"I do not believe the released FISA order is consistent with the requirements of the Patriot Act," Sensenbrenner wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder. "How could the phone records of so many innocent Americans be relevant to an authorized investigation as required by the Act?"
But this sort of data collection -- along with what the NSA is doing through its PRISM program -- is exactly what then-Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) warned about when he was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001.
From his speech:
One provision that troubles me a great deal is a provision that permits the government under FISA to compel the production of records from any business regarding any person, if that information is sought in connection with an investigation of terrorism or espionage.
Now we're not talking here about travel records pertaining to a terrorist suspect, which we all can see can be highly relevant to an investigation of a terrorist plot. FISA already gives the FBI the power to get airline, train, hotel, car rental and other records of a suspect.
But under this bill, the government can compel the disclosure of the personal records of anyone -- perhaps someone who worked with, or lived next door to, or went to school with, or sat on an airplane with, or has been seen in the company of, or whose phone number was called by -- the target of the investigation.
And under this new provisions all business records can be compelled, including those containing sensitive personal information like medical records from hospitals or doctors, or educational records, or records of what books someone has taken out of the library. This is an enormous expansion of authority, under a law that provides only minimal judicial supervision.
On Thursday, Feingold put out a statement about the Guardian's report, saying, "In 2001, I first voted against the PATRIOT Act because much of it was simply an FBI wish list that included provisions allowing our government to go on fishing expeditions that collect information on virtually anyone."
"Today's report indicates that the government could be using FISA in an indiscriminate way that does not balance our legitimate concerns of national security with the necessity to preserve our fundamental civil rights," he added. "This is deeply troubling. I hope today's news will renew a serious conversation about how to protect the country while ensuring that the rights of law-abiding Americans are not violated."
Original Article
Source: huffingtonpost.com
Author: Amanda Terkel
"Those who would surrender a little liberty for a little security deserve neither."
ReplyDelete-Benjamin Franklin
It is odd that in that little Franklin quote one can find the precise reason why western democracy never took hold: the first principle of democracy is the inalienable rights people have by no reason or condition other than being a living sentient being; the idea that liberty or security are prizes won or lost by choices people make presupposes and necessitate an arbitrary authority which democracy aim to be rid of in the first place; if liberty or security can be lost based on deservedness, than there is a need for both a source that define that deservedness as well as the mechanisms that can enforce it; such source and mechanisms are human-made, meaning they must be structured and maintained by people; but who are the people that devise them in the first place? It is very unlikely that those people where democratically elected since no one in their right mind would allow others the authority to deprive them from their liberty, or security; such an authority must be self-assumed, which is precisely the definition of 'arbitrary' in a political context.
ReplyDelete