PDA

View Full Version : WP: White House proposal would ease FBI access to records of Internet activity



SkinsHokieFan
July-29th-2010, 09:42 AM
When we were talking about "Bush's 3rd term" in 2008, I never thought it would be this administration

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/28/AR2010072806141.html



White House proposal would ease FBI access to records of Internet activity

Lawyer Stewart Baker said the change would sometimes "mean giving a lot more information to the FBI."

By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 29, 2010

The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation.

The administration wants to add just four words -- "electronic communication transactional records" -- to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user's browser history. It does not include, as the lawyers hasten to point out, the "content" of e-mail or other Internet communication.

- snip -

Many Internet service providers have resisted the government's demands to turn over electronic records, arguing that surveillance law as written does not allow them to do so, industry lawyers say. One senior administration government official, who would discuss the proposed change only on condition of anonymity, countered that "most" Internet or e-mail providers do turn over such data. To critics, the move is another example of an administration retreating from campaign pledges to enhance civil liberties in relation to national security. The proposal is "incredibly bold, given the amount of electronic data the government is already getting," said Michelle Richardson, American Civil Liberties Union legislative counsel.

The critics say its effect would be to greatly expand the amount and type of personal data the government can obtain without a court order. "You're bringing a big category of data -- records reflecting who someone is communicating with in the digital world, Web browsing history and potentially location information -- outside of judicial review," said Michael Sussmann, a Justice Department lawyer under President Bill Clinton who now represents Internet and other firms.

Click link for rest

Larry
July-29th-2010, 09:50 AM
Sigh.

OK, long sigh. To comply with "minimum message length".

DCsportsfan53
July-29th-2010, 10:07 AM
Like I've been saying, do you want papa fed to take your civil liberties or mama fed? The end result is the same, voting has become completely pointless. For the life of me I wish I knew a way to break the Demopublicans stranglehold on politics in order to allow for some different view points to see the light. Both parties are really just slightly different shades of slightly right of center. I can't stand politics.

Hubbs
July-29th-2010, 11:10 AM
Okay, seriously, how ****ing hard is it to get a warrant? I've heard of judges issuing them for practically nothing.

mardi gras skin
July-29th-2010, 11:56 AM
When we were talking about "Bush's 3rd term" in 2008, I never thought it would be this administration

No kidding! Issue after issue, I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two.

Larry
July-29th-2010, 11:58 AM
Okay, seriously, how ****ing hard is it to get a warrant? I've heard of judges issuing them for practically nothing.

I've read differing opinions.

For example, I've read that the FBI has never been turned down for a wiretap.

But (supposedly) the reason for this isn't that federal judges are all rubber stamps for the FBI.

The reason the FBI has never been turned down is because the FBI doesn't allow agents to ask for a warrant, unless a team of FPI lawyers have reviewed the request, and guaranteed that the request will stand up.

The FBI has a higher standard for what it takes to get a warrant, than the courts do.

And they do this deliberately, because whenever a warrant or wiretap-obtained evidence gets thrown out, it creates precedent which other people can use to get other evidence thrown out.

It's to their advantage to not ask, unless they're guaranteed a "yes".

Larry
July-29th-2010, 11:59 AM
No kidding! Issue after issue, I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two.

Well, there is one difference.

The people throwing flowers and feces have traded supplies.

mardi gras skin
July-29th-2010, 12:03 PM
Well, there is one difference.

The people throwing flowers and feces have traded supplies.

Yep! I think most people are just left flat footed. Republicans can't be too mad with Obama because he's doing exactly what they argued for and the Dem's can't really support Obama because he's doing what they had just blasted Bush for.

In the end, everyone is just, blah. I love it! :ols: