[Stoner]

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,58270,00.html

Fears About DNA Testing Proposal

By Julia Scheeres | Also by this reporter Page 1 of 2 next »


02:00 AM Mar. 31, 2003 PT

A Justice Department proposal to create a database containing the DNA of suspected terrorists has raised fears that the measure would lead to so-called DNA dragnets. The concern is that police could round up people of Middle Eastern origin and other targeted groups to force them to contribute genetic samples to the database.

The Terrorist Identification Database Act of 2003 is buried deep within the department's secretly drafted Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 -- known colloquially as Patriot Act II. It would empower the attorney general to collect DNA samples for the purpose of "detecting, investigating, prosecuting, preventing or responding to terrorist activities."

The proposed database grants law enforcement agencies unprecedented access to private genetic information, allowing investigators to seize DNA samples from people merely suspected of participating in a broad number of activities that qualify as domestic terrorism, a new crime that was ushered in by the original Patriot Act.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other government watchdogs have warned that the law against domestic terrorism could be used to suppress legitimate political protest, especially if that protest results in violence. They charge that if Patriot Act II becomes law, police could theoretically seize DNA samples from those same political activists under the pretext of the war on terrorism.

"We are creating a potential monster on which we've put no chains," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Program.

Not only would Patriot Act II allow for the collection -- without a court order -- of DNA from Americans who haven't been convicted of a crime, Steinhardt said, it would also allow police to store the samples indefinitely.

The proposed act, which was leaked last month to the news media, has attracted criticism from across the political spectrum for making it easier for the government to spy on Americans without a court order, among other things. It imposes stiff penalties on individuals who refuse to contribute to the DNA database, including fines of up to $200,000 and up to a year of jail time. Suspected terrorists already in custody would have to forfeit their DNA as a condition of their release.

One reason privacy advocates have railed against the expanded use of genetic databases is that DNA contains far more intimate information about a donor than other identification technologies, such as fingerprints.

A simple cheek swab -- the principal method of DNA collection used by police -- reveals such private data as a person's genetic disposition for thousands of diseases and his or her parental origins. In the future, such samples may even reveal behavioral characteristics including sexual orientation or aggressive tendencies, and physical characteristics, such as skin color, according to researchers.

Because no federal genetic privacy law regulates DNA databases, privacy advocates fear that the data they contain could be misused. People with "flawed" DNA have already suffered genetic discrimination at the hands of employers, insurance companies and the government.

Such genetic discrimination has a historical precedent. During the eugenics movement popularized in the United States during the early 20th century, thousands of people who were considered too "feeble-minded" or mentally ill to reproduce were involuntarily sterilized


In a report (PDF) on the future of DNA forensics, the Justice Department predicted that by 2010, police will use hand-held DNA analyzers to verify people's identity in the field. The report also touts the benefits of including the general population in police DNA databases and of singling out a suspect's physical characteristics from a genetic sample.

The expansion of police DNA databases to include crime suspects -- and, potentially, the general public -- is a prime example of "function creep," said Tod Burke, a criminal justice professor at Virginia's Radford University.

[Stoner]

What are the dangers of forced DNA testing and the paranoid secrecy of the neo-conservative?
Since history keeps repeating itself and no one seems to be learning from it, look back to the dark spots of our own history and project the past as one posible vision of the future.

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/

Blurbs:
---------------------
The philosopher George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." This adage is appropriate to our current rush into the "gene age," which has striking parallels to the eugenics movement of the early decades of the 20th century. Eugenics was, quite literally, an effort to breed better human beings – by encouraging the reproduction of people with "good" genes and discouraging those with "bad" genes. Eugenicists effectively lobbied for social legislation to keep racial and ethnic groups separate, to restrict immigration from southern and eastern Europe, and to sterilize people considered "genetically unfit." Elements of the American eugenics movement were models for the Nazis, whose radical adaptation of eugenics culminated in the Holocaust.
We now invite you to experience the unfiltered story of American eugenics – primarily through materials from the Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor, which was the center of American eugenics research from 1910-1940. In the Archive you will see numerous reports, articles, charts, and pedigrees that were considered scientific "facts" in their day. It is important to remind yourself that the vast majority of eugenics work has been completely discredited. In the final analysis, the eugenic description of human life reflected political and social prejudices, rather than scientific facts.

--------------------------
To understand why eugenics gained such a following in the first three decades of the 20th century, one needs to examine the economic, social, and political context in which it flourished. Science, or what is claimed to be science, is a product of culture – like any other human activity. What seems in hindsight to be naive or absurd, must have seemed reasonable in its own era. This is especially true when scientific ideas are used to explain social problems.

--------------------------
Elof Carlson, State University of New York at Stony Brook

The eugenics movement arose in the 20th century as two wings of a common philosophy of human worth. Francis Galton, who coined the term eugenics in 1883, perceived it as a moral philosophy to improve humanity by encouraging the ablest and healthiest people to have more children. The Galtonian ideal of eugenics is usually termed positive eugenics. Negative eugenics, on the other hand, advocated culling the least able from the breeding population to preserve humanity's fitness. The eugenics movements in the United States, Germany, and Scandinavia favored the negative approach
-----------------------
By examining family pedigrees, eugenicists attempted to discern the pattern of one of these three basic modes of inheritance -- recessive, dominant, or sex-linked. Then, as today, the study of gene inheritance involves two important elements: 1) finding relatively large families that express the trait under study and 2) "scoring" each family member for the presence or absence of the trait. Eugenicists faired well on the first element, because large families were much more common in the first decades of the 20th century.

However, scoring traits was a difficult problem, especially when eugenicists attempted to measure complex traits (such as intelligence or musical ability) or complex mental illnesses (such as schizophrenia or manic depression). In general, eugenicists were lax in defining the criteria for measuring many of the "traits" they studied, and they were too quick to force their data to fit into simple Mendelian templates. It is important to remember that during the entire reign of eugenics, DNA had not yet been shown to be the molecule of heredity. Today, genetic researchers use DNA "markers" to follow trait inheritance. The presence or absence of the marker can be scored with great certainty. However, eugenicists had no physical road marks to help them follow inheritance through a family
------------------------------
Eugenic ideology was deeply embedded in American popular culture during the 1920s and 1930s. For example, on Saturday night, high school students might go to the cinema to see "The Black Stork" – a film that supported eugenic sterilization. In church on Sunday, they might listen to a sermon selected for an award by the American Eugenics Society – learning that human improvement required marriages of society's "best" with the "best."

On a field trip to a state fair with their hygiene class, students might sign up for a eugenic evaluation at a Fitter Families Exhibit – hoping to win a medal claiming, "Yea I Have A Goodly Heritage." Back in school, these same students might open their biology textbooks to the chapter on eugenics – which recommended the eugenic policies of immigration restriction, sterilization, and race segregation.

------------------------

In the early 1900's, the eugenics movement supplied a new set of arguments to support existing restrictions on interracial marriage. These arguments incorporated a "scientific" brand of racism, emphasizing the supposed biological dangers of mixing the races – also known as miscegenation. Influential writers like Madison Grant, a leading eugenicist, warned that racial mixing was "a social and racial crime." He said that acceptance of racial intermarriage would lead America toward "racial suicide" and the eventual disappearance of white civilization.
----------------------------------------------
While some eugenicists privately supported practices such as euthanasia or even genocide, legally-mandated sterilization was the most radical policy supported by the American eugenics movement. A number of American physicians performed sterilizations even before the surgery was legally approved, though no reliable accounting of the practice exists prior to passage of sterilization laws. Indiana enacted the first law allowing sterilization on eugenic grounds in 1907, with Connecticut following soon after. Despite these early statutes, sterilization did not gain widespread popular approval until the late 1920s.

Advocacy in favor of sterilization was one of Harry Laughlin’s first major projects at the Eugenics Record Office. In 1914, he published a Model Eugenical Sterilization Law that proposed to authorize sterilization of the "socially inadequate" – people supported in institutions or "maintained wholly or in part by public expense. The law encompassed the "feebleminded, insane, criminalistic, epileptic, inebriate, diseased, blind, deaf; deformed; and dependent" – including "orphans, ne'er-do-wells, tramps, the homeless and paupers." By the time the Model Law was published in 1914, twelve states had enacted sterilization laws.
---------------------------
In 1920, Laughlin appeared before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. Using data for the U.S. Census Bureau and a survey of the number of foreign-born persons in jails, prisons and reformatories, he argued that the "American" gene pool was being polluted by a rising tide of intellectually and morally defective immigrants – primarily from eastern and southern Europe. Sympathetic to Laughlin's message, Committee Chairman Albert Johnson of Washington State appointed Laughlin as "expert eugenics agent."

In this capacity, Laughlin conducted research from 1921 to 1931. He took a fact-finding trip to Europe, used free postage to conduct large-scale surveys of charitable institutions and mental hospitals, and had his results published by the Government Printing Office. His research culminated in his 1924 testimony to Congress in support of a eugenically-crafted immigration restriction bill. The Eugenics Research Association displayed a chart beneath the Rotunda of the Capitol building in Washington showing the cost to taxpayers of supporting Laughlin's "social inadequates."

The resulting law, the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, was designed consciously to halt the immigration of supposedly "dysgenic" Italians and eastern European Jews, whose numbers had mushroomed during the period from 1900 to 1920.

[Stoner]

Okay, do you think eugenics can't happen in the US of A again?
------------------

Now:

---------------------------------------------
Take a look at DNA data filtering that comes a little closer to home:



http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/Rail...ects8may02.htm

Railroad to Pay $2.2 Million in DNA Test Case
Illegally Testing Workers for Genetic Defects
PETER SZEKELY / Reuters 8may02
WASHINGTON -- Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. agreed on Wednesday to pay $2.2 million to settle charges of illegally testing workers for genetic defects in the government's first case against workplace DNA discrimination.

While the company, one of the country's biggest railroads, denies it violated the law, the case was a milestone in the brave new world of medical privacy battles and DNA-based job discrimination.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, had charged Burlington Northern with genetically testing or seeking to test 36 employees -- mostly track workers who said they had job-related carpal tunnel syndrome -- without their knowledge as part of a comprehensive diagnostic exam.

The EEOC also charged that employees who refused to take the test faced possible discipline.

The commission said the tests violated the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, by subjecting the unknowing employees to DNA analyzes of whether they were genetically predisposed to carpal tunnel syndrome, a painful hand and wrist condition often caused by repetitive motion.

"While the EEOC did not find that (Burlington Northern) had used genetic tests to screen out employees, employers should be aware of the EEOC's position that the mere gathering of an employee's DNA may constitute a violation of the ADA," EEOC Commissioner Paul Steven Miller said in a statement.

The ADA bars employers from requiring medical exams unless they are needed to determine whether a worker can perform a particular job or poses a threat to anyone, EEOC attorney Laurie Vasichek said in an interview.

President Bush (news - web sites) used one of his weekly radio addresses last June to declare his support for legislation forbidding employers and insurance companies from denying jobs or health coverage to people based on their genetic makeup.

BILLS PENDING IN CONGRESS

Although bills to ban DNA discrimination on the job and in health insurance are pending in Congress, there has been little or no movement on them in the past year.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who sponsored one of the bills to ban genetic discrimination, said the Burlington Northern-EEOC dispute underscores the need for a nationwide law to safeguard workers' genetic information.

"The current patchwork of state laws concerning genetic information is confusing, inconsistent and inadequate," the South Dakota Democrat said in a statement.

Burlington Northern, which has 39,000 employees, had said it started the genetic testing in March 2000 when it gave medical examinations to workers who filed claims of work-related carpal tunnel syndrome.

The company, one of the few U.S. employers to admit to using genetic tests, voluntarily suspended its program in February 2001, a few days after the EEOC sought a court order against the company. In an interim settlement with the EEOC last April, the company agreed not to resume the testing.

After the EEOC determined last July that Burlington Northern had violated the ADA, attorneys for both sides began negotiating the settlement with an outside mediator.

Both sides said they were satisfied with the settlement, which is subject to court approval.

"Without the willingness of (Burlington Northern) to mediate and bring prompt closure, this case could have taken years to litigate," said EEOC Chair Cari Dominguez.

"We think that the mediation process worked well and achieved a reasonable conclusion of this matter, although we continue to believe that none of the company's actions were contrary to the law," said Burlington Northern Chief Executive Matthew Rose.

The $2.2 million is expected to be paid within 90 days and will be split among the 36 workers according to how much of the testing process they endured, Vasichek said.

-----------------------------------


The position of shrouding gov't actions in secrecy could be advantageous to the many businesses that lobby that same gov't. The possibility of legal reprisals is reduced and many corporations will use this new tool of secrecy to reduce the 'health cost issues' of their financial bottom lines.

[LANMaster]

Originally posted by Stoner:
The topic of DNA testing has been well discussed, but the issue is coming back and the issue is related to the paranoia of those that support 'The New World Order'-----------Homeland Security, Patriot Act and Patriot Act ll.

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,58600,00.html

DNA Fingerprinting for All!

Great idea!
We're all fingerprinted, but it isn't fool proof.

However, this data should not be made available to ANY Corporate Personnel Dept. for obvious reasons.

My whole issue with all of this government information gathering is the possibility for this information to become public.

Other than that, I think it is no more an issue than fingerprinting, and will ultimately save innocent lives.

[LANMaster]

Originally posted by Stoner:
Okay, do you think eugenics can't happen in the US of A again?
------------------
Now:
---------------------------------------------
Take a look at DNA data filtering that comes a little closer to home:

http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/Rail...ects8may02.htm

Railroad to Pay $2.2 Million in DNA Test Case
Illegally Testing Workers for Genetic Defects

See! It is illegal, and the railroad was forced to pay.
Yes, the idea that it would be attempted is shocking.
It will only take one or two of these cases to make it fiscally irresponsible for corporations to practice this act. And I'm sure the lible suits will only grow by leaps and bounds.

You may never have to work again if your employer was engaged in this.

Just curious, are you one of those who was against genome research for this very reason?

I hope not.

The sufferring that can be reduced from this research far outweighs any risk of misuse.

Just think if we can isolate the gene that causes mental retardation, and the research has come to a point where we can detect that in the fetus and cure it before it becomes permanent.

Wouldn't you say an obviously retarded person has a harder time getting a job than one who might have a hidden gene defect?

And what if I WANT a gene scan, and gene medicine catches up to prevent me from getting Parkinson's disease at age 50, or Alzheimers at 60. Wha Hoooo !!!

I am all for gene research and development.

Sorry for all the editing. I'm done now.

[Stoner]

Hi LANMaster:

You did miss the issue, and by wide margins!
If such personal information is held in a general data base , this is what can occur:

Data can be used in a medical discriminatory way by many, including employers and insurance companies.
Secrecy of proposed legislation can hide abuses in the name of 'Security'.
Lobbying creates a bidding war as elected officials participate in corruption behind the allusion of
'Patriotism'.

The example I gave is a definite reason why genetic profiling and the current trend of the Bush camp to legislate away civil liberties and shroud it's activities in a cloak of invisibility, don't mix.
The trend with the Bushites is to prohibit the citizen from defending themself from discrimination.

You said,
quote:
---------------------------------
It will only take one or two of these cases to make it fiscally irresponsible for corporations to practice this act. And I'm sure the lible suits will only grow by leaps and bounds.

--------------------------

I say:

With protection by corrupt officials, corporations will avoid any of the hassles of abiding by the current laws of the USA.
Yes, the court system is a deterrent to the activity of criminals. Or , at least it should be!!

-------------------------

you said,
quote:
--------------------------
You may never have to work again if your employer was engaged in this.
---------------------------

I say:

With the curtailing of your civil rights, YOU may not be employed, YOU may not be insurable!!

[Stoner]

Hi LANMaster:

Just now saw your edit!!

Im not against genome research. It has the potential to cure many illnesses caused by genetic heredity.

Are suggesting compulsory genetic alteration or do you believe it is the right of the individual to seek specific medical treatment?

Are you suggesting the genetic alteration of the unborn in an attempt to achieve 'medical' perfection?

Whose blueprint are you going to chose for future humanity?

Will you get a choice?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You say:
quote:
---------------------
Wouldn't you say an obviously retarded person has a harder time getting a job than one who might have a hidden gene defect?
----------------------

I say abuses of trust and power may put the later in the same category.

-----------------------------

You say,
quote:
------------------
And what if I WANT a gene scan, and gene medicine catches up to prevent me from getting Parkinson's disease at age 50, or Alzheimers at 60. Wha Hoooo !!!
--------------------------


I say:
When you pay for your own scan, the data is yours, not everyone that has an interest in making a profit off it!!

[LANMaster]

I understand the fear.

But I think that your scenario will likely play out a couple of times, and be caught most of those times. Then I think the government will be forced to take action to prevent it from happening again and again.

You are correct that laws don't eliminate the crime.

Murder is illegal yet it happens on a remarkably high rate.

The individual's price for conviction is quite high.
The risk is too great for most of us to even consider it an option. (Oh yeah, and that right-wrong thing also has something to do with our decisions too)

To your point, that the laws being passed will make it possible for this "gene descrimination" to go undetected.
I don't believe that will be the case. But I can't discount the possibility that you could be right, and I could be wrong. Look at the loss of privacy with the internet. yet you still use the internet. why?
many are tapped into your email daily. somehow they have an idea about your possible interests. Could a potential employer tap into what pages you view?

It is an interesting subject.

[LANMaster]

Originally posted by Stoner:
Hi LANMaster:

Just now saw your edit!!

Sorry if I threw you off track, but I just added, didn't cut any out.
I try not to do that, but sometimes I find spelling errors, or just need to add a word or two to clarify my point.
Hope you didn't mind

Im not against genome research. It has the potential to cure many illnesses caused by genetic heredity.

Are you suggesting compulsory genetic alteration or do you believe it is the right of the individual to seek specific medical treatment?

This would be okay with me. If I wanted to splice the "anti-gene" for alzheimers into my genes, then why not? Seems like nothing more than a vaccine to me.

Are you suggesting the genetic alteration of the unborn in an attempt to achieve 'medical' perfection?

Excellent question. First of all, I would like to state that I do not support a nation that makes super babies who all look like Kirsten Dunst. (wait did I just say that?)
What I would support is the prevention of disease only. Not the alteration of a fetis to make it stronger, taller, smarter or prettier.

Whose blueprint are you going to chose for future humanity?

Will you get a choice?

I cannot deny, that your scenario has a possibility, but I expect that possibility to be a very small one.
People like you and me would never let it get that far.

You say:
quote:
---------------------
Wouldn't you say an obviously retarded person has a harder time getting a job than one who might have a hidden gene defect?

I say abuses of trust and power may put the later in the same category.

You missed where my target point was on this. I was saying it as it relates to the topic of Genes used to pick job applicants.
Perhaps my analogy was flawed. I retract it.

You say,
quote:

And what if I WANT a gene scan, and gene medicine catches up to prevent me from getting Parkinson's disease at age 50, or Alzheimers at 60. Wha Hoooo !!!

I say:
When you pay for your own scan, the data is yours, not everyone that has an interest in making a profit off it!!

added as edit
And I agree with you here. But your DNA should be allowed to be used in an investigation that might place your blood on the hands of the person that murdered you.
end added as edit

Sure, it is impossible now, but won't be in the future. But when it does become possible, only the rich will be able to afford it.
Over time, the price will naturally drop and you might get this treatment at the same time you get you haircut, or your boobs enhanced or your face lifted.

All appearance altering events.

=)

Finished editing fixed a quite and added one sentence 2 paragraphs above. Noted in bold to show it is added as an edit

[Stoner]

More on how genitic testing can be abused to the advantage of corporate profit.


http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,41807,00.html

The Debate Over Tell-Tale Genes

By Kristen Philipkoski | Also by this reporter Page 1 of 1


02:00 AM Feb. 14, 2001 PT


Now that the publication of the human genome map has revealed 1,000 genes related to disease, researchers will be scrambling to devise diagnostic tests to predict disease.

It won't be easy to come up with genetic tests. Only about 5 percent of diseases are caused by a single gene. Most are caused by interactions between many genes that are subtle and difficult to determine.

But because the majority of disorders involve myriad genes, it's likely more tests will go on the market that indicate a higher risk for disease. They won't guarantee, or even give a good guess, as to whether a person will actually develop the disease.

"We will have poor tests for some disorders because it's possible that ... finding one of the genes will increase the risk of the person getting that disease, but not increase the risk very much," said Neil Holtzman, director of genetics and public policy studies at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions.

According to Holtzman, the danger of genetic discrimination is compounded because private companies selling genetic tests only have to prove to the FDA that the test works, not how valid it is.

"It's a terrible problem when you realize there are companies out there that are marketing tests whose predictive values are not very accurate or valid, and to discriminate on those bases is doubly wrong," Holtzman said.

Two years ago, Donna Shalala, the former director of Health and Human Services appointed an advisory committee to the FDA on genetic testing, on which Holtzman served.

The committee recommended that FDA regulate all genetic tests, because without them, there's no data showing that the tests are valid on a large scale.

"It looks like we don't know what will happen with the change in the administration, but the FDA seems to be receptive to doing this," Holtzman said.

The committee will meet again on Thursday and Friday, and one item on the agenda is to spell out exactly how they think the FDA should regulate genetics tests.

Gregory Citchfield, president Myriad Genetic Laboratories which sells breast-cancer diagnostic tests, said that requiring a rigorous FDA approval process is not the answer.

"It would be very expensive," he said. "It would slow down the introduction of new technologies and it would actually make gene patents even more important."

Only companies that thought they could protect their investment would endeavor to develop genetic tests, he said.

Critchfield said that data is, in fact, generated by health insurers, who thoroughly evaluate any test before they decide to reimburse for it.

"Nobody's going to pay for something if it's not worthwhile," he said.

More than half of the 50 states have legislation against genetic testing, but there's no federal law that specifically prohibits genetic discrimination by employers or insurance companies.

Francis Collins, the head of the international Human Genome Project, said he felt strongly that a federal law should be passed. Collins made this comment at the Monday press conference that announced the landmark publications of the human genome sequence in Nature and Science.

While genetic information is going to be of enormous benefit, Collins said it can also be misused by insurance companies and employers.

"We need to make it illegal," Collins said. "We have bipartisan support for doing so at the federal level. This will be the year when we put into place the effective federal preventions."

Companies such as Myriad cite the research of Mark Hall of Wake Forest University, which was published in the American Journal of Human Genetics. The study found that practically no one who participated in the study could point to a specific incidence of genetic discrimination.

Hall's study also found that out of 34 genetic counselors and patient advocate groups questioned, the great majority said they believe discrimination by health insurers is widespread and common.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought its first lawsuit recently against the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad company for allegedly testing the DNA of workers who suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome. The workers said they were not asked permission for the tests to be performed and that they were threatened with disciplinary action if they refused to approve the tests.

The test the company used, sold by Athena Diagnostics, tests for a disease that sometimes mimics carpal tunnel. It has the potential to prove that workers were not injured on the job, but have a genetic disorder causing their symptoms.

Holtzman said the test was utterly inappropriate.

"That disease usually occurs in more than one family member, the usual age of onset is in adolescence, and the symptoms are not usually like carpal tunnel," Holtzman said. "It was the wrong test at the wrong time for the wrong disease."

[Stoner]

More on the gov't secrecy that is being incorperated into legislation, and how it affects us as computer/internet users and as honest citizens- even divers!.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Patriot Act II: An Interview with Electronic Frontier Foundation's Cindy Cohn

http://techfocus.org/


Posted by Bill_Royle on April 24, 2003 - 6:35 pm

Techfocus recently conducted an interview with Cindy Cohn, Legal Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, focusing on the impending debate and strong possibility of enactment of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, or 'Patriot Act II.'

Cindy Cohn has worked intensively on issues relating to online privacy and security, one notable case being her work on the U.S. v. Sklyarov case, which found Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov jailed in the US after speaking on security lapses in Adobe's eBook format. Ultimately cleared of wrongdoing, the programmer and his employer (Elcomsoft) are prime examples of where the EFF and Cohn are making a difference. Other notable work includes Bernstein v. Dept. of Justice, a successful case which tested the legality of encryption exportation - and validated the premise that source code is protected under the First Amendment.


"Under the current draft of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act (DSEA), the Freedom of Information Act is curtailed, allowing the federal government to restrict more documentation of government activities and actions. What are some examples of situations where having the Freedom of Information Act has helped the public?"

It's hard to know where to begin with this one. I think about it in reverse -- what would happen if we didn't have access to what the government is doing? FOIA creates a default rule of accountability that keeps the otherwise secretive government bureaucracy on its toes. It's impossible to be scientific about it, but I believe the fact that sooner or later a decision made will end up on CBS news, TechFocus or even Slashdot probably prevents more stupid and improper actions than all the regulatory laws and policies put together. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

For specific examples, recently I've heard excerpts from the tapes of Nixon during the Watergate period, which I believe were released after a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. But the best evidence for folks concerned about online issues is the FOIA gallery. David Sobel and his colleagues have done amazing work over the years using FOIA. Just in the past year they've unearthed information about a Transportation Security Administration model for profiling passengers, mistakes in use of both the Carnivore e-mail surveillance system and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the government's purchase of information about people from Choicepoint (.pdf), the private profiling service. And that's just this year.


Expanded search warrant powers

"As currently written, the DSEA would make it possible for investigators to attain a search warrant usable anywhere within the country, if the subject is allegedly involved in computer 'hacking.' Currently this is limited to violent offenses - what computer hacking events have the current restrictions failed to curtail, and what sort of precedent would this set by equating computer hacking with violent crime?"

View legal reference window

This provision continues one of the most egregious problems in the original USAPA -- the fact that it ranges far beyond issues related to terrorism and instead appears to be just a law-enforcement wish list. There has been no indication that computer trespass played any role in the 9/11 attacks, or any other act of international terrorism. Yet both USAPA and DSEA (which I call USAPA II) continue the relentless march to increase the scope of the law, to increase the penalties and to reduce the checks and balances against misuse of the law.

But to answer your question, I'm not aware of any situations in which the requirement that search warrants under the federal computer trespass statute (called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act or CFAA) be obtained in the same way as all other search warrants has frustrated a law enforcement investigation. The basic rule is that a search warrant can only be granted by a court with jurisdiction over the suspect or the computer to be searched. This ensures that law enforcement cannot just find one court in the country that is very friendly to it and just have that court issue overbroad, unfounded or harassing search warrants. It's a critical check on law enforcement abuses of power and also makes sure that people who wish to resist or challenge a search warrant aren't forced to do so in far away courts.

EFF recently submitted comments pointing out the disproportionate sentencing that computer trespass crimes already receive.

EFF's analysis of the Patriot Act is still the first link returned if you do a Google search on "Patriot Act".

Here's our analysis of DSEA (Patriot II).


5th Amendment erosions

"Section 109 of the DSEA allows secret courts to file contempt charges against companies or citizens who take the 5th amendment. What impact will that legal assertion have on other applications of law elsewhere?"

I don't think it will have much application for other applications of law, but it will have a tremendous impact for those who seek to resist FISA orders. EFF believes the very existence of the secret FISA court is a constitutional problem. The principle of public access to our court processes is one of our greatest protections against tyranny. Every increase in the power of the secret court compounds those problems. After USAPA and the changes in the Attorney General Regulations for FISA issued in the Spring of 2002, the reach of FISA has grown dramatically--remember that it originally just reached agents of foreign powers -- those who work for a foreign government collecting intelligence in the U.S. and reporting it back home. Now it includes agents of nongovernmental groups that the US has labeled terrorist and those who are found to have given them support. Under DSEA "agent of a foreign power" could even mean a single person, acting outside any organization structure. The FISA secret court has only ever said "no" to law enforcement once, and that time it was reversed by its court of appeals. That track record does not make me very sanguine about its ability to protect the constitutional rights of those who attempt to object to FISA orders.

"Section 313 of the DSEA strips legal liability of commercial, employee or agents of business, if they disclose information which violates their terms of service or privacy policy which is in place with their customers. What is your position on this section?"

View legal reference window

It's terrible. First, it would repeal portions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act that prohibit ISPs giving customer e-mails and related information to the government without a court order or subpoena or other legal process.

More importantly, though, it gives businesses the ability to violate their own promises to customers. This is bad legal policy as well as a bad substantive law -- one of the bedrock legal principles is that people should be held to their contractual promises.

The pressures on businesses to just hand over information to law enforcement without requiring a subpoena or court order are already tremendous. E-bay recently admitted that they do it and we discovered that all of the dive certification groups did too (see below). Absolute immunity from liability will take away one of the remaining protections that customers had against this. It also leaves us defenseless against malicious misuse of their information by vindictive employees or simple negligence. If I anger a tech support person at my ISP, that employee can maliciously turn over my personal information to the government and I could very well end up being prevented from getting on an airplane or, worse yet, improperly arrested. The employee and business get off scot-free under this law. There needs to be recourse for misuse of personal information by businesses and their employees.


A trade in the name of terrorism?

"Section 322 would amend prior statutes to allow for the "extradition of any person, regardless of nationality, to any country with which an extradition treaty or convention remains in force." What effect would this have on US-born and naturalized citizens?

It could have a great effect. The easiest place to see this is in offenses abroad that are legal here due to our broad protections for freedom of speech. The Yahoo case provides a good example. A senior executive of Yahoo was subjected to criminal prosecution in France (.pdf) due to the fact that Nazi paraphernalia was available for sale on Yahoo auction websites. There was a similar criminal prosecution against a Compuserve executive in Germany a few years ago too. Normally the US refuses to extradite Americans if they are being prosecuted for crimes abroad for acts that would be protected under the First Amendment here. Under this section, the Attorney General would have the option to override that policy when it suited his political goals, such when an American that a foreign government wants could be traded for a terrorist that the US wants.


Automatic immunity regardless of court approval

"Section 106 of DSEA would authorize automatic immunity for agent conduct in relation to surveillance or searches made without a court's approval. What sort of precedent would this set in regards to the US Constitution's 4th amendment on 'unreasonable search and seizure?'"

View legal reference window

This provision extends one of the most disturbing parts of the FISA law, since it removes the incentive for law enforcement to stay within the bounds of the laws at all. It's disturbing that the laws themselves do not give great protection, but at least we could rest assured that those limits were real. This provision, building on previous parts of the law, means that the limits really become illusory. Billy the Bad Fed can just wiretap whoever he wants, for as long as he wants and do with the information whatever he wants and if he's caught, he just says "oops" and moves on. We've had a series of problems in San Francisco over the past few years with rogue cops digging up information in police databases and giving it to friends. One cop, for instance, handed over information about a woman to an ex-boyfriend, who then proceeded to stalk her. The elimination of accountability for these incidents is inexcusable.


Encryption penalties proposed

"What effects on encryption exportation can be expected if 'Patriot Act II' is passed as currently drafted?"

Probably nothing on export of encryption, but instead, for the first time, we'd see a real threat to use of encryption by Americans. Even in the darkest days of the cryptography battles, there was never any question that Americans could use it to protect their own privacy from identity thieves and other bad guys. Now if you use crypto -- and everyone does when they buy something online or use a Virtual Private Network -- then you are risking a 5 year sentence enhancement if your use is later determined to have used cryptography to conceal incriminating information.


The positives of the DSEA

"Combatting terrorism is a top priority, but the issue of balancing individual liberties against preventing acts of terror can be a difficult task. What are the positive aspects of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act which you would be willing to accept?"

View legal reference window


There are a couple of things in there that are unobjectionable, but I wish there were more. One is the provision for appointing counsel to defend the FISA court should the Attorney General appeal one of its orders. As I mentioned before, the FISA court has only said no to the Justice Department once, and the Justice Department appealed that order to the FISA court of appeal. The strange thing is, there was no one to defend the FISA court decision before the higher court. The presentation was completely one-sided. EFF published the transcript. To remedy this, the DSEA provides for appointment of an attorney to defend the court. We'd like the law to go a couple of steps further and appoint someone to defend the interests of the subject of the surveillance and expressly allow amicus support. EFF joined the ACLU and several others in filing an amicus that was accepted, but the law doesn't have any provision for it and we had no access to information about the case to ensure that we got the issues correct.

The law also provides for civil liability for those who cause damage by a terrorism hoax, even if there was no actual "threat." This strikes me as a reasonable proposition. If you send an envelope of powder to a business and that causes the business to close down for fear of anthrax, you should have to reimburse it for lost sales even if there was no physical injury.

Finally, the law changes a provision in the tax code that used to count security measures taken to protect governmental officials from terrorism as "income" to them. Again, this strikes me as reasonable. Some governmental officials should have extra protection during times of terrorist threats and the government should provide it. The officials are already doing a public service, they shouldn't be penalized financially because that service makes them a greater terrorist target.
The road ahead

"What role will the Electronic Frontier Foundation play in lobbying and litigation on this issue?"

We are actively assisting those who wish to resist the overbroad use of these laws. We represented Reef Seekers Dive Shop in Santa Monica when they received a grand jury subpoena seeking all customers who had taken, not finished, dive classes. When we informed the U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles that we were going to fight the subpoena, they backed down. By the way, the PADI, NAUI and SSI diving authorities all turned over their lists of certified divers, so all divers now apparently have a little FBI file. We represent BoycottDelta.org, a website dedicated to resisting the CAPPS II program of using "datavalence," the gathering of information from various sources and combining it into a profile of each air traveler. There are others as well, that we cannot discuss publicly. We participate in a broad coalition called "In Defense of Freedom" that includes organizations from across the political spectrum who are concerned with the damage done to civil liberties and privacy in the name of fighting terrorism. Through it, as well as independently, we comment on pending litigation and proposed agency rules in this area. We have a tremendous grassroots activism engine that has sent over 120,000 e-mails to Congress so far and we will continue to deploy it to make it easier for Americans to make their voices heard.


Making a difference

"How can everyday citizens make a difference on this issue? Who can they contact, and what are their best options for protecting their privacy?"

Of course they can. In fact, they are the only ones who can. It's through pressure from constituents that folks like Sen. Wyden and Sen. Grassley get the message that they need to stand up to the Administration's excessive proposals and that they will have public support if they do. Put the pressure on and keep it on. And while using our activism engine is useful, don't stop there. Go visit your representatives, talk to them about it. And do the same for members of the Administration when you can.

If you receive a demand or request for information that seems wrong or overbroad to you, contact us and we'll do our best to help you fight it. That's what Reef Seekers did and we were able to get the feds to back down. Enough of those and perhaps they'll stop trying to overreach and focus instead on the steps that will actually increase our safety and not just reduce our freedoms.

And of course finally, join EFF. We're a membership organization, so without you, we're nothing. The more members we have, the bigger voice we have in Congress and to the Administration, and of course the more lawyers, activists and geeks we can hire to push back against this assault on our basic liberties and keep the Internet free.

[bassetman]

Oh Great! Now I have an FBI file because I am a certified Dive Master!

Heck, the fact I made it that far probobably got me my own agent!

[Stoner]

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15770


Patriot Raid

By Jason Halperin, AlterNet
April 29, 2003

Two weeks ago I experienced a very small taste of what hundreds of South Asian immigrants and U.S. citizens of South Asian descent have gone through since 9/11, and what thousands of others have come to fear. I was held, against my will and without warrant or cause, under the USA PATRIOT Act. While I understand the need for some measure of security and precaution in times such as these, the manner in which this detention and interrogation took place raises serious questions about police tactics and the safeguarding of civil liberties in times of war.


That night, March 20th, my roommate Asher and I were on our way to see the Broadway show "Rent." We had an hour to spare before curtain time so we stopped into an Indian restaurant just off of Times Square in the heart of midtown. I have omitted the name of the restaurant so as not to subject the owners to any further harassment or humiliation.


We helped ourselves to the buffet and then sat down to begin eating our dinner. I was just about to tell Asher how I'd eaten there before and how delicious the vegetable curry was, but I never got a chance. All of a sudden, there was a terrible commotion and five NYPD in bulletproof vests stormed down the stairs. They had their guns drawn and were pointing them indiscriminately at the restaurant staff and at us.


"Go to the back, go to the back of the restaurant," they yelled.


I hesitated, lost in my own panic.


"Did you not hear me, go to the back and sit down," they demanded.


I complied and looked around at the other patrons. There were eight men including the waiter, all of South Asian descent and ranging in age from late-teens to senior citizen. One of the policemen pointed his gun point-blank in the face of the waiter and shouted: "Is there anyone else in the restaurant?" The waiter, terrified, gestured to the kitchen.


The police placed their fingers on the triggers of their guns and kicked open the kitchen doors. Shouts emanated from the kitchen and a few seconds later five Hispanic men were made to crawl out on their hands and knees, guns pointed at them.


After patting us all down, the five officers seated us at two tables. As they continued to kick open doors to closets and bathrooms with their fingers glued to their triggers, no less than ten officers in suits emerged from the stairwell. Most of them sat in the back of the restaurant typing on their laptop computers. Two of them walked over to our table and identified themselves as officers of the INS and Homeland Security Department.


I explained that we were just eating dinner and asked why we were being held. We were told by the INS agent that we would be released once they had confirmation that we had no outstanding warrants and our immigration status was OK'd.


In pre-9/11 America, the legality of this would have been questionable. After all, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states: "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."


"You have no right to hold us," Asher insisted.


"Yes, we have every right," responded one of the agents. "You are being held under the Patriot Act following suspicion under an internal Homeland Security investigation."


The USA PATRIOT Act was passed into law on October 26, 2001 in order to facilitate the post 9/11 crackdown on terrorism (the name is actually an acronym: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.") Like most Americans, I did not recognize the extent to which this bill foregoes our civil liberties. Among the unprecedented rights it grants to the federal government are the right to wiretap without warrant, and the right to detain without warrant. As I quickly discovered, the right to an attorney has been seemingly fudged as well.


When I asked to speak to a lawyer, the INS official informed me that I do have the right to a lawyer but I would have to be brought down to the station and await security clearance before being granted one. When I asked how long that would take, he replied with a coy smile: "Maybe a day, maybe a week, maybe a month."


We insisted that we had every right to leave and were going to do so. One of the policemen walked over with his hand on his gun and taunted: "Go ahead and leave, just go ahead."


We remained seated. Our IDs were taken, and brought to the officers with laptops. I was questioned over the fact that my license was out of state, and asked if I had "something to hide." The police continued to hassle the kitchen workers, demanding licenses and dates of birth. One of the kitchen workers was shaking hysterically and kept providing the day's date – March 20, 2003, over and over.


As I continued to press for legal counsel, a female officer who had been busy typing on her laptop in the front of the restaurant, walked over and put her finger in my face. "We are at war, we are at war and this is for your safety," she exclaimed. As she walked away from the table, she continued to repeat it to herself? "We are at war, we are at war. How can they not understand this."


I most certainly understand that we are at war. I also understand that the freedoms afforded to all of us in the Constitution were meant specifically for times like these. Our freedoms were carved out during times of strife by people who were facing brutal injustices, and were intended specifically so that this nation would behave differently in such times. If our freedoms crumble exactly when they are needed most, then they were really never freedoms at all.


After an hour and a half the INS agent walked back over and handed Asher and me our licenses. A policeman took us by the arm and escorted us out of the building. Before stepping out to the street, the INS agent apologized. He explained, in a low voice, that they did not think the two of us were in the restaurant. Several of the other patrons, though of South Asian descent, were in fact U.S. citizens. There were four taxi drivers, two students, one newspaper salesman – unwitting customers, just like Asher and me. I doubt, though, they received any apologies from the INS or the Department of Homeland Security.


Nor have the over 600 people of South Asian descent currently being held without charge by the Federal government. Apparently, this type of treatment is acceptable. One of the taxi drivers, a U.S. citizen, spoke to me during the interrogation. "Please stop talking to them," he urged. "I have been through this before. Please do whatever they say. Please for our sake."


Three days later I phoned the restaurant to discover what happened. The owner was nervous and embarrassed and obviously did not want to talk about it. But I managed to ascertain that the whole thing had been one giant mistake. A mistake. Loaded guns pointed in faces, people made to crawl on their hands and knees, police officers clearly exacerbating a tense situation by kicking in doors, taunting, keeping their fingers on the trigger even after the situation was under control. A mistake. And, according to the ACLU a perfectly legal one, thanks to the Patriot Act.


The Patriot Act is just the first phase of the erosion of the Fourth Amendment. From the Justice Department has emerged a draft of the Domestic Securities Enhancement Act, also known as Patriot II. Among other things, this act would allow the Justice Department to detain anyone, anytime, secretly and indefinitely. It would also make it a crime to reveal the identity or even existence of such a detainee.


Every American citizen, whether they support the current war or not, should be alarmed by the speed and facility with which these changes to our fundamental rights are taking place. And all of those who thought that these laws would never affect them, who thought that the Patriot Act only applied to the guilty, should heed this story as a wake-up call. Please learn from my experience. We are all vulnerable so speak out and organize, our Fourth Amendment rights depend upon it.

[Mulderator]

Originally posted by Stoner:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15770


Patriot Raid

By Jason Halperin, AlterNet
April 29, 2003

Two weeks ago I experienced a very small taste of what hundreds of South Asian immigrants and U.S. citizens of South Asian descent have gone through since 9/11, and what thousands of others have come to fear. I was held, against my will and without warrant or cause, under the USA PATRIOT Act. While I understand the need for some measure of security and precaution in times such as these, the manner in which this detention and interrogation took place raises serious questions about police tactics and the safeguarding of civil liberties in times of war.


That night, March 20th, my roommate Asher and I were on our way to see the Broadway show "Rent." We had an hour to spare before curtain time so we stopped into an Indian restaurant just off of Times Square in the heart of midtown. I have omitted the name of the restaurant so as not to subject the owners to any further harassment or humiliation.


We helped ourselves to the buffet and then sat down to begin eating our dinner. I was just about to tell Asher how I'd eaten there before and how delicious the vegetable curry was, but I never got a chance. All of a sudden, there was a terrible commotion and five NYPD in bulletproof vests stormed down the stairs. They had their guns drawn and were pointing them indiscriminately at the restaurant staff and at us.


"Go to the back, go to the back of the restaurant," they yelled.


I hesitated, lost in my own panic.


"Did you not hear me, go to the back and sit down," they demanded.


I complied and looked around at the other patrons. There were eight men including the waiter, all of South Asian descent and ranging in age from late-teens to senior citizen. One of the policemen pointed his gun point-blank in the face of the waiter and shouted: "Is there anyone else in the restaurant?" The waiter, terrified, gestured to the kitchen.


The police placed their fingers on the triggers of their guns and kicked open the kitchen doors. Shouts emanated from the kitchen and a few seconds later five Hispanic men were made to crawl out on their hands and knees, guns pointed at them.


After patting us all down, the five officers seated us at two tables. As they continued to kick open doors to closets and bathrooms with their fingers glued to their triggers, no less than ten officers in suits emerged from the stairwell. Most of them sat in the back of the restaurant typing on their laptop computers. Two of them walked over to our table and identified themselves as officers of the INS and Homeland Security Department.


I explained that we were just eating dinner and asked why we were being held. We were told by the INS agent that we would be released once they had confirmation that we had no outstanding warrants and our immigration status was OK'd.


In pre-9/11 America, the legality of this would have been questionable. After all, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states: "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."


"You have no right to hold us," Asher insisted.


"Yes, we have every right," responded one of the agents. "You are being held under the Patriot Act following suspicion under an internal Homeland Security investigation."


The USA PATRIOT Act was passed into law on October 26, 2001 in order to facilitate the post 9/11 crackdown on terrorism (the name is actually an acronym: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.") Like most Americans, I did not recognize the extent to which this bill foregoes our civil liberties. Among the unprecedented rights it grants to the federal government are the right to wiretap without warrant, and the right to detain without warrant. As I quickly discovered, the right to an attorney has been seemingly fudged as well.


When I asked to speak to a lawyer, the INS official informed me that I do have the right to a lawyer but I would have to be brought down to the station and await security clearance before being granted one. When I asked how long that would take, he replied with a coy smile: "Maybe a day, maybe a week, maybe a month."


We insisted that we had every right to leave and were going to do so. One of the policemen walked over with his hand on his gun and taunted: "Go ahead and leave, just go ahead."


We remained seated. Our IDs were taken, and brought to the officers with laptops. I was questioned over the fact that my license was out of state, and asked if I had "something to hide." The police continued to hassle the kitchen workers, demanding licenses and dates of birth. One of the kitchen workers was shaking hysterically and kept providing the day's date – March 20, 2003, over and over.


As I continued to press for legal counsel, a female officer who had been busy typing on her laptop in the front of the restaurant, walked over and put her finger in my face. "We are at war, we are at war and this is for your safety," she exclaimed. As she walked away from the table, she continued to repeat it to herself? "We are at war, we are at war. How can they not understand this."


I most certainly understand that we are at war. I also understand that the freedoms afforded to all of us in the Constitution were meant specifically for times like these. Our freedoms were carved out during times of strife by people who were facing brutal injustices, and were intended specifically so that this nation would behave differently in such times. If our freedoms crumble exactly when they are needed most, then they were really never freedoms at all.


After an hour and a half the INS agent walked back over and handed Asher and me our licenses. A policeman took us by the arm and escorted us out of the building. Before stepping out to the street, the INS agent apologized. He explained, in a low voice, that they did not think the two of us were in the restaurant. Several of the other patrons, though of South Asian descent, were in fact U.S. citizens. There were four taxi drivers, two students, one newspaper salesman – unwitting customers, just like Asher and me. I doubt, though, they received any apologies from the INS or the Department of Homeland Security.


Nor have the over 600 people of South Asian descent currently being held without charge by the Federal government. Apparently, this type of treatment is acceptable. One of the taxi drivers, a U.S. citizen, spoke to me during the interrogation. "Please stop talking to them," he urged. "I have been through this before. Please do whatever they say. Please for our sake."


Three days later I phoned the restaurant to discover what happened. The owner was nervous and embarrassed and obviously did not want to talk about it. But I managed to ascertain that the whole thing had been one giant mistake. A mistake. Loaded guns pointed in faces, people made to crawl on their hands and knees, police officers clearly exacerbating a tense situation by kicking in doors, taunting, keeping their fingers on the trigger even after the situation was under control. A mistake. And, according to the ACLU a perfectly legal one, thanks to the Patriot Act.


The Patriot Act is just the first phase of the erosion of the Fourth Amendment. From the Justice Department has emerged a draft of the Domestic Securities Enhancement Act, also known as Patriot II. Among other things, this act would allow the Justice Department to detain anyone, anytime, secretly and indefinitely. It would also make it a crime to reveal the identity or even existence of such a detainee.


Every American citizen, whether they support the current war or not, should be alarmed by the speed and facility with which these changes to our fundamental rights are taking place. And all of those who thought that these laws would never affect them, who thought that the Patriot Act only applied to the guilty, should heed this story as a wake-up call. Please learn from my experience. We are all vulnerable so speak out and organize, our Fourth Amendment rights depend upon it.

Stoner, I would have thought you learned your lesson of gulping up and regurgitating the innacuracies of the liberal press in our little foray over the progress of Gulf War II.

Please understand something. THE CONSITUTUION HAS NOT CHANGED. The Patriot Act has niether broadened nor condensed yours or anyone else's rights under the 4th Amendment--it can't. The Constitution is still the Supreme law of the land.

The little story you re-told is nothing but hysterical hype. That could of and did happen countless thousands of times long before the Patriot Act. The only thing the Patriot Act did was coordinate the government's ability to collect and analyze data--i.e., to do their job more efficiently.

The issue is "unreasonable" search and siezure. The purpose of the Amendment isn't to protect people from being searched, its to protect against the government obtaining information in an unlawful manner. If they did that in this case, then these people have legal redress.

What the Patriot Act did was focus government law enforcement on a new area of crime--that's all it did. But busting into a place where there is probable cause to believe there may be a terrorist and detaining anyone in the place is a perfectly legitimate exercise of police power. The problem is that this clown that your citing hasn't a clue of what information the police had. You haven't provided their half of the story (of course, you just believe his story that he has "acertained the whole thing was one big mistake"). They may very well have prevented a terrorist attack or deported a potential terrorist. This clown hasn't a clue of what actually happened.

How would you suggest they go about fighting terrorism? What would your suggestion be? We politiely ask that all the big bad terrorists please turn themselves in at the latest police station?

Have you seen the statictics on Terrorism is 2002? Its is down significantly from prior years--thats a good thing. If all I ever have to endure is the police coming into a restuarant and detaining me while they do their jobs, then I say that's a very small price to pay (even if its a mistake). I'd rather live with that concern than fear the city blowing up.

This type of liberal hype is sickening. It ought to sicken you too except you seem to be overly susceptible to this type of hype just like the Iraw War Hype. Do you think that who ever printed this story might have an alterior motive--that the story is sensationalized and hyped? WILL YOU EVER LEARN???

[Stoner]

Hi Mulder!

I listen, I learn.
I also don't post rumors.
As a lawyer, you love law.
The Constitution exists as law.
The LAW today is different from several years ago.
The LAW today is taking the appearence of imposing a restrictive governing body that operates only for the benefit of that structure and it's financial backers.
Iraq____ merely a situation where the initial supporters of a dictator saw advantage to removing said dictator! For financial gain.
Yep__Saddam had to go, all at the expense of the US taxpayer and US military loss of life. And for the benefit of our new ruling class.

And you say:
________________________________
This type of liberal hype is sickening.
________________________________

Maybe you just love your new powers a little too much!!

You are always polarizing politics to a Neo-Conservative vs Leftwing Socialist anti American view. You are wrong if you think there is no position that oposes both sets of extremist. Your own political poll showed 'Republicans' at this site were only a plurality, and a small one at that(1 vote more than Independant(you listed it as no party affiliation). I am no longer a member of the Republican Party for many reasons. I am Independant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So, your neo-conservative stance that endorses secretive legislation is not a majority, and may eventually be rejected by the 'unsofisticated citizenry'( your words in describing the citizens of the US).
For this I can understand your despreration as Liberals score points against the current trend of Republicans to Fascism.

I, too am worried the political pendulum will swing too far to the Left as a reaction to the current abuses of Neo-Conservatives.

But, then, this is your play right now. How far are the powers that be, willing to go to insure their positions? By corrupting the concepts of a democratic society and weakening the governing principles of a Federal Republic? Looks like your people have a good start on those two issues, Mulder!