake-out, etc.) anyway?"

No. Mere suspicion on the part of law enforcement is only enough to allow them to look at things in plain sight - as you say, stakeouts and research on public records. The article describes actions that go well beyond that standard. In a more civilized time, such searches required a warrant.

|11.7.05 @ 10:35AM|#

We've truly gotten to the point that Ben Franklin warned us about.

I'm afraid you're right, Akira.

|11.7.05 @ 10:36AM|#

"Unless you think they can argue -- successfully -- that nobody in law enforcement has ever been prejudiced?"

If I can summarize - just because a human becomes part of the government does not instantly transform him into a deity. So, giving a human being these unlimited powers is wrong if that human being can use them for personal gain or, even worse, abuse them for mere spite.

Have I ever told you the story about the local police officer who had a crush on a local college student - she spurned his advances? The cover-up and "jurisdiction shifting" the police engaged in makes the Catholic clergy scandal look benign. And he's still an officer, while she lost a LOT of money (she had to pay for her own attornies, while we the people paid for the DA and township solicitors that worked for him).

|11.7.05 @ 10:36AM|#

Quasibill- The danger in posting my name, social, etc is that a criminal could use that information to take on my identity. Since we're talking about the government here, I don't thing that's a concern.
Your comments about ownership of one's self and the concommitant right to privacy make sense, but I'd have to suggest that any rational values hierarchy will place avoidance of being killed by terrorists above an abstract ideal like priavacy. All values are meaningless if you're dead, after all.

|11.7.05 @ 10:37AM|#

Akira,

This phrase caught my attention:

"the secret CIA gulags"

Now that we know that such places exist, and that some of them are actually located in facilities that used to be run by Soviet Bloc secret police, there are a whole lot of mofos who owe Amnesty International a big apology.

|11.7.05 @ 10:38AM|#

you know, guys, I'm not exactly a libertarian, but I'm willing to come on board with this whole let's-confuse-the-gummint by buying sex toys and gambling thing. I think this could be a cross-party winner.

|11.7.05 @ 10:39AM|#

Akira,

There is one slight difference between back then and now, and I think it's not irrelevant. Back then, if we won the fight, then we had our country, to fight over amongst ourselves.

Today, if we fought it would be a civil war. What we would "have" at the end? What do you get in the end, when it's a 50-50 split among the people, or something close enough to it?

One would have to wonder about that. Fighting for a good cause, with a reasonable prospect of happiness at the other end, is one thing. But people are much less likely to stand up for the cause, if the outcome of standing up isn't likely to be anything good anyway.

Doesn't change your point, it's just a motivating factor that I think is relevant.

|11.7.05 @ 10:39AM|#

"...there are a whole lot of mofos who owe Amnesty International a big apology."

Indeed they do. I myself, don't remember ever bashing them, but if I ever did: I'm sorry.

|11.7.05 @ 10:41AM|#

Councillor,

While "not being killed by terrorists" will certainly trump "privacy" on the heirarchy, those aren't the values here. They are allowing the collection of records of innocent people, and the retention and use of those records even after they've been proven innocent. This clearly has very little counterterror value.

"A tiny, insignificant chance of preventing terrorism" most certainly does not trump "the certainty of many people's privacy being violated."

And to pre-empt the most obvious rejoinder, if the situation is much more clear cut, and the counter-terror utility of the search significanty stonger than I describe, then there will be enough probably cause to get a judicial warrant as the founders intended, and it's all good.

|11.7.05 @ 10:42AM|#

"If it's so bad then why aren't we violently overthrowing the government?"

It's one of the questions I ask libertarian hawks who claim that the collateral damage in Iraq would have gladly voluntarily sacrificed their lives in the effort to get rid of tyrrany. If you really think that our tax schemes, eminent domain, economic regulation, are so wrong, by that logic, you should be happy to sacrifice yourself. And in fact, I encourage them to.

It takes a special kind of person to be willing to die for a cause. And by that, I mean young, single, and usually male. Other people make do with the hand they've been dealt, and fight back in the small, less costly ways that they know.

Tyrranies, like empires, always subside eventually.

|11.7.05 @ 10:45AM|#

"Since we're talking about the government here, I don't thing that's a concern."

Why not? Does being a government employee turn one immediately into Gabriel, or Michael? Furthermore, does it make any difference to the innocent person robbed or killed whether the aggressor had good intentions? Should we give Mao a pass, because he had the greater good in mind?

|11.7.05 @ 10:45AM|#

. . . but I'd have to suggest that any rational values hierarchy will place avoidance of being killed by terrorists above an abstract ideal like priavacy.

That rests on several assumptions not proven by the facts, like, f'rinstance:

-- That the real chance of being killed by terrorists on U.S. soil is both nonzero and nontrivial, and

-- That these activities will actually have any effect whatsoever on what that number is, and

-- That there is not another effective way to accomplish the same ends that doesn't entail ignoring the Fourth Amendment away as an inconvenience.

|11.7.05 @ 10:45AM|#

To amplify on joe's point, indiscriminate privacy violations not only fail to make us safer, they amount to misuse of scarce resources, diverting resources from more effective uses.

|11.7.05 @ 10:48AM|#

Should we give Mao a pass, because he had the greater good in mind?

Good point. Fact is, even in a democracy you have an exceedingly limited power as an individual to choose who rules over you, and what laws get passed.

|11.7.05 @ 10:50AM|#

BTW, I do respect the Devil's Advocate for raising questions. Certainly there are trade-offs, and he asks questions that are worth considering. I just think that even after considering his questions the civil liberties people are still right.

|11.7.05 @ 10:50AM|#

"Your comments about ownership of one's self and the concommitant right to privacy make sense, but I'd have to suggest that any rational values hierarchy will place avoidance of being killed by terrorists above an abstract ideal like priavacy"

Any the likelihood of you being killed by a terrorist here in these united states is slightly below the likelihood of you being killed by a bee sting.

I've got it! A War on Bees! 7 Billion a month to defend ourselves from bees! Plus, random searches of every residence and person to make sure they don't have a bee on them! It's a rational hierarchy of values, after all, because you're just as dead after an allergic reaction to a bee sting as if you are killed by a terrorist...

|11.7.05 @ 10:58AM|#

"A tiny, insignificant chance of preventing terrorism" most certainly does not trump "the certainty of many people's privacy being violated."

Which, on another topic, is also why people like me oppose the random-bag-searches on subways.

|11.7.05 @ 10:58AM|#

I've got it! A War on Bees! 7 Billion a month to defend ourselves from bees! Plus, random searches of every residence and person to make sure they don't have a bee on them! It's a rational hierarchy of values, after all, because you're just as dead after an allergic reaction to a bee sting as if you are killed by a terrorist...

Perhaps it would be better if we learned not to go poking our figurative noses into hornets nests to begin with. That's one way to avoid being stung.

|11.7.05 @ 11:04AM|#

The danger in posting my name, social, etc is that a criminal could use that information to take on my identity. Since we're talking about the government here, I don't thing that's a concern.

State of Ohio liquor license enforcement officers stole the identity of a woman in order to place an 'agent' in a strip club (can't seem to include a link here, Google on 'Ohio State Liquor Identity Theft'). I believe a single counterexample is adequate to refute your point.

Your comments about ownership of one's self and the concommitant right to privacy make sense, but I'd have to suggest that any rational values hierarchy will place avoidance of being killed by terrorists above an abstract ideal like priavacy.

You need to take into account the likelihood of the government violating your privacy vs. the likelihood of being killed be a terrorist. Furthermore, the decision you present is a subjective judgement; not everyone may make the same choice you do, just like some people go cliff diving or drive race cars, etc.

|11.7.05 @ 11:07AM|#

but I'd have to suggest that any rational values hierarchy will place avoidance of being killed by terrorists above an abstract ideal like priavacy.

I heard the same basic argument from people who insisted there was nothing wrong with the New York cops making random bag searches a requirement for anyone who wants to ride the subway. Translated, it means: "You have to give up various freedoms because I am a fucking coward. The loss of your privacy will make me feel a little bit better, at least until the government scares me with the next bugaboo."

|11.7.05 @ 11:11AM|#

Lost in the general complaining about random bag searches in NYC is the fact that the burden and nuisance falls mainly on women, who carry bags far more often than men.

|11.7.05 @ 11:12AM|#

Holy shit. In other news, Bush is lecturing Venezuela on what it means to be a democracy. Here's a cut and paste which, in true Dave Barry fashion, I Am Not Making Up:

Eyeing three upcoming presidential elections in Latin America, Bush said citizens must choose "between two competing visions" for their future.

One, he said, pursues representative government, integration into the world community and freedom's transformative power for individuals.

"The other seeks to roll back the democratic progress of the past two decades by playing to fear, pitting neighbor against neighbor and blaming others for their own failures to provide for the people," he said. "We must make tough decisions today to ensure a better tomorrow."

Yeah, Bush-baby, tell me about it. God, I HATE it when people try to roll back democratic progress by pitting neighbors against each other and blaming their own failures on others.

|11.7.05 @ 11:13AM|#

"Fact is, even in a democracy you have an exceedingly limited power as an individual to choose who rules over you, and what laws get passed."

the smaller the democracy, the better off you are in that respect. Which is one reason I'm a committed defender of federalism in the context of a democracy, and would take it even further to the municipal level, if possible. The fewer people voting, the more power each voter has, and the less it will cost the voter to escape to another jurisidiction if tyrrany of the majority ensues...

|11.7.05 @ 11:14AM|#

I would have to start the argument on consistency grounds.

It seems inconsistent to me that a right to privacy establishes a right to an abortion free from government interference, but that a right to privacy does not establish protection from government investigation in the absence of proabable cause. To paraphrase Fessig (sp?), "Privacy - You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means." The harm here is that there is a weakening almost to meaninglessness of a right to privacy that is used as the basis for a broad swath of assumed rights.

It seems inconsistent that law enforcement in every other case is required to demonstrate probable cause prior to stopping your car, tapping your phone, or even collecting your emails, but that the issuance of a Magic Letter disolves completely this requirement. I can't see how an exception of this breadth can be reconciled with constitutional protections as they have evolved to be understood. This is an area where libertarians don't need to pine for a more rational common understanding of the constitution, these provisions seem at odds with the current model.

It seems inconsistent that a government can pass banking laws that prohibit the disclosing of personal finanancial information on the grounds that such disclosures would not reasonably protect information every American rightfully assumes is private, then turn around and demand that same information in the absence of proable cause.

As for the values hierarchy, 'being killed by terrorists' does not have a probability of 1 in the absence of the Magic Letter of 4th Amendment Dissolution, but loss of assumed levels of privacy under current law, loss of the presumption of innocence, and loss of constitutional protection against unreasonable searches have a probability of 1 if such letters are permitted in current form. Even if you are going to be utilitarian in the most simplistic framing of the argument, you have a lot of guaranteed losses for every American and only a probability of effective denial of terrorist strikes that would only have a small probability of hurting each American if they actually came to fruition.

Viking Moose|11.7.05 @ 11:15AM|#

This sentence in Julian's presentation is a good description of how those "in favor" react:

"Maybe that doesn't count as an "abuse," at least as far as PATRIOT apologists are concerned, in the sense that it all appears to be within the letter of the law"

Each stage of this operation has involved exposure of strecthes (direct threat to us soil has turned into "shot at our no fly zone planes", WMDs has turned to "programs" to "wanted" to "salt shakers filled with pepper" and "white shoes after labor day"), but those who have been in favor are so entrenched of their internet tough guy law enforcement, their kickin' towel head ass, and the like, it's gonna be interesting to see what changes their minds so they can see the threat THEIR OWN FUCKING policies are causing us.

President Hilary? maybe. but all of those militia idiots who were afraid of gov't power would probably be just as afraid if the DoJ were still focused on them.

Jennifer's translation works perfectly. And these fucking cowards sure are armchair tough guys. they probably go to UFC competitions and put on air moves to their friends to show what Kid Shaleen SHOULD have done instead.

|11.7.05 @ 11:24AM|#

You have nothing to fear.

Timothy|11.7.05 @ 11:31AM|#

Hell, I'm surprised I haven't been investigated--as a non-blonde, I apparently fit the goddamned profile, too.

That reminds me, on my most recent trip from Eugene, OR back to San Antonio after visiting my girlfriend for her birthday (and engaging in many pre-marital acts of coitus, take that FBI!), my bag was entirely searched by TSA. At the Eugene, OR airport. True, I am a single male travelling alone, but my ticket was purchased almost six months in advance. The folks at the gate desperately wanted to search my carry-on, but I didn't have one, and I fly often enough where I have the item-removal routine down pat.

The TSA bastards didn't even have the consideration to put the damn name tag back on my bag (I used it for holding the zippers closed), or to zip up my damn shaving kit. I opened my back when I got home to discover my toothpaste, shaving cream, and razor floating around amongst the clothing, they'd also left my ipod and digicam on the outside of the soft-sided duffel, when I'd wrapped them in clothing to protect them.

Had to be done though, because white guys with German last names who fly between Oregon and Texas (four times this year) could be terrorists!

|11.7.05 @ 11:33AM|#

Not trying to start a mini-flame war here, but I have a serious question: some people posting here in opposition to this PATRIOT Act abuse nonetheless posted in favor of the New York cops' random bag searches on the subway. (I'm not listing names, but y'all know who you are.)

If you wouldn't mind answering this question, I am curious: do you still think the random bag searches are okay, or does this Internet surveillance thing make you more suspicious of government anti-privacy actions in the guise of "anti-terrorism?" Basically I'm wondering where exactly the line is drawn, to make someone switch from "Well, it's okay since it's For our Own Good" to "Oh, the hell with this!"

MP|11.7.05 @ 11:43AM|#

Had to be done though, because white guys with German last names who fly between Oregon and Texas (four times this year) could be terrorists!

Not that this justifies the TSA, but never forget that the baddies got on a plane in Bangor, ME for 9/11.

|11.7.05 @ 11:44AM|#

"Basically I'm wondering where exactly the line is drawn, to make someone switch from "Well, it's okay since it's For our Own Good" to "Oh, the hell with this!""

Well, to play J...er the anonymous advocate, there IS a distinction in principle, if not in practice. A person could always avoid the subway if they didn't want to get searched. So, if the subway (which should be privately owned) demanded the searches as a condition of entrance, then it is okay. But the privately owned part is important - the subway would have to pay the price for it's consumer unfriendly policies in the form of lower ridership and increased costs (especially personnel). As it is now, we subsidize the subway, not only in direct payments, but through the use of police to provide this function.

The internet stuff is another matter. If your ISP has a privacy policy, it should follow the privacy policy. That's part of the contract that you signed. And plus, you have no way of avoiding it - the government claims this power over all ISPs, etc.

So, there is a distinction in theory, even if in fact it is lost because the government owns the subway and provides the personnel for the searches at no cost to the subway.

|11.7.05 @ 11:46AM|#

Jennifer, on the NYC bag searches:

At the time they began, there was an ongoing campaing of subway bombings in London. This increases the value of Variable #1, "chance of preventing terrorism," in our equation.

Now that such fears have not been realized, and there doesn't seem to be any specific, credible threat, that value is lower, and I would say the searches are wrong under the existing circumstances.

Timothy|11.7.05 @ 11:55AM|#

And how many of them were native-born US citizens who don't even have a passport and have taken six round-trip flights this year alone? Not to mention my obvious whiteness and the frickin' German last name.

The point is that random serches are crap. Search everyone's bag if you feel like it (although I'm betting a private corporation could do it better for cheaper), but don't randomly select them, and at least have some goddamn courtesy. And as far as passengers go, I've had the metal in my glasses frames set off those damn detectors before, and they've x-rayed everything you carry for years now, so random searches of passengers are also crap.

|11.7.05 @ 11:57AM|#

Joe--

So for you, opposition to random bag searches is more a matter of timing than a matter of either the idea itself, or possible consequences (like this thread-topic) thereof?

QB--
A person could always avoid the subway if they didn't want to get searched. So, if the subway (which should be privately owned) demanded the searches as a condition of entrance, then it is okay.

But in the case of the government/police doing such things, on the theory that it's for our own safety, then the voluntariness of the whole thing negated any value of it anyway. I mean, really: who among you supporters thought a guy carrying an actual bomb would hand his bag and bomb over to a cop?

So you're advocating police action that wouldn't even work. And in practice, to say "You're perfectly free to live in New York, we just won't let you take the subway without being harassed" is almost like saying "You're perfectly free to live in America, we just won't let you take the roads anywhere without being harassed."

Don't let semantics and hairsplitting cloud the issue of whether or not actual real-world freedoms and rights are vanishing.

|11.7.05 @ 12:00PM|#

Jennifer,

Not "timing." Circumstances. But yes, actions by the government that are inappropriate in some situations are appropriate in others.

|11.7.05 @ 12:00PM|#

Jason Ligon,

It seems inconsistent that law enforcement in every other case is required to demonstrate probable cause prior to stopping your car, tapping your phone, or even collecting your emails, but that the issuance of a Magic Letter disolves completely this requirement.

Well, there are exceptions to the above, and in this case the government would say that this differs because the information can't be used against you in court. Then of course there is the practical issue of what the hell are you going to do about an illegal search anyway? You can argue that its fruit of the poisoned tree of course, bu there are many exemptions to that concept. You can also try to bring a Bivens action if the case against you falls apart; but lord, good luck winning that case.

joe and a heck of lot of other people here have some funny ideas as to how evidence is actually used in American courts, for the most part illegally gathered evidenced enters the record much of the time, and even when it isn't, evidence that is gathered as a result of the illegal evidence gathering also generally comes in.

I can't see how an exception of this breadth can be reconciled with constitutional protections as they have evolved to be understood.

The government would say that as its not directly used in a case against you, they should be given more leeway, and the courts 99% of the time bow to their discretion.

This is an area where libertarians don't need to pine for a more rational common understanding of the constitution, these provisions seem at odds with the current model.

|11.7.05 @ 12:03PM|#

Also Jennifer and Timothy, the effectiveness of random searches is not in their likelihood of foiling an attack, but in deterring one. After the Lockerbie Pan Am bombing, the FAA set up a system of random searches of checked baggage - not universal searches, but random searches. And there hasn't been an attempt to bomb a plane by putting a device in a checked bag since.

|11.7.05 @ 12:03PM|#

Not to mention my obvious whiteness and the frickin' German last name.

Good thing there have never been any reply to this