Part of Patriot Act Overturned by Judge

Brian Doherty | September 7, 2007

Nice work, Judge Victor Marrero. From PC World, the District Court judge from New York's southern district said in a decision yesterday that:

the Patriot Act provision that allows the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation to obtain ISP and telecom subscribers' billing, calling and Web surfing records without court approval violates the U.S. Constitution.

Marrero ordered the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice to stop issuing so-called national security letters, or NSLs, requiring ISPs to turn over subscriber records. The NSL program prohibited ISPs from telling customers that they were being investigated.

Marrero delayed the order pending a DOJ appeal of his decision.

The NSL program under the Patriot Act violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as a restraint on free speech, the judge said in his 107-page order. The program also bypasses judicial oversight of the requests, Marrero said.

The NSL program could allow the FBI to unmask the identity of Internet users posting anonymous comments, obtain all of the e-mail messages of an Internet user, and even find out all the Web sites a user has visited, Marrero said.

"In light of the seriousness of the potential intrusion into the individual's personal affairs and the significant possibility of a chilling effect on speech and association -- particularly of expression that is critical of the government or its policies -- a compelling need exists to ensure that the use of NSLs is subject to the safeguards of public accountability," the judge wrote.

The DOJ is reviewing the decision and considering its options, a spokesman said.

Comments

|9.7.07 @ 12:29PM|#

Why does Judge Victor Marrero hate America?

|9.7.07 @ 12:34PM|#

Yeah, that'll never fly.

|9.7.07 @ 12:36PM|#

Hey finally a judge that appears to have heard of that document called the Constitution. I say appears because he is offering them a chance to appeal and put us back on the fast track to a police state.

|9.7.07 @ 12:42PM|#

In the wake of this order, there may possibly be a likelihood that a chance exists that some Americans may die as a direct or indirect result of a terrorist attack or criminal act that can be linked to terrorism through genealogy and molecular taxidermy.

|9.7.07 @ 1:12PM|#

I can't wait to see what LGF has to say about this. Or Ann Coulter. Or Rush Limbaugh.

|9.7.07 @ 1:15PM|#

Rush might not say much. A NSL could be used for narco-terrorist purposes involving oxycotin.

I'll bet SCOTUS upholds this ruling.

|9.7.07 @ 1:17PM|#

""Hey finally a judge that appears to have heard of that document called the Constitution.""

That should confuse the people on Capitol hill.

|9.7.07 @ 1:26PM|#

"Outside Independence Hall when the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended, Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

If indeed.

|9.7.07 @ 1:26PM|#

HA HA HA

dhex|9.7.07 @ 1:32PM|#

yay!

|9.7.07 @ 1:33PM|#

And I've visited the Hizbullah website. Also Nazi, the KKK, the democratic party, and other subversive organization websites. The government doesn't need to know this, do they?

|9.7.07 @ 2:02PM|#

The question we need to address, is how much information is too much for government?

|9.7.07 @ 2:41PM|#

They can type a line saying Bin Laden determined to strike in US using airplanes, and still be fooled, what they hell are they possibly going to gleen from my google records?

|9.7.07 @ 2:46PM|#

Have any of the candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul, of course) come out against the USAPATRIOT Act?

I try to pay attention to them all, but it's taxing...

|9.7.07 @ 3:52PM|#

The google search as we know it may not be the same provided to law enforcement. However, it's the Lexis Nexus, choice point, and other information clearinghouses that a problem. Would it be right for a cop to look at your credit history, land ownership, and such when your pulled over for speeding? Would it be ok for a judge to look at that information to determine a sentence? 20 years ago that would be called paranoid, but it's a stones throw away now.

When you look at how many people are embracing the all knowing government, it supports Kerry Howley's it's coming so get use to philosophy. Some of us may disagree, but the general public seem to want it.

|9.7.07 @ 4:11PM|#

The question we need to address, is how much information is too much for government?

Although I won't attempt to describe what the government's legitimate info requirements are (limited time) let me do the ol' personal anecdote routine.
In 2000 CE, My late wife and I recieved a census form. Constituionally, the government was required to enumerate the residents in the United States. There were many questions on it. We gave them our age, sex and nothing else in the way of information. Amazingly enough the government was still able to count everybody in our house. I hope that explains where I'm coming from on government information requirements.

|9.7.07 @ 5:18PM|#

Good enough. I also remember the government trying to calm peoples fears by declaring it wouldn't be available to law enforcement. And now I believe the census bureau is part of what agency? Homeland Security.

|9.7.07 @ 5:20PM|#

Of course I meant that as a general quesion we all should be asking and answering. The lack of doing so will lead us down a probably irreversable path.