Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Anti-Terrorism Law Passed

timothy posted more than 12 years ago | from the a-little-temporary-safety dept.

United States 777

Saratoga C++ writes: "Today (Oct 25) was the day that the US Senate voted on if to pass H.R. 3162, the anti-terrorism law. I have the roll call for today from the Senate. The only person with a "Nay" vote was Russ Feingold (D-WI). Thanks Russ. The final turn out was Yes: 98, No: 1, No Vote: 1."

cancel ×

777 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

f!rst (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2481859)

I feel so lame

yes... (-1, Offtopic)

Thatman311 (316281) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481863)

yea a bill that makes CENTS!

Re:yes... (-1, Offtopic)

Thatman311 (316281) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481894)

What? That wasn't a troll.. This is a troll

Re:yes... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2481963)

Technically, both posts are a crap flood. A troll is a post with the intention of stirring up a heated debate. Crap floods are just that, a flood of crap. However, a skillful and well owrded troll is a joy to behold, especially when it sets off a full on flame war. The best trolls are the ones that are not detected easily, worded well and seem perfectly resonable, drawing people into a response that spiralls out of control, especially if there is a few pushes in the right direction after the original troll.

Yes indeed (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2481865)

Hoot! fP!

The nay guy (0, Offtopic)

Aash (130966) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481866)

Wow, what's with that one "nay" guy? Reminds me of that episode of the Simpsons. Simpsons fans know what I'm talking about.

"Who keeps saying that?"

"It was him. Let's get him, fellas!"

Well at least it's not as bad as it was (1)

Loudergood (313870) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481867)

Leahy will continue to recive my support for his attempts to correct some of the grave problems in this bill before it made it this far.

So who was gone? (1)

HarrisonSilp (527951) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481872)

Strom? Off drooling somewhere no doubt....

Re:So who was gone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2481879)

Are you new to Linux?

Re:So who was gone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2481904)

He was too busy whistling Dixie and opposing civil rights.

Some Senator from Louisiana (1)

HarrisonSilp (527951) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481909)

Landrieu, Mary (D - LA) was gone.... Anyone know why? Seems like a kinda big bill, not that it had a chance of not getting passed.

A little late (0, Troll)

Iron Chef Japan (531022) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481873)

That bill should have been there already, I think it was, in some form. I mean that is a no brainer, and like Bush said, 'if you arent with us, your with the terrorist' meaning Russ Feingold is a terrorist, or at least not a very patriotic citizen.

Re:A little late (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481887)

I know your just trying to stir up people. But disagrements are what democracy is all about. If everyone in leadership agrees we basically end up with a tynany. But I guess thats what you want :)

Re:A little late (2)

ConsumedByTV (243497) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481890)

To be patriotic is to be for MAN(look it up), I am a patriotic person and thats WHY I am against BUSH!

It seems like Russ Feingold is the only one that is really for america as it is meant to be, as it was founded.

Re:A little late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2481959)

It seems like Russ Feingold is the only one that is really for america as it is meant to be, as it was founded.

Small bands of men attempting to throw off an aggressive tyranny? That's not something I'd look forward to as an American.

Re:A little late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2482034)

Yeah, to be patriotic is to bitch without offering any solution to our very serious problem.

That's how Congress works (2)

Ghoser777 (113623) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481893)

They were designed to move as slow as molasses; that way redical policy shifts don't happen to quickly. If Congress could act quickly they could do a lot of good, but they also could do a lot of bad.

Yeah, and there aren't any people who are against the terrorist attacks and against violations of civil liberties; those two things sound mutually exlusive to me (roll eyes).

Hopefully you are being sarcastic.

F-bacher

Re:A little late (0)

Iron Chef Japan (531022) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481914)

How that is true, in this time of crisis, swift changes and laws are neccisary. H.R.3162 Sponsor: Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr.(introduced 10/23/2001) Latest Major Action: 10/24/2001 Received in the Senate. Title: To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes. That seems like a pretty straightfoward, good law. It doesnt take a genius or a commitee to figure out terrorism is bad.

see wisconsin's not so bad :P (1)

Mazrim_Ta (129987) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481875)

its the end of the world!

Russ has Principle (1)

Hoonis (20223) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481876)

I like Russ. He's the only genuinely & clearly
principled member of the Senate I know of. Thanks
Russ!

First Nigger Bopper (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2481880)

The game you are looking for is called Nigger Bopper. You know the rules don't you? Load up the beater with your buds and a broomstick. When you see a nigger, lean out the window and bop him on the head with the broomstick. *BUT* if you can't hang on to the broomstick, and you drop it, your buds will stop the car while you walk back and retrieve it.

Note: sometimes this game gets confused with mailbox baseball. No matter. Bat or broomstick, step up to the plate and swing!

Re:First Nigger Bopper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2482017)

Fucking racist

lame.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2481884)

This bill is unconstitutional on several counts and hopefully (yeah right) our system of judicial checks and balances will take care of that.

J-Rock Nowhere

Courage (3, Insightful)

gus goose (306978) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481885)

Although the contents of the bill are debatable, the Nay vote either takes a lot of courage, or a lack of brains. That funny sound is the voice of disapproval circulating the senate.

gus

Did the time limit make it in? (3, Interesting)

melquiades (314628) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481886)

I got lost in all the parlimentary process. The Senate voted for it with no expiration date; the house passed it, but with a presidential and subsequent congressional renewal clause in case of "unforseen abuses" (or forseen abuses, for that matter).

I believe this final version passed with a (four-year?) expiration date, but I'm not sure I got that right.

Does anybody have a definitive answer on this? (And no, "I heard X and Y" does not count. I'm talking about a link to and quote from a factually reputable news source.) If there is a time limit, what are the parameters?

Re:Did the time limit make it in? (2, Informative)

Thatman311 (316281) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481916)

Does this text help you? SEC. 224. SUNSET. (a) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subsection (b), this title and the amendments made by this title (other than sections 203(a), 203(c), 205, 208, 210, 211, 213, 216, 219, 221, and 222, and the amendments made by those sections) shall cease to have effect on December 31, 2005. So it sounds like it is a 4 year clause

Re:Did the time limit make it in? (2, Informative)

PingXao (153057) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481922)

Yes, sort of. This Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] article describes what happened. The sunset clause does NOT apply to all provisions, however. At least Ashcroft didn't get a completely blank check.

-- Live Free Or Die (State Motto of New Hampshire)

Re:Did the time limit make it in? (1)

Anonymous DWord (466154) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481923)

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/25/rec.attacks.terro r.laws.ap/ [cnn.com]

[T]he Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, said negotiators have placed safeguards on the legislation, like a four-year expiration date on the wiretapping and electronic surveillance portion, court permission before snooping into suspects' formerly private educational records and court oversight over the FBI's use of a powerful e-mail wiretap system.

Re:Did the time limit make it in? (3, Informative)

CaptainCarrot (84625) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481927)

From the CNN [cnn.com] story:
But the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, said negotiators have placed safeguards on the legislation, like a four-year expiration date on the wiretapping and electronic surveillance portion, court permission before snooping into suspects' formerly private educational records and court oversight over the FBI's use of a powerful e-mail wiretap system.
So yes, on significant portions of the bill there's a four-year sunset.

Re:Did the time limit make it in? (5, Informative)

limbostar (116177) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481975)

The text of the bill as passed to the senate is posted on the site:

SEC. 224. SUNSET.

(a) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subsection (b), this title and the amendments made by this title (other than sections 203(a), 203(c), 205, 208, 210, 211, 213, 216, 219, 221, and 222, and the amendments made by those sections) shall cease to have effect on December 31, 2005.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.316 2: [loc.gov]

In particular, there is this:
SEC. 224. SUNSET.

(a) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subsection (b), this title and the amendments made by this title (other than sections 203(a), 203(c), 205, 208, 210, 211, 213, 216, 219, 221, and 222, and the amendments made by those sections) shall cease to have effect on December 31, 2005.

(b) EXCEPTION- With respect to any particular foreign intelligence investigation that began before the date on which the provisions referred to in subsection (a) cease to have effect, or with respect to any particular offense or potential offense that began or occurred before the date on which such provisions cease to have effect, such provisions shall continue in effect.
IANAL, but I read this as 'Most of the stuff in this bill dies in 2006, unless it's actively being used at that time.'

The stuff that will not die includes:
  • Authority to share criminal investigative information
  • Employment of translators by the FBI
  • Something about number of judges from somewhere being increased from 7 to 11 (no shit, read it yourself)
  • what information can be reported about a suspect (I think, it's not clear)
  • what agencies that information can be reported to
  • THE DELAY OF WARRANT NOTIFICATION in the event it would cause 'adverse results'
  • lots of stuff about wiretapping (section 216)
  • single-jurisdiction search warrants for terrorism
  • sanctions against the taliban (in particular! not just afghanistan in general) and Syria
  • the assurance of compensation for compliance with federal officials
The warrant notice scares me the most. Does that mean that I can be arrested and then not be presented with a warrant, or that my house could be searched and I could not be presented with a warrant?

One question... (3, Insightful)

toupsie (88295) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481889)

How comes the anti-terrorism bill punishes law abiding citizens and not the terrorists? Enquiring minds what to know!

Re:One question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2481935)

A geek with an opinion is like a moron with an opinion.

Well it has about as much wit as yours, and it is more accurate.

Fascism (1, Troll)

Glytch (4881) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481895)

Fucking John Ashcroft and the rest of his gestapo cronies must have boners like concrete at the thought of their new powers.

All of sudden New Brunswick is way too close to the US. I want to emigrate to the moon or something.

Re:Fascism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2481980)

In one small action you have completely destroyed by befief that Candians are rational and reasonable.

Comparing John Ashcroft to the Gestapo is relating liberals to the communists under Stalin.

Then again this is slashdot, news for sheep.

Polygraphs (1)

PingXao (153057) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481896)

We need a law that requires every elected public official be hooked up to a polygraph when they take their Oath of Office. The results must be available to the public as soon as possible. Think about the fun opponents could have armed with the results when it's time to run campaign ads on television!

This would let us make sure we're getting what we're voting for. Corporations and big donors already know they're getting what they're paying for, so why should the ordinary voting citizen be deprived of the same validation? Think of the polygraph going crazy when they all say ...
I swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Re:Polygraphs (1)

Chakat (320875) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481996)

Problem is, you can cheat at polygraphs. Given enough training, you can train your body to respond such that polygraphs can't be reliable at all. Plus, under stressful conditions, it can give a lot of false positives. The actual unreliability of polygraphy is why very few courts will recognize a polygraph test as evidence. You can use them all you want in preparing your case, but polygraphs can't be used for anything you'd give to a judge

Re:Polygraphs (1)

mmontour (2208) | more than 12 years ago | (#2482012)

Hmm, should we dangle a crystal over the official's hand too, and see whether it swings in a circle or a straight line? Maybe we ought to make sure the shape of his head isn't that of a probable criminal.

Many people are of the opinion that the polygraph [skepdic.com] isn't too far above some of these other methods. Personally, I'd expect it not to be very effective against politicians since most of them probably believe their own BS most of the time.

Nice idea, though.

Penis sucking happy fun times! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2481899)

With penis-onto, you will have a penis sucking happy fun time very for surety! No doubts!!

SUCK
8======D ~~ ~ ~ *
onto
my
PENIS!

More? (2, Insightful)

Liquid(TJ) (318258) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481901)

Not that I'm a fan of the bill or anything, but if this is the only legislation that goes through as a result of 911, then civil liberties got lucky. It could have been a lot worse.

Re:More? (1)

DarkZero (516460) | more than 12 years ago | (#2482019)

Oh, yeah, good thing our civil liberties were only raped orally and vaginally. They could've been raped up the ass!

I am so sick of this ever present, eternally stupid "It could've been worse" attitude.

... (3, Insightful)

stressky (218896) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481902)

Bush to american citizens :

"All your freedoms are belong to us!
(For great justice!)"

Yo, timothy! (1)

DarkZero (516460) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481903)

A link to an article with some commentary (Wired?) would be a big help, please.

True dat (1)

HarrisonSilp (527951) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481924)

It's impossible to read that shit [loc.gov] that is linked.... Commentary would be very appreciated.

Re:Yo, timothy! (1)

carlos_benj (140796) | more than 12 years ago | (#2482020)

A link to an article with some commentary (Wired?) would be a big help, please.

There's a really good article on MSN.com.... Oh, nevermind.

heheh (3, Funny)

UserChrisCanter4 (464072) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481906)

Heard in the Senate the following day:

"Wow, that bill SURE must be popular! Look at how many hits the web version of the detailed summary got LAST NIGHT ALONE!"

"Enemy of the State" (2)

Amon CMB (157028) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481908)

Anyone who argues "Oh, I don't care if they invade my privacy, I'm not doing anything illegal." should watch the movie Enemy of the State. At first Will Smith has that exact same attitude, until the middle of the movie where he spins it around to "That's... None of your damn business! Leave me alone!"

Terrorism declines? (5, Funny)

Xpilot (117961) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481913)

Terrorist 1 : Hey, I'm bored. Let's commits acts of terrorism today

Terrorist 2 : But, that's illegal now!

Terrorist 1 : Oh darn. Oh well, let's go fishing instead.

Re:Terrorism declines? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2481953)

When terrorism is outlawed, only outlaws will be terrorists. Think about it.

Re:Terrorism declines? cont... (1)

stressky (218896) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481966)

FBI agent : Hi there guys! Mind if I tag along? You never know what I might hear....

Or, rather...

"Hi I'll be your fishing inspector for today, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!"

Ashcroft's speech (4, Insightful)

dachshund (300733) | more than 12 years ago | (#2482023)

I listened to Ashcroft's speech on CNN. Not only did it read as a how-to of what not to do if you're a terrorist in the US, it sounded pretty damn ominous for the rest of us (generally) law-abiding types. Ashcroft is not a sympathetic guy.

I can imagine what the more pragmatic law-enforcement agents are thinking right now: "gee, this probably won't do a damn thing to stop terrorism, but think how many marijuana dealers we'll pick up now. yippee."

Re:Terrorism declines? (1)

DarkZero (516460) | more than 12 years ago | (#2482031)

Sir, your post will now grace my sig lines. That's the most intelligent thing anyone has said during the entire terrorism arguement. Thank you.

FBI already planning to go beyond... (2, Informative)

philipsblows (180703) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481917)

Unfortunately, I only have a link to the FoxNews site, so excuse the decided lean to the right: FBI to Broaden Web Wiretapping [foxnews.com] .

Stewart Baker, an attorney at the Washington D.C.-based Steptoe & Johnson and a former general consul to National Security Agency, said the FBI has plans to change the architecture of the Internet and route traffic through central servers that it would be able to monitor e-mail more easily.

This has been mentioned before, possibly even on slashdot, but it is probably worth repeating. Various comments from people who know suggest that the FBI will probably break the internet in trying to funnel it all through their Carnivore++ setup. If this really comes to pass.

Reading further down in the article, it would seem that the FBI is really just going to lean on AOL, earthlink, yahoo, hotmail/MS, etc to make sure it has unbridled access to email, but who knows for now. In the end, I'm sure it will all work out for the, um, best.

Re:FBI already planning to go beyond... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2481936)

Bush and the rest of his mafia deserve to be shat on.

Re:FBI already planning to go beyond... (2)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 12 years ago | (#2482003)

Ok, so start installing IPSec software on your computer and/or buying internet routers for other OSs that can't be modified easily (you _do_ use a little box between your Windows box and your DSL line, right?) that support IPSec.

Then, start pushing content servers to support opportunistic encryption (spontaneously set up a VPN tunnel between you and the target when you start communicating) ... so much for evesdropping.

How many people are still fetching their E-mail from remote machines without using secure POP3 or IMAP?

Re:FBI already planning to go beyond... (1)

javaman235 (461502) | more than 12 years ago | (#2482056)

This such a ridiculous notion...I can't believe anybody would think its possible.

People need to learn that the web is an amourphous stew of electronic information floating around. Things like "email" and "web pages" have no tangible existence, they are just abstractions for interpreting data. They can be liquified, converted into ANY other form, sent, and reinterpreted by the end user. I could easily make a system for putting email right through FBI routers without a second glance, if only through breaking the email down into nonsense words and sending it as separate messages bfore reassemlbing it at the other side.

Question... (2, Interesting)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481919)

To all of you who think that this bill "trashes civil rights", as Michael "Slashbot" Simms believes.

Exactly how is your freedom and/or liberty curtailed by this bill? Exactly what are you unable to do now that you were able to do before?

Clearly, if civil rights have been "trashed", there must be endless examples. And by the way, "potential" abuses don't count. I want REAL examples.

Re:Question... (3)

josepha48 (13953) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481931)

Yes, and Hitler was VOTED into his office, then he slowly took away people rights, one by one..

Then there were none....I guess the real quesiton is what's next...

Re:Question... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2481950)

Well, we don't have to worry about that I guess: George Bush wasn't.

Re:Question... (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481992)

yeah and I also didn't see Hassert's thugs making sure that Feingold voted like he wanted.

Re:Question... (2, Interesting)

EchoMirage (29419) | more than 12 years ago | (#2482008)

Yes, and Hitler was VOTED into his office, then he slowly took away people rights, one by one..

America has a very strong history of protecting its civil rights, even in instances where they have been [apparantly] in jeopardy. It's extremely vogue here on Slashdot to make all manner of reference to the Nazi regime and other recent 20th-century democracies that have slipped into fascism or autocracy (BTW, off topic, the term fascism is horribly misused on this site).

The missing piece in the argument is that the American democratic republic is radically different in several key areas from other democracies and republics, especially European ones. Americans historically have a very high sense of self-preservation. The events of September 11th have massively re-inforced this notion. That self-preservation extends to issues of civil rights.

Americans have adamantly defended their basic liberties throughout history. There is not a sleeper majority of the American public that is apathetic to this issue. To be sure, the majority is less informed than Slashdot viewers (thanks to a handful of schizophrenic editors *coughing*timothy*coughing*), but that doesn't dissolve into the slippery slope wherein it is imagined that tomorrow, Americans wake up to telescreens on their walls.

What am I getting at? This bill, in its basic letter form, is dangerous, but that doesn't mean that the government has been given free reign to abuse civil liberties. If abuses start, the public will speak out, and this bill will be quickly curbed.

Stop worrying. You haven't been put in shackles.

Now go ahead and mod me down for disagreeing, per the Slashdot norm.

Re:Question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2482046)

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Re:Question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2482011)

Skewed slashdot history is my favorite kind.

Re:Question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2482025)

Godwin's law invoked. Debate over.

Re:Question... (2, Interesting)

mliu (85608) | more than 12 years ago | (#2482043)

well, sorry to nitpick you, but technically this isn't true, and I hate to see wrong information being spread.

http://gi.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_hitler.html

Hitler actually lost the general election to the incumbent Paul von Hindenburg. He was subsequently _appointed_ chancellor by von Hindenburg, who thought that he could use Hitler to his own advantage, and form a coalition government. Unfortunately for everyone, he was mistaken.

A better example perhaps of dictator being voted into power would be Mussolini in Italy. There he was voted into office like you said, and slowly took away people's rights one by one....

http://gi.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_mussolini.html

Re:Question... (-1)

tristan f. (259738) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481940)

I too would like to hear actual examples. And if he hates this country so much, I would like "michael" to find one that better suits him.

Love it or Leave It? (1)

waldoj (8229) | more than 12 years ago | (#2482040)

And if he hates this country so much, I would like "michael" to find one that better suits him.

Ah, yes, "love it or leave it."

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with our democracy, Tristan. In our country, we don't abandon it in times of trouble (ie, when bills like this are passed), but instead point out the problems publically and attempt to get them remedied.

-Waldo Jaquith

Re:Love it or Leave It? (-1)

DivineOb (256115) | more than 12 years ago | (#2482058)

Then point at a problem this causes wiseguy...

This isn't a case of love it or leave it... it's a case of show us what is broken or stfu

Re:Question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2481942)

Score:1 (Troll)

Re:Question... (2)

Ghoser777 (113623) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481951)

Oh kay, so a bill that gave the government unlimited power to control my life wouldn't matter if the gov't promised to play nice? Potential abuse is by far the best standard to evaluating rights, especially those such as privacy rights. They are usually encroached covertly, and so I could never point to any evidence that the gov't was violating my privacy rights, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be restrictions on gov't power.

F-bacher

Re:Question... (2, Insightful)

moheeb (228831) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481968)

Dude!....the thing just passed today....I don't think there are endless examples of "real" abuses yet.

Re:Question... (2, Informative)

PingXao (153057) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481973)

I don't subscribe to The Progressive's viewpoints on all issues, but this article [progressive.org] pretty well sums up the dangers.
And, most seriously of all, it would take a sledgehammer to every American's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Under the new law, police wouldn't need to notify you when they were about to search your home. Instead, as long as they had a warrant and as long as they claimed that notifying you would obstruct their investigation, they could go in and search your place and tell you about it later.

Re:Question... (2)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 12 years ago | (#2482042)

Under the new law, police wouldn't need to notify you when they were about to search your home. Instead, as long as they had a warrant and as long as they claimed that notifying you would obstruct their investigation, they could go in and search your place and tell you about it later.

OK, let's review the fourth amendment:

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.

Where exactly does it say you have the right to know that you're being searched? To be honest, I'm not even sure you ever had that right. Could a real lawyer comment on this? It seems like simple common sense that you don't tell a criminal that you're going to search his house because, duh, then he moves all the stuff that you're looking for. I mean, if the police show up at someone's house with a warrant, and that person isn't home, I don't they have to come back later.

Re:Question... (2)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481988)

FWIW, and I haven't read the actual text of the bill yet, it seems that most of the freedom-smashing sections are specifically against aliens and non-residents.

Re:Question... (0)

Versa (252878) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481989)

Potential abuses DO count. For all i know the FBI could have legally searched my house while I was at work and I wouldn't even KNOW. They don't have to tell me. And we know how law abiding police and FBI guys are, shit, they wouldn't plant any evidence if they thought I was guilty anyways would they? would they...?

Re:Question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2482035)

Maybe you'd be happier in Iraq?

Re:Question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2482007)

I agree. We are at war. The terrorists exploit the loopholes in our system. I don't see how this law will change me life in a negative way. It may well make my life safer.

Feingold's comments... (5, Insightful)

Boone^ (151057) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481933)

on the Bill are here [senate.gov] . Here's some snippits on why he voted no:
The Founders who wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights exercised that vigilance even though they had recently fought and won the Revolutionary War. They did not live in comfortable and easy times of hypothetical enemies. They wrote a Constitution of limited powers and an explicit Bill of Rights to protect liberty in times of war, as well as in times of peace.

...

We in this body have a duty to analyze, to test, to weigh new laws that the zealous and often sincere advocates of security would suggest to us. This is what I have tried to do with this anti-terrorism bill. And that is why I will vote against this bill when the roll is called.

Protecting the safety of the American people is a solemn duty of the Congress; we must work tirelessly to prevent more tragedies like the devastating attacks of September 11th. We must prevent more children from losing their mothers, more wives from losing their husbands, and more firefighters from losing their heroic colleagues. But the Congress will fulfill its duty only when it protects both the American people and the freedoms at the foundation of American society. So let us preserve our heritage of basic rights. Let us practice as well as preach that liberty. And let us fight to maintain that freedom that we call America.

He voted no because he felt people were losing some of their basic constitutional rights in order to "shore up" our security. While I voted for the guy in the last election and don't agree with his Nay Vote on this Bill, at least the guy had the guts to stand up for what he believed in.

Penis? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2481934)

Would you like to happy suck onto penises? Well, try onto my penis! It will provide up to you many joyful hours of happy fun joyous sucking times! Enjoy verily, you will not be disappointed suckery! So, suck onto my penis for fun happy suck!!!

SUCK
8======D ~~ ~ ~ *
onto
my
PENIS!

hmmmm.... (0)

FireChipmunk (447917) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481943)


SEC. 103. INCREASED FUNDING FOR THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT CENTER AT THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.

There are authorized to be appropriated for the Technical Support Center established in section 811 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132) to help meet the demands for activities to combat terrorism and support and enhance the technical support and tactical operations of the FBI, $200,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004.


So the FBI wants to buy some new Cray Machines to crack my E-Mail:-)

Our own damn fault... (1)

Polarcow (526269) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481944)

I live in WI and my first chance to vote when I turned 18 I voted Feingold. But in all honesty, who's fault is it this got passed? Who allowed their civil liberties to be taken away. Those 425 and 100 people represent us, US citizens. Obviously we didn't do our part, informing them that they're not doing what we want. The Constitution was formed to preserve our rights and that our politicians should be subject to us. Yet we act like we're at their mercy. I guess no one remembers which way it's supposed to work.

Re:Our own damn fault... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2481993)

The problem is that there is somethng like a half-million people per congressman. We should change that ratio to about ten thousand people per congressman. We do not have any fine granularity to our representation so that we elect horrible compromises. Our current ratios make congressman more likely to fall into the hands of special interests with large bankrolls. With a ratio of one congressman to ten thousand people, special interests have less of a chance to influence because one doesn't need a large bankroll to reach 10K folks with one's message. It also would open up the process to non-traditional political parties.

Re:Our own damn fault... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2482041)

Unfortunately... They are doing exactly what the majority of us (the American public) want.

Student Files searched without consent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2481952)

Student files searched without consent

Brian Peach
Daily Egyptian [dailyegyptian.com]

With anti-terrorist legislation swarming the nation, nearly 200 colleges are being contacted to access international students' records without their consent.

Since a decision was made by the House of Representatives on Oct. 12 to allow authorities access to students' files, the FBI has been checking backgrounds and visas of foreign students to determine when they came to the United States and when they started school.

Reacting on the House's decision, dozens of educational associations have raised concerns about the effects this might have on students.

"We are concerned that some changes may in fact do more harm than good," said David Ward, president of the American Council of Education.

Despite that none of the terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks had a student visa, there is still interest in looking at the process by which they are issued to assure that student visas do not become tools of terrorists, Ward said.

According to Ward, many presidents of colleges and universities agree with his thoughts that examining and possibly freezing student visas is not an effective way to counter terrorism.

Despite the negative afflictions toward the measure, the FBI indicated that no school has denied authorities access to records.

"We have not yet been contacted by authorities, but we would comply with any laws that order us to do so," said Phillip Lindberg, assistant director of International Students and Scholars at SIUC.

Indiana University is one of many universities that has been contacted regarding the anti-terrorist bill. Officials at the school complied with a direct FBI request to disclose information on 3,200 IU students.

International students' personal information, including grades and Social Security numbers, are usually protected both constitutionally and under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. But, because of the recent terrorist attacks exceptions have been made.

Kenneth Rogers, associate dean and director of the Office of International Services at Indiana University, said in an Indiana Daily Student newspaper interview, the U.S. Department of Education declared a state of emergency that afforded the sort of circumstances necessary to bypass standard procedure.

Recently, changes have been made in the way files and records can be accessed and current measures state that federal officials must get a judge's permission to view student records.

"We are anxiously awaiting to see how Congress further reacts to [the terrorist attacks]," Lindberg said.

Reporter Brian Peach can be reached at BPeach81@hotmail.com.

http://www.dailyegyptian.com/fall01/10-25-01/terro rist.html [dailyegyptian.com]

Commentary (3, Interesting)

dragons_flight (515217) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481955)

I tried submitting this story myself, but guess they didn't like my version, or he got it in first.

Anyway, here's some commentary that I included with version I wrote:

American Civil Liberties Union [aclu.org]
Center for Democracy and Technology [cdt.org]
Yahoo! News [yahoo.com]

full list of provisions (5, Informative)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481961)

You can see the full list of provisions here [foxnews.com] on Fox News, at least the version that passed the House the other day

There's a lot of them. heck.

  • Extends electronic surveillance periods to 120 days from 90 days and for searches to 90 days from 45 days.
  • Creates two new crimes prohibiting certain persons from possessing a listed biological agent or toxin and prohibiting all persons from possessing a biological agent, toxin or delivery system of a type or in a quantity that is not reasonably justified by a peaceful purpose
  • Limits delay of search warrants when this authority would result in flight or property seizure
  • Requires a court application to obtain student records
  • Grants authority to the president to restrict exports of agricultural products, medicine or medical devices to the Taliban or the territory of Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban
  • Increases to seven days the length of time an alien may be held before being charged with criminal or immigration violations
  • Defines terrorist activities but makes exceptions for people who have innocent contacts to non-certified terrorist organizations
  • Enhances the secretary of state's existing power to certify groups as terrorist organizations
  • Enhances data-sharing between the FBI and the State Department/INS and between the State Department and foreign governments
  • Clarifies CIA director's role to set overall strategy for collection of information through court?ordered FISA surveillance, but no operational authority
  • Increases CIA authority to investigate "international terrorist activities"
  • Encourages CIA to recruit informants to fight terrorism
  • Requires attorney general to develop guidelines for disclosing to the CIA foreign intelligence information obtained in criminal investigations
  • Requires the attorney general and CIA to provide training to federal, state and local government officials to identify foreign intelligence information
  • Sunsets electronic surveillance laws after two years with the authority for the president to renew in two more years
  • Limits the use of Foreign Intelligence Service Act court orders to investigations of international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities
  • Requires investigations of U.S. persons be based on more than just First Amendment activities.
  • Allows roving wiretap authority on electronic equipment, including cell phones
  • Allows pen registers/trap and trace on particular phone numbers but restricts content collection
  • Increases the number of FISA judges from seven to 11
  • Expedites the hiring of translators for the FBI
  • Allows seizure of voice mail messages
  • Does not allow the use of information collected on Americans by foreign governments when that information was collected in violation of the U.S. Constitution
  • Authorizes nationwide service of subpoenas for electronic subscriber information
  • Expands list of items subject to subpoena to include the means and source of payment for electronic subscriber information
  • Authorizes electronic communications service to disclose contents of and subscriber information in case of emergencies involving the immediate danger of death or serious physical injury
  • Allows sharing of grand jury and wiretap information for official law enforcement duties
  • Allows sharing grand jury and wiretap information that involves foreign intelligence and counterintelligence
  • Does not allow disclosure of tax return information by Treasury to federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies in responding to terrorist incidents
  • Triples the number of Border Patrol, Customs Service and INS inspectors at the northern border
  • Authorizes $100 million to improve INS and Customs technology and additional equipment for monitoring the northern border
  • Requires an integrated automated fingerprint identification system for points of entry and overseas consular posts
  • Authorizes a counter-terrorism fund to reimburse the Department of Justice for any costs related to investigating and prosecuting terrorism
  • Expedites disability and death payments to firefighters, law enforcement officers or emergency personnel involved in the prevention, investigation, rescue or recovery efforts related to any future terrorist attack
  • Increases benefits program payments to public safety officers
  • Coordinates secure information sharing among federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute terrorist conspiracies and activities
  • Expands fraud and abuse laws to cover computers outside the U.S. used to affect interstate commerce or communications inside the U.S.
  • Replenishes the Justice Department's antiterrorism emergency reserve with up to $50 million; authorizes private gift-giving to the fund; allows service providers to use reserve fund to expedite assistance to victims of domestic terrorism
  • Creates a new criminal statute to punish for terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against mass transportation systems
  • Creates a list of offenses that will carry an eight-year statute of limitations for prosecution except where they resulted in, or created a risk of, death or serious bodily injury
  • Defines maximum penalties for terror-related activities where appropriate, including life imprisonment or supervision
  • Adds conspiracy provisions to some criminal statutes and provides that the penalties for such conspiracies may not include death
  • Adds certain terrorism-related crimes to RICO and money laundering rules
I hope that everyone feels safer now

Re:full list of provisions (1)

matman (71405) | more than 12 years ago | (#2482028)

I was surprised to read that the bill expressly says that death may not be a penalty for conspiracy to commit terrorism. Guess no one gets to kill bin Laden huh? :)

Fuck you, Ron Paul (-1)

Bob Gortician (246811) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481971)

Fair-weather libertarian...

You can kiss your freedoms goodbye... (2)

stefanlasiewski (63134) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481976)

You can kiss your freedoms goodbye... but be careful, because THEY might see you.

no! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2481977)

will this impact my ability to download and wank to kiddie porn?

i'm holding my penis as i type this.

spam me please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2481979)

webmaster@cffar.org
cuz i suck

4th Amedment Violations? (1)

fredistheking (464407) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481982)

"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."

So what is the ALCU and the EFFs next move? Are they going to fight this unconstitutionality in court?

Re:4th Amendment Violations? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2482014)

I believe that the constitutionality of a law cannot be challenged "in general" or by a vague presumption that someone's rights might be violated by that law. Under US law, a particular individual, group of individuals, or a class of individuals may bring a suit only after they have actually been harmed. So, the ALCU may be planning their strategy, but for now, I doubt that they will be able to take any legal action.

Re:4th Amedment Violations? (1)

diablovision (83618) | more than 12 years ago | (#2482049)

No. You can only challenge the constitutionality of a law before the Supreme Court. You can only get to the Supreme Court by appealing from lower courts after being convicted. You can only get into the lower courts by being charged.

You can't just throw your hands up in the air and end up in the Supreme Court. You have to be caught and convicted long before that happens.

Looks like four years... (2, Informative)

Shardis (198372) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481983)

Looks like it's got a 4 year limit at least...

This looks like the right text [loc.gov] ...

Or, for the link wary... http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./tem p/~c107bhnj7n:e89010:

human rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2481985)

Is anyone maintaining a list of countries in which the United Nation human rights are not violated? I'd like to take a look at the options that are left. It's always easier to make the big jump if you're mentally prepared for it.

Title from Ebay? (1)

makisupa (118663) | more than 12 years ago | (#2481998)

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001

Just needs '!!NR!!' and I'd mistake it for an ebay auction...

Rights of Other Countries (1)

rowdent (203919) | more than 12 years ago | (#2482004)

This bill passed by the American Government seems to extend even beyond the borders of the US and into other countries. If the internet, being an international entity, is to be monitored, should it not be monitored by an international entity as opposed to a single, albeit powerful country? Much internet traffic routes itself through the US out of and into other countries. The abuses made possible by such monitoring is frighteningly obvious. The FBI could easily be gathering information on citizens of other countries who they do not feel any sort of duty to remain professional about. Each country has the right to protect its own citizens, and suddenly the American government decides that it is an international entity and can do whatever it wants. Shouldn't the W3 Consortium or some other omnipotent Internet organization step in and at least monitor such mass information gathering? Of course that will never happen, since all of these organizations are owned by American Business anyways *shudder*. All that power in the hands of a few select people sends chills down my spine.

Headline (1)

Izanagi (466436) | more than 12 years ago | (#2482026)

Script Kiddy Cracks Hotmail: Charged as Terrorist.

Russ Feingold is awesome (1)

Eykir (130987) | more than 12 years ago | (#2482038)

Even though I live in Indiana now, I used to live in Wisconsin. When Russ Feingold first ran for the Senater, I was taking a civics class as a freshman in high school, and Feingold was my chosen person. He is by far and away the most ethical person I have ever seen in Congress. He was elected without running a single negative ad. (which is unusual in itself) It doesn't surprise me one bit that he was the lone dissenter.

I thought I heard at one time that Gore was thinking of taking Feingold as his Vice Pres. I don't think it would have been a bad idea, and would have easily gotten my vote (I voted McCain for Pres because he's the only candidate I cared about).

Here's to Russ Feingold :)

up north.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2482054)

doesn't seem too bad now. i'll be joining them and eating maple syrup real soon, i can tell.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>