Patriot Act takes a hitFollow

Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision






Sounds good to me, but then I'm just a gullible victim of the liberal media.

Holy Shit Batman!

And here I thought the idea was to catch terroists.

But it seems they can unconstitutionally find out what I bought on ebay...

At least I think that's what it means...

Then you are ignorant of the Act. Terrorists was only one stated reason for the Act. Much of it has to do with internet legistlation just like this one. *needed* internet regulation, I might add.

And while it's nice to think that there's something "evil" about big brother trying to get your info on the net, this isn't really anything nasty. It's the normal process of a new technology being tested for constitutionality. Until someone passes a law, or tries to use a power, the courts can't rule on it, and no one knows where we stand. We went through the same process with the telephone during the first half of last century.

In the same way we could not know if it was legal for someone to wiretap a phone until someone tried it, we also don't know what's "ok", nor do we know what exact protections we have, until such things are tested in court. Again. This is a normal part of the process with a new technology. It's a good thing that we're getting these laws passed, and then testing them. Until then, we'll continue to have copyright infringement going wild, and child pornography, and spamming, and email fraud, and a zillion other private abuses of the internet. Until law enforcement knows what they can and can't do, they have a hard time doing anything about these issues.

Really? So the 4th amendment spectifically says that if you store an email on a server that's not owned by you, the owner of the server can't be served a warrant for the contents of the email?


The grey areas with regards to the internet and privacy are vast Smash. The huge problem we've had over the last decade is that *no one* knows what is legal and what isn't.

This is made more confusing because in the past, the FCC has regulated communication by categorizing them as either broadcast or "print" media. Which is a post on this forum? Technically, when I post something, I'm sending it out where anyone can read it. That matches the definition of a broadcast. By that definition, you are in violation of FCC rules by broadcasting profanity.

Print media is defined as something that an individual must chose to pick up and read. Well, that sorta matches what we're doing here too, right? After all, no one's forcing you to click on that page and read it. So, it's print media? Well, in that case, it's perfectly ok to swear all you want. Just put a warning label or something on it.

Oh. Then there's the issue of ownership. Does Alla own your post? Or do you? Who's responsible for the content? Can Alla be arrested if someone posts their plot to assassinate the president on his site? Can we arrest the person(s) who posted it? Who's legally responsible for this stuff?

Huge grey areas Smash. It's really not as simple as "The 4th amendment says you can't search/seize my property without due process". Heck. You can't even prove it is your property.

Yes. And that wasn't accepted law until this ruling. Get it? That's the way the court sytem works here in America...

The point being that it's not "evil" to test new communications technologies in court. It's how we establish the law in this country. Everyone points to certain portions of the Patriot Act and says: "OMG! How could those evil <bleep> pass such a horrible law!". My response from day one has been that the parts that are unconstitutional will be struck down, and the result will be that we have a clearer view of what law enforcement can and can't do in terms of internet communication. And that's a good thing. It's something we've been struggling with since the tech came about. Until we pass laws like this and have them tested in court, we will never be able to adequately manage content on the internet. This is just part of that process.


If you want some history on the subject and how it applies to past technologies, read Privacy on the Wire by Diffie and some other guy (I've got the book at home). They do a really good job of showing the similarities and differences between internet commuications and past media (like phones), and the difficulties presented both to law enforcement and to private individuals on the net. It's really not as cut and dried as a lot of people think it is, and what's needed is *more* laws to be tested, not fewer.

the thing is:

If you really are doing nothing wrong, why should you care?
Waht are you hiding???

Are your hands clean?

...

You're crazy.