Ben Posted June 9, 2005 Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 Senate panel votes to expand Patriot Act Forget scaling back the Patriot Act. Instead, the controversial post-9/11 law would be expanded to give the FBI new powers to demand documents from companies without a judge's approval, according to a vote late Tuesday by the Senate Intelligence committee. The final text of the Senate Intelligence committee's amendments was not immediately available (here's a draft dated last month), and reporters were barred from the secret session during which the vote was held. But the proposal appears to grant the FBI more power to seek information from banks, hospitals, libraries, and so on through "administrative subpoenas" without prior judicial oversight. The subpoenas are only supposed to be used for terrorism or clandestine intelligence cases. One other detail: the FBI may designate that the subpoenas are secret and punish disclosure of their existence with up to one year in prison (and five years if the disclosure is deemed to "obstruct an investigation.") In testimony in April, FBI director Robert Mueller said: "The administrative subpoena power would be a valuable complement to (existing) tools and provide added efficiency to the FBI's ability to investigate and disrupt terrorism operations and our intelligence gathering efforts." The ACLU denounced the Senate Intelligence committee's vote. "In a move antithetical to our Constitution, the new 'administrative subpoena' authority would let the FBI write and approve its own search orders for intelligence investigations, without prior judicial approval," the group said in a statement. "Americans have a reasonable expectation that their federal government will not gather records about their health, their wealth and the transactions of their daily life without probable cause of a crime and without a court order." In theory, the expand-the-Patriot-Act bill now goes to the Senate floor for a vote. But some negotiations are likely to take place between the Intelligence and Judiciary committee, and that could affect the final form of the legislation. Posted by Declan McCullagh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest #22 Posted June 9, 2005 Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 How is this a good thing? Could someone explain it to me? I am willing to listen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted June 9, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 well.. i just re-read it.... There is some hope: [quote]In theory, the expand-the-Patriot-Act bill now goes to the Senate floor for a vote. But some negotiations are likely to take place between the Intelligence and Judiciary committee, and that could affect the final form of the legislation.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest #22 Posted June 9, 2005 Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 I am just waiting for someone to tell me again that the ACLU is a terrorist organization or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted June 9, 2005 Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 i don't know enough about the specific laws, but i don't see a problem w/ the original patriot act... the point is to allow the cia and fbi to share information and have better communication... both are good things imo... about this new amendment to it... that is more of a touchy subject, but i can still see this as a good thing... time is extremely important, and as long as there is someone at the fbi/cia that has to sign off and take the credit/crap for it if things go wrong... one day could mean alot in a terrorist attack... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 9, 2005 Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 [quote name='bengalrick' date='Jun 9 2005, 04:26 PM']i don't know enough about the specific laws, but i don't see a problem w/ the original patriot act... the point is to allow the cia and fbi to share information and have better communication... both are good things imo... about this new amendment to it... that is more of a touchy subject, but i can still see this as a good thing... [b]time is extremely important,[/b] and as long as there is someone at the fbi/cia that has to sign off and take the credit/crap for it if things go wrong... one day could mean alot in a terrorist attack... [right][post="101351"][/post][/right][/quote] Bingo.... somtimes information is needed on a person for an investiagation in a timely manner. Honestly though Im more worried about getting this Electronic Case File system in order and working the way it is needed rather than this. btw, I dont think the ACLU is a terrorist org, I just think sometimes they take it a bit far...but we already had that conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted June 9, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 Are'nt these changes in conflict w/ the 4th 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted June 9, 2005 Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 [quote name='Ben' date='Jun 9 2005, 03:38 PM']Are'nt these changes in conflict w/ the 4th amendment? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against [b]unreasonable[/b] 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. [right][post="101359"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] i think "unreasonable" is the key word... unfortinately, this is to vague of a law... what is unreasonable? i would say that a possibility of a terrorist attack would be a reasonable reason to get an "on-the-fly" search warrent... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted June 9, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 [quote name='bengalrick' date='Jun 9 2005, 03:40 PM']i think "unreasonable" is the key word... unfortinately, this is to vague of a law... what is unreasonable? i would say that a possibility of a terrorist attack would be a reasonable reason to get an "on-the-fly" search warrent... [right][post="101360"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] slippery slope my friend, slippery slope... Also. what defines "Terrorist Activity"? The wording is vague enough in the legislation to go after people using kazaa i think. Also, doesnt the amendment specifically word that their must be just cause to issue a warrant, implying the neccessity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 9, 2005 Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 [quote name='Ben' date='Jun 9 2005, 04:43 PM'][b]slippery slope my friend, slippery slope[/b]... Also. what defines "Terrorist Activity"? The wording is vague enough in the legislation to go after people using kazaa i think. Also, doesnt the amendment specifically word that their must be just cause to issue a warrant, implying the neccessity? [right][post="101363"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] I defiantly agree, and we will need to prosecute the ones who cross the line on it to the fullest extent of the law, but as I've said before lets give the people who are protecting us all the tools they need to do such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted June 9, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 Also,... I'm not expert here... But are'nt warrants part of the Judcial Branch keeping checks on the executive?(i believe i have my branches correct here....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted June 9, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 [quote name='Jamie_B' date='Jun 9 2005, 03:46 PM']I defiantly agree, and we will need to prosecute the ones who cross the line on it to the fullest extent of the law, but as I've said before lets give the people who are protecting us all the tools they need to do such. [right][post="101367"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Well.. if you can go to jail for even mentioning a supeona, how are we supposed to know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 9, 2005 Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 [quote name='Ben' date='Jun 9 2005, 04:47 PM']Well.. if you can go to jail for even mentioning a supeona, how are we supposed to know? [right][post="101370"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] I would think that would be up to the court after the fact as to what was reasonable and what wasnt. So I dont know that it wouldnt still have the ability to continue to have the checks of power. Im no expert either and just saw this today from your post and no nothing more about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest steggyD Posted June 9, 2005 Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 Is this the same as the Patriot Act II that was circulating around earlier, or is this something different? Where is the actual text? Anyone have a link? I can't find it. If this is or like the Patriot Act II, it can get pretty scary. At one time, they were trying to make it so that someone can be labelled a terrorist, stripped of their citizenship, then that person can be held without trial, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted June 9, 2005 Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 [quote name='steggyD' date='Jun 9 2005, 04:34 PM']Is this the same as the Patriot Act II that was circulating around earlier, or is this something different? Where is the actual text? Anyone have a link? I can't find it. If this is or like the Patriot Act II, it can get pretty scary. At one time, they were trying to make it so that someone can be labelled a terrorist, stripped of their citizenship, then that person can be held without trial, etc. [right][post="101393"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] [url="http://www.fox11az.com/news/other/stories/KMSB-20050609-dnbp-patriotact.2f96f4a8d.html"]click here - registration required[/url] [quote][b]Patriot Act efforts jolt reform-minded[/b] Senate panel would add powers; ACLU predicts 'significant resistance' 09:44 AM MST on Thursday, June 9, 2005 By MICHELLE MITTELSTADT / The Dallas Morning News WASHINGTON – As the Bush administration mounts a high-profile effort to keep the Patriot Act intact, there's a less-visible campaign under way to expand the controversial anti-terrorism law and hand the FBI sweeping new investigative powers. President Bush and Attorney General Al Gonzales head to Columbus, Ohio, today to tout a law they credit as instrumental in keeping America safe from further terrorist attack. They will urge Congress to permanently extend the sections of the law, enacted just weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, that expire at year's end. The selection of Columbus wasn't accidental. Investigators there, using Patriot Act authorities, scored a victory in the fight against terrorism: arresting and convicting al-Qaeda operative Iyman Faris, a truck driver who plotted to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge and other U.S. targets. Even as the White House seeks to counter a movement by some conservatives and liberals to curb some of the Patriot Act's powers, administration allies in the Senate moved this week to tack on new powers to the 2001 law. The Senate Intelligence Committee, meeting behind closed doors, on Tuesday approved a bill that would hand FBI agents authority to write their own subpoenas in certain investigations without having to obtain a judge's approval. The bill also would broaden the FBI's authority to monitor people's mail in terrorism investigations. [b]While the text of the bill remains secret[/b], the committee's leaders have broadly characterized its content. The Intelligence Committee's action has dismayed activists on the left and right who have united in a bid to place greater checks on some of the government surveillance and investigative powers granted under the Patriot Act. Instead of achieving its goal of trimming the Patriot Act's sails – as seemed likely just a few months ago – the informal coalition now finds itself on the defensive, fighting to prevent an expansion of the Patriot Act. "A lot of that even modest progress seems to be up in the air given this new effort to expand the Patriot Act in some very difficult and problematic areas," Anthony Romero, the ACLU's executive director, said recently. He predicted "very significant resistance" in Congress to any expansion of the Patriot Act. "If the administration thinks that it can just push through the second Patriot Act in the way it pushed through the first, it will find very significant response and reaction to it." Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman who chairs the group Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances, agreed. "It does, of course, open another front for us to fight," he said. But, he added, "We can fight a multi-front battle the same as the administration can." Pat Roberts, the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, offered a different assessment. Asked recently on CNN whether he thinks he can win passage of his Patriot Act expansion legislation, the Kansas Republican said: "Yeah, I do." The flash point over the Intelligence Committee bill centers largely on the issue of granting the FBI administrative subpoena powers – an authority the bureau has unsuccessfully sought for decades. Critics contend that allowing FBI agents to write their own subpoenas, without having to get a judge's approval, could lead to fishing expeditions through Americans' financial, medical, gun and other records. "This is taking us from bad to worse," Mr. Barr said. "Instead of fixing the worst Patriot Act provisions, the Senate Intelligence Committee approved the wish list of the administration: a power grab that rolls back already eroded checks and balances." Administrative subpoena supporters say it's only common sense to give FBI agents the same powers that others in government have. "If they are good enough for health care investigations, good enough for drug investigations, they should be provided to law enforcement in terror investigations," said Justice Department spokesman Kevin Madden. But James Dempsey, head of the Center for Democracy and Technology, argues that none of the existing administrative subpoena powers carry the breadth and secrecy that such powers would do for FBI agents in intelligence investigations. "This just goes in the opposite direction from which the American public has been wanting to go – namely, yes, give the government the powers it needs to prevent terrorism but make sure they are subject to checks and balances." The Senate's skirmish over broader Patriot Act powers didn't resonate publicly Wednesday during the last in a series of House Judiciary Committee oversight hearings on renewal of the law. None of the committee members asked Deputy Attorney General James Comey about the administration's bid for more power for the FBI, instead focusing on a handful of controversial Patriot Act provisions. Mr. Comey, who soon will leave the administration to return to private life, urged lawmakers to renew the law. "The bottom line, I believe, is that the Patriot Act is smart. It's ordinary in a lot of respects. It's certainly constitutional," he testified. "And we ought to make permanent the provisions that have meant so much to the people that I represent, the men and women in law enforcement and in the intelligence community fighting the fight against terrorism and crimes of all sort." E-mail mmittelstadt@dallasnews.com PATRIOT ACTION A Senate Intelligence Committee Patriot Act bill that was drafted, debated and voted on in secret would: Give FBI agents the power to issue subpoenas in terrorism and national security investigations without having to first gain court approval. Expand the FBI's power to monitor mailings in national security investigations. Agents have long had the authority to get addresses and other information from mail envelopes, provided that it met with Postal Service approval. The bill eliminates the Postal Service's role. Renew nine of the 16 Patriot Act provisions that expire at year's end. Expand the FBI's ability under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to obtain orders for wiretaps, searches and records even if the purpose of the information is for criminal prosecution. Currently, investigators must demonstrate that collection of foreign intelligence is a "significant purpose" for the warrant. Make technical changes, endorsed by the Justice Department, to the so-called library provision that allows agents to seek records and other tangible things under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. SOURCE: Dallas Morning News research[/quote] thats why you can't find it... i don't know if this is the same as the patriot act 2... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted June 9, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 Well.. i read before where they were having trouble getting p2 pushed through. So they started takign chunks of them and adding riders on to other bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 i can't speak for the new patriot act, but this is why, imo, that the patriot act is soooo important: [url="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-terror10jun10,0,5436451,full.story"]click here[/url] [quote][b]Memo on 9/11 Plotters Blocked[/b] New disclosures show that CIA information in 2000 about two Al Qaeda operatives in San Diego was squelched before reaching the FBI. By Josh Meyer, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON  A chilling new detail of U.S. intelligence failures emerged Thursday, when the Justice Department disclosed that about [b]20 months before the Sept. 11 attacks, a CIA official had blocked a memo intended to alert the FBI that two known Al Qaeda operatives had entered the country.[/b] The two men were among the 19 hijackers who crashed airliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. [b]If the FBI had received the official communique from the CIA's special Osama bin Laden unit when it was ready for transmittal in January 2000, its agents likely could have tracked down the men[/b], according to U.S. intelligence officials familiar with a newly declassified report of the Justice Department's inspector general. [b]Officials involved in the case of alleged would-be hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui had attempted to block release of the report, asserting that it would compromise the outcome of his case. But Inspector General Glenn A. Fine went to court and won release of the report after deleting the section on Moussaoui.[/b] The report does not draw major new conclusions or disclose significant new episodes about the months and years leading up to Sept. 11. Rather, it fills in blanks and provides new details about previously known matters  notably the failure to learn sooner about Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar, the so-called San Diego hijackers. An 18-month delay in the CIA's handing over of information about the two hijackers to the FBI and other domestic law enforcement agencies had been well-publicized. But the report's conclusion that an agent had written a memo specifically designed for transmittal to the FBI to alert the bureau to the men's presence  and that a supervisor deliberately had prevented it from being sent  is new. The reason the CIA official, identified by the fictitious name "John," put a hold on the communique remains a mystery, the report said. It said the officials involved didn't recall the incident. Even when the author of the memo followed up a week later with an e-mail asking if it had been sent to the FBI, nothing was done. The memo was written by an FBI agent on assignment to the CIA's special Bin Laden unit. According to the report, rather than send his memo directly to the FBI, he sent it to the deputy chief of the CIA unit because only supervisors were authorized to send such memos to the FBI. Fine's report contains extensive new detail about that incident, as well as several already reported missed opportunities by the FBI to track down the two men. [b]The report stops short of concluding that any of the failures was responsible for allowing the Sept. 11 attacks to move forward. But it is sharply critical of the FBI and CIA, laying out in 371 pages a series of systemic and individual failures by the FBI in particular  both internally and when dealing with other U.S. and foreign government agencies.[/b] The report was compiled after Congress and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III asked the inspector general to evaluate how the FBI had handled intelligence before the Sept. 11 attacks. More extensive inquiries were done by a joint House-Senate committee and by the federal 9/11 commission, which reached similar broad conclusions. The report disclosed Thursday is an abbreviated version of a top-secret report submitted in July to the FBI, CIA, Congress and the commission that investigated Sept. 11. In an interview Thursday, Fine said it would be "too speculative" to conclude that the attacks could have been prevented had it not been for the failures outlined in his report, which was based on interviews with dozens of FBI and CIA officials and a review of thousands of top-secret internal documents. [b]"But there were very significant failures, both systemic and individual, and we lay out the details behind them," Fine said.[/b] His report made 16 recommendations to improve the FBI, including better training and management of intelligence analysts, integrating FBI lawyers into counterterrorism investigations, and creating clear procedures on how to document intelligence information received in informal briefings with other agencies. In a statement, the FBI said it generally agreed with the inspector general's findings and was already carrying out most of them. "We enhanced our cadre of intelligence analysts with hundreds of new hires, new training and a clear career path," the FBI statement said. "We changed the criteria by which special agents, field offices and investigative programs are evaluated to emphasize intelligence-related functions." The report identifies five junctures, from March 2000 to August 2001, when there were opportunities for the FBI to learn about Almihdhar and Alhazmi and their presence in the U.S. Each episode has been previously reported, but not in such great detail. The report documents day-to-day contacts among FBI, CIA and other officials  identifying them with names such as "John," "Mary" and "Rob" and, in many cases, assessing their performance. It quotes extensively from e-mails they sent and handwritten notes they kept of meetings. Typical was the mild criticism of an FBI employee, "Lynn," for failing to respond to an e-mail from colleague "Jane" about the now-famous Phoenix memo. That memo by an agent in the Phoenix bureau urged the FBI to investigate the enrollment of Middle Eastern men in aviation schools, but it was never acted upon. "A response from Lynn may have prompted Jane to take some other step…. Instead … the [memo] languished," the report said. One of the well-known missed opportunities was the fact that Almihdhar and Alhazmi had rented a room in the Lemon Grove home of a well-established local FBI informant. In a footnote, the report discloses that the informant was paid $100,000 in 2003 for his work over the years. However, he never told his FBI handler important details about Almihdhar and Alhazmi, and said afterward that he had known nothing about their terrorist connections or plans. The report does not name the informant, but he has been identified elsewhere as Abdussattar Shaikh. The report's findings come as the FBI faces continued criticism of its intelligence-gathering efforts, with some lawmakers and others calling for those functions to be taken over by another agency or by the new national intelligence director. CIA officials had little comment, noting that the focus of the report was on the FBI's performance before Sept. 11. Fine also noted that his scope did not include evaluating the CIA's handling of pre-Sept. 11 intelligence. Then-CIA Director George J. Tenet has vigorously disputed some of the criticisms of his agency, but Thursday attributed the CIA's failure to turn over information about Alhazmi and Almihdhar to his agents' being overwhelmed, exhausted and understaffed. Days after a meeting of Al Qaeda operatives in Malaysia in January 2000, the CIA's Bin Laden specialists drafted a flurry of memos about the two men, their suspected terrorist connections and Almihdhar's possible ties to the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. Some of the memos were based in part on intelligence provided by the National Security Agency. The CIA was also in possession of a photocopy of Almihdhar's Saudi passport and valid multi-entry visa to the U.S. Several cables from the CIA's Bin Laden desk disseminated the information to agency officials around the world  including to one of the unit's special agents detailed to the FBI's Washington field office, according to Fine's report. That employee, "Dwight," began drafting a memo addressed to the FBI's Bin Laden unit chief at bureau headquarters and to its New York field office. The memo contained virtually all of the details known to the agency, including Almihdhar's passport and visa information, which listed his intention to stay in New York. But at 4 p.m. that day, another CIA Bin Laden desk officer, "Michelle," added a note to the memo: "pls hold off on [memo] for now per [the CIA deputy chief of Bin Laden unit]." Eight days later, in mid-January, "Dwight" sent an e-mail to "John," asking why it hadn't been sent: "Is this a no go, or should I remake it in some way." The CIA was unable to locate a response to the e-mail. Fine's report concludes that the CIA didn't turn over documentation of the electronic memo until Fine's investigators came across a reference and specifically asked for it in February 2004. That came so late in the investigation that it delayed release of the report and caused many more CIA and FBI officials to be interviewed, the report says. Ultimately, Fine's investigators gave up trying to find an explanation. Records show that the CIA didn't forward the information about Almihdhar and Alhazmi to domestic law enforcement officials until late August 2001, when it asked that the men be put on watch lists. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Times staff writer H.G. Reza contributed to this report from Orange County.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted June 10, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 [quote name='bengalrick' date='Jun 10 2005, 12:11 PM']i can't speak for the new patriot act, but this is why, imo, that the patriot act is soooo important: [url="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-terror10jun10,0,5436451,full.story"]click here[/url] [right][post="101614"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] I may be wrong here...but i didnt know that the patriot act had a clause in it telling cia/fbi/etc.. how to use phone/e-mail/fax to talk to each other. I thought the Homeland Security department was created for that purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 [quote name='Ben' date='Jun 10 2005, 12:23 PM']I may be wrong here...but i didnt know that the patriot act had a clause in it telling cia/fbi/etc.. how to use phone/e-mail/fax to talk to each other. I thought the Homeland Security department was created for that purpose. [right][post="101616"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] your looking at it too literally... what the patiot act would have done, was put all information into a database, and could be looked at by both the cia and fbi... the whole point is we wouldn't have to depend on low level cia or fbi guys to deliver messages or wait for replies for issues that could be devestating... homeland security, the way that i read into [url="http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/"]this some-what explaination[/url] is that we consolidate 22 agencies, which in turn, does what i explained above... it is more of the organizer of all this information... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalSIS Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 [quote name='bengalrick' date='Jun 10 2005, 12:31 PM']your looking at it too literally... what the patiot act would have done, was put all information into a database, and could be looked at by both the cia and fbi... the whole point is we wouldn't have to depend on low level cia or fbi guys to deliver messages or wait for replies for issues that could be devestating... homeland security, the way that i read into [url="http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/"]this some-what explaination[/url] is that we consolidate 22 agencies, which in turn, does what i explained above... it is more of the organizer of all this information... [right][post="101617"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] I don't believe that is what would happen bengalrick. I don't think the Patriot Act is necessary for that information to be kept more appropriately. The Patriot Act has a few good ideas in it, but mostly, it's a scary precursor to "1984" if you ask me. We are in a perpetual "state of war (on terror)", so governments will justify taking away many of our consitutional rights. I don't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 I think you people watch too many movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Dan_Bengals_FL- Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 [quote name='Ben' date='Jun 9 2005, 04:43 PM']slippery slope my friend, slippery slope... Also. what defines "Terrorist Activity"? The wording is vague enough in the legislation to go after people using kazaa i think. Also, doesnt the amendment specifically word that their must be just cause to issue a warrant, implying the neccessity? [right][post="101363"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Yep the used it against me for using Kazaa. Real terrorist activities they are stopping with this bullshit. I can't believe they are actually expanding this "un"patriotic act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 [quote name='Dan_Bengals_NJ' date='Jun 10 2005, 02:49 PM'][b]Yep the used it against me for using Kazaa.[/b] Real terrorist activities they are stopping with this bullshit. I can't believe they are actually expanding this "un"patriotic act. [right][post="101654"][/post][/right][/quote] Music theif. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Dan_Bengals_FL- Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 [quote name='Jamie_B' date='Jun 10 2005, 02:50 PM']Music theif. [right][post="101656"][/post][/right][/quote] What is funny is that they came after my parents, it really wasn't at me, cause I don't live at home anymore, but I still pissed off about it. It really had to do with my younger sister, and most of the music she downloaded, she had copies of. It is really stupid that they come after these younger kids who don't really know the laws about copywriting. They just see everyone downloading music, computers offering music downloading features, stores that offer the cds to do so and figure it is ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 [quote name='Dan_Bengals_NJ' date='Jun 10 2005, 02:56 PM']What is funny is that they came after my parents, it really wasn't at me, cause I don't live at home anymore, but I still pissed off about it. It really had to do with my younger sister, and most of the music she downloaded, she had copies of. It is really stupid that they come after these younger kids who don't really know the laws about copywriting. They just see everyone downloading music, computers offering music downloading features, stores that offer the cds to do so and figure it is ok. [right][post="101658"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Agreed, the if the music industry wasnt so afraid of the technology they could protect themselves better and save money on the lawsuits rather than scare the hell out of everyone with them. It's slowly chaning but the key word s-l-o-w-l-y. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.