That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches.
As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government.
A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person's First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written. The government must only certify to a judge - with no need for evidence or proof - that such a search meets the statute's broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application. 
Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent. All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation. The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for "probable cause" that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an "agent of a foreign power," a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority. The result is unchecked government power to rifle through individuals' financial records, medical histories, Internet usage, bookstore purchases, library usage, travel patterns, or any other activity that leaves a record. At a time when computerization is leading to the creation of more and more such records, Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to force anyone at all - including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers - to turn over records on their clients or customers. One of the most significant provisions of the Patriot Act makes it far easier for the authorities to gain access to records of citizens' activities being held by a third party. Expanded access to personal records held by third parties It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects "addressing" information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content (Section 214).ġ. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information (Section 218). It expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner. It expands the government's ability to look at records on an individual's activity being held by a third parties. The Patriot Act increases the governments surveillance powers in four areas: The Patriot Act increases the government's power to spy in four areas Indeed, many of the act's provisions have nothing at all to do with terrorism. The Bush Administration implied that members who voted against it would be blamed for any further attacks - a powerful threat at a time when the nation was expecting a second attack to come any moment and when reports of new anthrax letters were appearing daily.Ĭongress and the Administration acted without any careful or systematic effort to determine whether weaknesses in our surveillance laws had contributed to the attacks, or whether the changes they were making would help prevent further attacks. Neither discussion nor amendments were permitted, and once again members barely had time to read the thick bill before they were forced to cast an up-or-down vote on it. But then, with no debate or consultation with rank-and-file members, the House leadership threw out the compromise bill and replaced it with legislation that mirrored the Senate version. In the House, hearings were held, and a carefully constructed compromise bill emerged from the Judiciary Committee. Many Senators complained that they had little chance to read it, much less analyze it, before having to vote. 
The Senate version of the Patriot Act, which closely resembled the legislation requested by Attorney General John Ashcroft, was sent straight to the floor with no discussion, debate, or hearings. Congress reversed course because it was bullied into it by the Bush Administration in the frightening weeks after the September 11 attack. Most of the changes to surveillance law made by the Patriot Act were part of a longstanding law enforcement wish list that had been previously rejected by Congress, in some cases repeatedly. Just six weeks after the September 11 attacks, a panicked Congress passed the "USA/Patriot Act," an overnight revision of the nation's surveillance laws that vastly expanded the government's authority to spy on its own citizens, while simultaneously reducing checks and balances on those powers like judicial oversight, public accountability, and the ability to challenge government searches in court.
0 kommentar(er)
