Hey rev it's probable cause not probably cause.
When I die I'm sure to go to heaven, cause I spent my time in hell.
You get more with a kind word and a two by four, than you do with just a kind word.
Mr. P.,
Laugh, cry, jump out the window. It kinda sums up how I feel a lot of days
If that's the only spelling or grammar issue you were able to find then I'm doing a lot better than usual.
--------
Alright
Patriot act abuses, there's some in all forms here are a few .. for starters
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2003...feds-in-probe/
Patriot Act aided feds in probe
Jace Radke
Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2003 | 11:19 a.m.
Federal officials used the Patriot Act to get financial records for current and former politicians as part of the ongoing political corruption probe involving strip club owner Michael Galardi's influence, sources said.
Among those whose records were accessed were Clark County Commission Chairwoman Mary Kincaid-Chauncey, former commissioners Dario Herrera, Erin Kenny and Lance Malone, Las Vegas City Councilman Michael Mack and former Councilman Michael McDonald, sources said.
It wasn't clear what the documents were but sources said the documents were related to the political corruption probe and Galardi's attempts to sway several politicians. All but Mack have been identified as potential targets or subjects of the investigation.
FBI spokesman Jim Stern confirmed Monday that the U.S. Patriot Act was used to obtain financial information in the political corruption investigation.
"A section of the Patriot Act was used appropriately by the FBI and clearly within the legal parameters of the statute," Stern told the Sun.
According to the Patriot Act's provisions the Treasury Department can request information from financial institutions, such as banks, in investigations dealing with suspected terrorists or money launderers...http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/200...dge_orders_fb/
Terror arrests devolving to charges on lesser crimes
President pushes Patriot Act with numbers that are misleading
Dan Eggen, Julie Tate, Washington Post
washington post June 12, 2005 04:00 AM Copyright washington post.
Sunday, June 12, 2005
...Flanked by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Bush said that "federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half of those charged have been convicted."..
...An analysis of the Justice Department's list of terrorism prosecutions by the Washington Post shows that 39 people -- not 200 -- have been convicted of crimes related to terrorism or national security.
Most of the others were convicted of relatively minor crimes such as making false statements and violating immigration law -- and had nothing to do with terrorism, the analysis shows. Overall, the median sentence was just 11 months.
Taken as a whole, the data indicate that identifying terrorists in the United States has been less successful than the government has often suggested. The statistics provide little support for the suggestion that authorities have discovered and prosecuted hundreds of terrorists. Except for a small number of well-known cases -- such as truck driver Iyman Faris, who sought to take down the Brooklyn Bridge -- few appear to have been involved in active plots against the United States.
Few terror ties
In fact, among all the people charged as a result of terrorism investigations in the three years after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Post found no demonstrated connection to terrorism or terrorist groups for 180 of them.
Just one in nine individuals on the list had an alleged connection to the al Qaeda terrorist network and only 14 people convicted of terrorism-related crimes -- including Faris and convicted Sept. 11 plotter Zacarias Moussaoui -- have clear links to the group. Many more cases involve Colombian drug cartels, supporters of the Palestinian cause, Rwandan war criminals or others with no apparent ties to al Qaeda or its leader, Osama bin Laden.
Many people appear to have been swept into U.S. counterterrorism investigations by chance -- through anonymous tips, suspicious circumstances or bad luck -- and have remained classified as terrorism defendants years after being cleared of connections to extremist groups.
For example, the prosecution of 20 men, most of them Iraqis, in a Pennsylvania truck-licensing scam accounts for about 10 percent of individuals convicted -- even though the entire group was publicly absolved of ties to terrorism in 2001.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz0uQAZyR5G
...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01...r_man_charged/Originally Posted by www.wired.com
Originally Posted by the register ukOriginally Posted by AP
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12...dt_on_privacy/
Google chief: Only miscreants worry about net privacy
'If you don't want anyone to know, don't do it'
By Cade Metz in San Francisco • Get more from this author
Posted in Music and Media, 7th December 2009 19:56 GMT
Free whitepaper – The Reg Guide to Solutions for the Virtual Era
If you're concerned about Google retaining your personal data, then you must be doing something you shouldn't be doing. At least that's the word from Google CEO Eric Schmidt.
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," Schmidt tells CNBC, sparking howls of incredulity from the likes of Gawker.
But the bigger news may be that Schmidt has actually admitted there are cases where the search giant is forced to release your personal data.
"If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."
There's also the possibility of subpoenas. And hacks. But if any of this bothers you, you should be ashamed of yourself. According to Eric Schmidt....
Gawker highlights the irony of Schmidt's typically haughty proclamations. After all, this is the man who banned CNet for a year after the news site published information about him it had gleaned from, yes, Google....
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/20/fbi_phone/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09..._act_mayfield/Originally Posted by the register
But Is it an abuse if you can't prosecute the gov't for it?Federal judge slams Patriot Act
Feds push for new, zestier Fourth Amendment
By Burke Hansen in San Francisco • Get more from this author
Posted in Law, 27th September 2007 10:39 GMT
A federal judge today struck down provisions of the Patriot Act as unconstitutional, adding fuel to the politically charged debate over the controversial law.
US District Judge Ann Aiken slammed Patriot Act amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) for eviscerating the Fourth Amendment to the American Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects against unwarranted government searches, and can only be modified by further constitutional amendment.
Judge Ann Aiken ruled that FISA "permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment".
"For over 200 years, this nation has adhered to the rule of law — with unparalleled success. A shift to a nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised."
The case was brought by Brandon Mayfield, a Portland attorney whose life was turned upside down by the feds after he was mistakenly fingered by the FBI for involvement in the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Mayfield settled for $2m, but retained the right to challenge the Patriot Act in court.
Judge Aiken dismissed the government's arguments with extreme prejudice, accusing the US attorney general's office of "asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. This court declines to do so".
Obama's DoJ defends Bush-era wiretaps
Telecoms spy program a 'state secret'
By Austin Modine • Get more from this author
The US Justice Department under President Obama is invoking Bush Administration tactics to dismiss a lawsuit alleging federal agents engaged in illegal phone and email surveillance of ordinary US citizens.
A motion submitted to US District Judge Walker on Friday claims disclosing information on the National Security Agency's warrentless wiretapping program would "cause exceptionally grave harm to national security."
The 36-page brief invokes"state secrets" privileges to keep mum on the case, and claims the 2001 Patriot Act grants government agencies an umbrella "sovereign immunity" for domestic spy programs.
The buck can't stop here, the DoJ said today. The filing argues the statutory claims of the seventeen-count complaint against the US are invalid because congress hasn't waived sovereign immunity granted by the Patriot Act of 2001. Constitutional claims should also be waived because "at every stage," the claims would "require or risk the disclosure of information that is properly subject to the state secrets privilege."There are reports of Dell computer asking Customers "what are you going to using the servers for" "we have to ask because of the Patriot Act... and by the way your being recorded".FBI withdraws secret Internet Archive probe
By Dan Goodin in San Francisco • Get more from this author
Posted in Security, 7th May 2008 22:08 GMT
The FBI has withdrawn a secret order that used new anti-terrorism powers to demand information about a user of the Internet Archive without a court order after attorneys challenged it as an unconstitutional abuse of power.
The victory for the San Francisco-based digital library meant that its founder was able to speak publicly about the sweeping demand, known as an NSL or national security letter, for the first time on Wednesday. Up until now, the demand for personal information about an undisclosed Internet Archive patron was protected by a gag order that prevented all but a handful of people from knowing it even existed.
Since the 9/11 attacks, the use of NSLs has proved a popular tool for getting information in government investigations if it is deemed relevant to terrorism or espionage. More than 200,000 of them were issued between 2003 and 2006, and yet, because of the secrecy surrounding them, only three have been known to have been challenged in court. Remarkably, all three challenges have succeeded.
"The NSL basically allows the FBI to demand extremely sensitive personal information about innocent people without any prior court approval, often in total secrecy without any meaningful judicial review," Melissa Goodman, one of the attorneys representing the Internet Archive, said during a telephone conference with reporters. "It makes you wonder about the hundreds of thousands of other NSLs that have never been challenged and we know there are many."....
Last edited by revelarts; 07-22-2010 at 09:29 AM.
It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God. 1 Peter 2:16
Easy, slim. Pick one for now, preferably from a credible source and one that has had a material impact and let's break that down.
Just posting pages of stuff is self defeating.
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
Yeah, I'm trying not to be a dick - revelarts is being pretty objective about this and I would like to debate it with him, he could wind up proving me wrong, but I sensed the exact same thing you did. I'm not so sure of the credibility of some of those sources or the materiality of the issues.
And there were a lot of them, so let's look at them one story at a time.
alright guys Please define a credible source. I mean we've got the
Washington post, a local Las Vegas newspaper, the Register is an British IT news paper and Wired magazine here. None of those are credible?
the register is a bit anti authoritarian but they don't have an agenda to speak of that i can tell. But many of their stories are lifted from U.S. papers or trails and stuff.
Not sure what you mean by a materiel impact.
and at 1st you asked for gross violations. Are you raising the bar on me Sweets?
the patriots act was sold as something necessary to catch foreign terrorist in the U.S. giving up some of our rights for our safety.
but based on the articles I've posted (and more info not)it's clear that they've used the patriot act for many other purposes and even gone beyond the it's wider bounds.
warrantless wire tapes and multiple thousands of letters demanding personal info from various entities that can't even speak of the contact.
That last bit doesn't sound like America. it sounds like what we didn't want to be when talking about the Soviets years ago. I mean secret police in your house, spying on your bank account, job and phone.
To me that's material impact, even if they never charge me. We are the ones who are suppose to give the gov't authority to do certain things if they over step their bounds they have broken the law and need to be punished.
Seems to me the onus should be on the other end. Have the provisions of the patriot act really done what we were told it would do. Materially, do we have outstanding examples. Where the provisions specifically stopped serious terrorist in a away that the previous laws could not?
Last edited by revelarts; 07-22-2010 at 10:47 PM.
It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God. 1 Peter 2:16