Section 215

[Synthaholic]

A tweet from Marcy Wheeler had me Googling:

...where I found this:


Reform the Patriot Act | Section 215


What is Section 215?

• Section 215 allows the FBI to order any person or entity to turn over "any tangible things," so long as the FBI "specif[ies]" that the order is "for an authorized investigation . . . to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."
• Section 215 vastly expands the FBI's power to spy on ordinary people living in the United States, including United States citizens and permanent residents.
  • The FBI need not show probable cause, nor even reasonable grounds to believe, that the person whose records it seeks is engaged in criminal activity.
  • The FBI need not have any suspicion that the subject of the investigation is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power.
  • The FBI can investigate United States persons based in part on their exercise of First Amendment rights, and it can investigate non-United States persons based solely on their exercise of First Amendment rights.
    • For example, the FBI could spy on a person because they don't like the books she reads, or because they don't like the web sites she visits. They could spy on her because she wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy.
  • Those served with Section 215 orders are prohibited from disclosing the fact to anyone else. Those who are the subjects of the surveillance are never notified that their privacy has been compromised.
    • If the government had been keeping track of what books a person had been reading, or what web sites she had been visiting, the person would never know.

Is Section 215 Constitutional?

• Normally, the government cannot effect a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. Section 215 violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to effect Fourth Amendment searches without a warrant and without showing probable cause.
  • The violation of the Fourth Amendment is made more egregious by the fact that Section 215 might be used to obtain information about the exercise of First Amendment rights. For example, the FBI could invoke Section 215 to require a library to produce records showing who had borrowed a particular book or to produce records showing who had visited a particular web site.
  • Section 215 might also be used to obtain material that implicates privacy interests other than those protected by the First Amendment. For example, the FBI could use Section 215 to obtain medical records.
• The provision violates the First Amendment by prohibiting those served with Section 215 orders from disclosing that fact to others, even where there is no real need for secrecy.
• The provision violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to investigate U.S. persons, including American citizens, based in part on their exercise of First Amendment activity, and by authorizing the FBI to investigate non-U.S. persons based solely on their exercise of First Amendment activity.
• The provision violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments by failing to require that those who are the subject of Section 215 orders be told that their privacy has been compromised.

Doesn't the government need these powers?

• The government already has the authority to prosecute anyone whom it has probable cause to believe has committed or is planning to commit a crime. It also has the authority to engage in surveillance of anyone whom it has probable cause to believe is a foreign power or spy - whether or not the person is suspected of any crime.
• Section 215 takes away a great deal of our liberty and privacy but isn't likely to get us any security in return.
  • There's a real possibility that setting the FBI loose on the American public will have a profound chilling effect on public discourse. If people think that their conversations and their e-mails are their reading habits are being monitored, people will inevitably feel less comfortable saying what they think, especially if what they think is not what the government wants them to think.

 

[Truthmatters]

cool


sounds like a good place to find a lead

 

[FA_Q2]

Doesn't the government need these powers?

No, it does not. It didn’t need them when the first idiot in chief created them: Bush. Then the democrats screamed about how much bullshit this was. They didn’t need it when Obama and the democratic congress decided that they wanted that power after all and the republicans mewled in protest (as that was the best they could do after authoring the first monstrosity).

Is it not clear to anyone yet that the government always strives to attain more power and then almost never relinquishes it back.

Rights are only as guaranteed as your determination to fight for them and lately it seems as though rights are going to be a thing of the past.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Brings up an interesting point. How much of our freedoms are we willing to give up in the name of security?

 

[FA_Q2]

Brings up an interesting point. How much of our freedoms are we willing to give up in the name of security?

It would be interesting if it were not happening around us every damn day but all the same – I am not willing to give up one damn bit of freedom at all for security but I believe that the average American is the exact opposite. They ask, no DEMAND, that our freedoms be takes as fast as possible for a small bit of comfort. It really is not true security because we are not safer, just less free and most people feel better about it. What 9/11 did to this nation is downright scary. I have damn near anarchists say that the government should be able to select and kill whoever it deems necessary and then have a damn near Marxists agree.

It scares me because we are not going to be safer. We are just going to FEEL safer.

‘so this is how democracy dies, to the sound of thunderous applause.’
Who would think so much truth would be found in a science fiction fantasy.

 

[Erand7899]

Brings up an interesting point. How much of our freedoms are we willing to give up in the name of security?

It would be interesting if it were not happening around us every damn day but all the same – I am not willing to give up one damn bit of freedom at all for security but I believe that the average American is the exact opposite. They ask, no DEMAND, that our freedoms be takes as fast as possible for a small bit of comfort. It really is not true security because we are not safer, just less free and most people feel better about it. What 9/11 did to this nation is downright scary. I have damn near anarchists say that the government should be able to select and kill whoever it deems necessary and then have a damn near Marxists agree.

It scares me because we are not going to be safer. We are just going to FEEL safer.

‘so this is how democracy dies, to the sound of thunderous applause.’
Who would think so much truth would be found in a science fiction fantasy.

The average American is not willing to give up his/her freedom for security, but he/she is more than willing to give up your freedom, or my freedom for that security. That is because the average dumbed down American does not believe that any of these tactics will ever be used against himself. They have been taught to believe that government is inherently good, and that authorities only hassle bad people.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Brings up an interesting point. How much of our freedoms are we willing to give up in the name of security?

It would be interesting if it were not happening around us every damn day but all the same – I am not willing to give up one damn bit of freedom at all for security but I believe that the average American is the exact opposite. They ask, no DEMAND, that our freedoms be takes as fast as possible for a small bit of comfort. It really is not true security because we are not safer, just less free and most people feel better about it. What 9/11 did to this nation is downright scary. I have damn near anarchists say that the government should be able to select and kill whoever it deems necessary and then have a damn near Marxists agree.

It scares me because we are not going to be safer. We are just going to FEEL safer.

‘so this is how democracy dies, to the sound of thunderous applause.’
Who would think so much truth would be found in a science fiction fantasy.

The average American is not willing to give up his/her freedom for security, but he/she is more than willing to give up your freedom, or my freedom for that security. That is because the average dumbed down American does not believe that any of these tactics will ever be used against himself. They have been taught to believe that government is inherently good, and that authorities only hassle bad people.

Oh no - not the "everyone who disagrees with me is just stupid" argument again?

 

[Erand7899]

It would be interesting if it were not happening around us every damn day but all the same – I am not willing to give up one damn bit of freedom at all for security but I believe that the average American is the exact opposite. They ask, no DEMAND, that our freedoms be takes as fast as possible for a small bit of comfort. It really is not true security because we are not safer, just less free and most people feel better about it. What 9/11 did to this nation is downright scary. I have damn near anarchists say that the government should be able to select and kill whoever it deems necessary and then have a damn near Marxists agree.

It scares me because we are not going to be safer. We are just going to FEEL safer.

‘so this is how democracy dies, to the sound of thunderous applause.’
Who would think so much truth would be found in a science fiction fantasy.

The average American is not willing to give up his/her freedom for security, but he/she is more than willing to give up your freedom, or my freedom for that security. That is because the average dumbed down American does not believe that any of these tactics will ever be used against himself. They have been taught to believe that government is inherently good, and that authorities only hassle bad people.

Oh no - not the "everyone who disagrees with me is just stupid" argument again?

I would agree that not everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. However, I still contend that the amorphous average American that you seem to think is willing to trade freedom for security, is less cowardly than he is unaware of the possibilities of his complacency in the face of an unbridled government. The reason he is complacent is the surety in his mind that he will never be the target of government abuse.

 

[Oldguy]

[*]Normally, the government cannot effect a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. Section 215 violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to effect Fourth Amendment searches without a warrant and without showing probable cause.

Really? From Section 215 of Public Law 107-56 (The Patriot Act)

‘‘(b) Each application under this section—
‘‘(1) shall be made to—
‘‘(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a);
or
‘‘(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter
43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly des- ignated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and

‘‘(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against inter- national terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

‘‘(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the
judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the applica- tion meets the requirements of this section.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ56/pdf/PLAW-107publ56.pdf

I don't like the Patriot Act anymore than you do, but let's stick with the facts rather than somebody's opinion, shall we?

 

[nodoginnafight]

The average American is not willing to give up his/her freedom for security, but he/she is more than willing to give up your freedom, or my freedom for that security. That is because the average dumbed down American does not believe that any of these tactics will ever be used against himself. They have been taught to believe that government is inherently good, and that authorities only hassle bad people.

Oh no - not the "everyone who disagrees with me is just stupid" argument again?

I would agree that not everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. However, I still contend that the amorphous average American that you seem to think is willing to trade freedom for security, is less cowardly than he is unaware of the possibilities of his complacency in the face of an unbridled government. The reason he is complacent is the surety in his mind that he will never be the target of government abuse.

Exactly where did I suggest that any American (amorphous or distinct) is willing to trade freedom for security? I simply asked for folks to discuss the concept. I accept that intelligent, honest people can look at the same situation and come up with differing viewpoints. Don't you?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Brings up an interesting point. How much of our freedoms are we willing to give up in the name of security?

How many innocent lives are we willing to give up for faux liberty? Do you really believe Freedom means never having to cooperate with a reasonable authority?

I traveled a lot for business and pleasure and my badge generally caused me to be questioned. I understood why and always complied with requests for my ID. Simple and understandable. Of course I'm not paranoid.

 

[Synthaholic]

[*]Normally, the government cannot effect a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. Section 215 violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to effect Fourth Amendment searches without a warrant and without showing probable cause.

Really? From Section 215 of Public Law 107-56 (The Patriot Act)

‘‘(b) Each application under this section—
‘‘(1) shall be made to—
‘‘(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a);
or
‘‘(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter
43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly des- ignated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and

‘‘(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against inter- national terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

‘‘(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the
judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the applica- tion meets the requirements of this section.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ56/pdf/PLAW-107publ56.pdf

I don't like the Patriot Act anymore than you do, but let's stick with the facts rather than somebody's opinion, shall we?

I'm not sure what you are contesting...

 

[nodoginnafight]

Brings up an interesting point. How much of our freedoms are we willing to give up in the name of security?

How many innocent lives are we willing to give up for faux liberty? Do you really believe Freedom means never having to cooperate with a reasonable authority?

I traveled a lot for business and pleasure and my badge generally caused me to be questioned. I understood why and always complied with requests for my ID. Simple and understandable. Of course I'm not paranoid.

No I do not believe that freedom means never having to cooperate with a reasonable authority. I'm sorry if I left that impression. Heck, I was just tossing out fodder for debate and everyone seems to be writing in my opinions.

MHO is that you do not protect the United States of America by turning it into North Korea. We should give up our ideals - like due process and rule of law (like torturing suspects).

But I have no problem with the security I encounter in D.C. (and in places it is pretty strict) and would have no problem dealing with similar everywhere.

However, in the past we accepted that the lives of our soldiers have been expendable in defending our freedoms. Now, it is time for everyone to accept that defending our freedoms might cost some civilian lives as well. I won't dishonor the sacrifice of fallen soldiers by discarding what they died for so easily. THEY accepted the risks and we shouldn't say "it's ok for them to lose their lives for our freedom, but I'm not willing to lose mine."

 

[Oldguy]

[*]Normally, the government cannot effect a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. Section 215 violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to effect Fourth Amendment searches without a warrant and without showing probable cause.

Really? From Section 215 of Public Law 107-56 (The Patriot Act)

‘‘(b) Each application under this section—
‘‘(1) shall be made to—
‘‘(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a);
or
‘‘(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter
43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly des- ignated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and

‘‘(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against inter- national terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

‘‘(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the
judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the applica- tion meets the requirements of this section.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ56/pdf/PLAW-107publ56.pdf

I don't like the Patriot Act anymore than you do, but let's stick with the facts rather than somebody's opinion, shall we?

I'm not sure what you are contesting...

This part from your original post:

"Section 215 violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to effect Fourth Amendment searches without a warrant and without showing probable cause."

By the very section you quote, that's clearly untrue. Consequently, your whole argument doesn't hold water.

 

[FA_Q2]

It would be interesting if it were not happening around us every damn day but all the same – I am not willing to give up one damn bit of freedom at all for security but I believe that the average American is the exact opposite. They ask, no DEMAND, that our freedoms be takes as fast as possible for a small bit of comfort. It really is not true security because we are not safer, just less free and most people feel better about it. What 9/11 did to this nation is downright scary. I have damn near anarchists say that the government should be able to select and kill whoever it deems necessary and then have a damn near Marxists agree.

It scares me because we are not going to be safer. We are just going to FEEL safer.

‘so this is how democracy dies, to the sound of thunderous applause.’
Who would think so much truth would be found in a science fiction fantasy.

The average American is not willing to give up his/her freedom for security, but he/she is more than willing to give up your freedom, or my freedom for that security. That is because the average dumbed down American does not believe that any of these tactics will ever be used against himself. They have been taught to believe that government is inherently good, and that authorities only hassle bad people.

Oh no - not the "everyone who disagrees with me is just stupid" argument again?

Good thing that it is not. I don’t see those words anywhere in either of our statements. You are attempting to put words in others mouths.

Everyone that disagrees with me is not stupid. The point is still there though – most Americans are willing to give up freedom in order to obtain a semblance of ‘safety’ real or imagined. If you really feel that safety is real though, look to the TSA. They did not stop the underwear bomber – passengers did. They did not stop the shoe bomber – passengers did. I don’t look to the government to protect me from those that are around me, they have a terrible track record there. That is my responsibility. I expect the government to enforce law and protect me from foreign threats.

 

[konradv]

Doesn't the government need these powers?

No, it does not. It didn’t need them when the first idiot in chief created them: Bush. Then the democrats screamed about how much bullshit this was. They didn’t need it when Obama and the democratic congress decided that they wanted that power after all and the republicans mewled in protest (as that was the best they could do after authoring the first monstrosity).

Is it not clear to anyone yet that the government always strives to attain more power and then almost never relinquishes it back.

Rights are only as guaranteed as your determination to fight for them and lately it seems as though rights are going to be a thing of the past.

I thought they were God-given! At least that's what we've been told. As this shows they only have meaning, if there's a government to back them up or, in this case, ignore them. In the natural world what happens, happens without any recourse, such as the SC, to overturn executive overreach.

 

[FA_Q2]

Doesn't the government need these powers?

No, it does not. It didn’t need them when the first idiot in chief created them: Bush. Then the democrats screamed about how much bullshit this was. They didn’t need it when Obama and the democratic congress decided that they wanted that power after all and the republicans mewled in protest (as that was the best they could do after authoring the first monstrosity).

Is it not clear to anyone yet that the government always strives to attain more power and then almost never relinquishes it back.

Rights are only as guaranteed as your determination to fight for them and lately it seems as though rights are going to be a thing of the past.

I thought they were God-given! At least that's what we've been told. As this shows they only have meaning, if there's a government to back them up or, in this case, ignore them. In the natural world what happens, happens without any recourse, such as the SC, to overturn executive overreach.

And you were told correctly (or at least in some context as ‘god,’ natural or whatever else you want to call them equates to the same thing) but what you have can easily be taken away if you are willing to cede it. Thems reality. You have a right to speak out but if such right was not defended and upheld it might just cost you your head.

There was a rather lengthy and good thread started by dblack that covered this subject. I have a doubt that you really understand what is meant when some of us speak about natural rights. Suffice to say, it has nothing to do with what you are suggesting with this statement. I don’t think that anyone refutes the governments place in protecting rights and I firmly believe that it is the ONLY reason that government exists at all (something I think that you and me vehemently disagree on).