NYT: Sensing the Eyes of Big Brother, and Pushing Back (Patriot Act)

[DeepModem Mom]

Sensing the Eyes of Big Brother, and Pushing Back
By TIMOTHY EGAN

Published: August 8, 2004


....In the last two months, a small window has opened into just how the government may be using the most contentious parts of the (Patriot Act), and it has revealed enough information to stoke fresh fears in civic forums, in Congress, the capitals of four states - Alaska, Hawaii, Maine and Vermont - and among librarians.

The law, passed overwhelmingly in Congress just 45 days after the terrorist attacks, is a grab bag of enhanced police and prosecution powers. In the presidential campaign, it serves as bumper-sticker fodder for opponents, and a centerpiece of President Bush's effort to show he has responded aggressively to domestic terror.

In fact, most of the fine points in the 342-page law have generated minimal debate. But at least two parts have caused a furor across party lines.

One provision empowers the authorities to search people's homes without notifying them at the time. That provision may have been used by federal agents to rummage through possessions of Brandon Mayfield, the lawyer from the Portland, Ore., area suspected and later cleared of a connection to the bombings in Madrid earlier this year, said his lawyer, Steven T. Wax.

Another clause, granting the government authority to go through personal library, business, medical and other personal records, may have been used in another case, though federal documents make it unclear just what the purpose was....


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/08/national/08patriot.html

[teryang]

1. "We can do whatever we want since the Patriot Act..."

This is the expression of a senior but non SES "homeland security" agent, that was recently related to me by a former federal agent.

The "homeland security" agent maintains an informal network of informants who relate any untoward or "suspicious" activity or persons that they may become aware of, including "radical" or "oddball" websites that may come to their attention. They then "check into it."

As an unrelated aside, I believe that my office was "sneaked and peaked" about two years ago, after I communicated by phone with a certain Senator's office about why he had not yet formulated a policy on going to war with Iraq. The Senator sent me a newly articulated policy statement by email shortly afterwards and within a few days I found evidence of unauthorized use of my computer over the weekend. The intrusion may have only been electronic but I think that someone was actually in my office.

Anyone who doesn't think that these patriot act provisions aren't designed to be used is naive. There are two different tracks of unconstitutional surveillance, one is prosecutorial, for imminent or planned arrests where there is a paper trail and an effort is made to appear to be "legal," and the other is for creating lists and files of "potential" troublemakers which may be of use later.

edited for grammar and typos.

[soothsayer]

3. Everyone should start using whatever keywords that trigger snooping

in EVERY phone conversation. What are they, tho? Drugs, bomb, terror----I'm not 100% sure what they are, of course, but whatever makes the system prick up its electronic ears. (Which by the way it has done since LONG before the so called Patriot act was in effect.)

If the system gets overwhelmed, maybe it will bust.

[thinkingwoman]

4. I agree! Give them too much information

oh, and get a dog...a large, intimidating dog...and see if they're eager to do a sneak and peak search of your place then. ;-)

[indepat]

7. Wonder what percentage of surveillance tracks suspected political

enemies (those who oppose this Administration's policies and actions) as opposed to potentially real terrorists? How many billions of dollars are being spent in a Big Brother mode to keep tabs on loyal Americans who might dissent government actions and how much risk is inuring to our nation by reason of resources needed to keep track of potentially real terrorists being diverted to seemingly frivolous political activities?

[teryang]

6. What I'm describing is not random and has nothing...

...to do with security keywords. The only keyword involved in this situation was the Senator's name. I believe (that's an opinion folks) that it was his office that was under surveillance and which led attention to my computer. I would just relegate the whole story to idle speculation except for the fact that my office had been broken into before by the government during an important drug case many years ago, so I don't just consign these types of occurences to the paranoia file. If anyone else does, I could understand their skepticism.

I'm not advocating anything here only describing an experience which I interpret in light of my training and prior experience.

As a matter of fact, I would caution anyone from loading their electronic communications with provocative vocabulary just to attract unwanted attention. I think it is a poor idea.

[Enraged_Ape]

2. Can't believe this hunk of shit hasn't been dragged before the SCOTUS

Oh, what am I saying? Of course it hasn't. Not like it would make any difference.

[saigon68]

5. They are simply

THUGS, BUMS and Bullies

[struggle4progress]

8. kick

:kick: