Eutrusca
27-08-2005, 13:54
COMMENTARY: This portion of The Patriot Act is, IMHO, in need of overhaul. When the joint Congressional committee meets to decide the final language on this, it is my sincere hope they will make it more restrictive.
Excessive Powers (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/27/opinion/27sat2.html?th&emc=th)
Published: August 27, 2005
When John Ashcroft was the attorney general, he railed against the "hysteria" of critics of Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows the government to search library records. The number of times Section 215 had been used to search libraries was, Mr. Ashcroft declared, zero. But civil libertarians opposed the provision not because they knew it had been used - searches under Section 215 are secret - but because they expected it would be.
It turns out that they were right to be concerned. The American Civil Liberties Union has just reported that the F.B.I. demanded library records from a Connecticut institution by using another troubling Patriot Act provision that authorizes a tool known as a national security letter. The A.C.L.U. says it cannot identify the institution or specify the nature of the request because of federal secrecy rules. But this is the first confirmed instance of the F.B.I.'s use of the Patriot Act to demand library records.
The Connecticut library inquiry follows on the heels of an American Library Association report that law enforcement officials have made at least 200 inquiries to libraries about reading materials and other internal matters since October 2001. In some cases, the officers issued subpoenas; in others, they relied on informal requests.
Both Section 215, which expressly concerns libraries, and the far broader national security letter provision of the Patriot Act are so expansively written that they invite law enforcement to overreach and demand the confidential records of people with no connection to terrorism.
Section 215 has, quite rightly, become a rallying point for librarians and civil libertarians. But as the Connecticut case suggests, there is a real danger that law enforcement will simply use national security letters to conduct the same sort of library searches.
When Congress voted to reauthorize portions of the Patriot Act that were scheduled to expire, both the Senate and House adopted changes for both Section 215 and the national security letter provision.
The Senate versions are far more protective of privacy rights than the House versions, which in some cases make the Patriot Act's excesses considerably worse. When Congress reconciles these two approaches in a conference committee this fall, people who care about privacy and reasonable restrictions on law enforcement need to insist on changes that make the Patriot Act better, not worse.
Excessive Powers (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/27/opinion/27sat2.html?th&emc=th)
Published: August 27, 2005
When John Ashcroft was the attorney general, he railed against the "hysteria" of critics of Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows the government to search library records. The number of times Section 215 had been used to search libraries was, Mr. Ashcroft declared, zero. But civil libertarians opposed the provision not because they knew it had been used - searches under Section 215 are secret - but because they expected it would be.
It turns out that they were right to be concerned. The American Civil Liberties Union has just reported that the F.B.I. demanded library records from a Connecticut institution by using another troubling Patriot Act provision that authorizes a tool known as a national security letter. The A.C.L.U. says it cannot identify the institution or specify the nature of the request because of federal secrecy rules. But this is the first confirmed instance of the F.B.I.'s use of the Patriot Act to demand library records.
The Connecticut library inquiry follows on the heels of an American Library Association report that law enforcement officials have made at least 200 inquiries to libraries about reading materials and other internal matters since October 2001. In some cases, the officers issued subpoenas; in others, they relied on informal requests.
Both Section 215, which expressly concerns libraries, and the far broader national security letter provision of the Patriot Act are so expansively written that they invite law enforcement to overreach and demand the confidential records of people with no connection to terrorism.
Section 215 has, quite rightly, become a rallying point for librarians and civil libertarians. But as the Connecticut case suggests, there is a real danger that law enforcement will simply use national security letters to conduct the same sort of library searches.
When Congress voted to reauthorize portions of the Patriot Act that were scheduled to expire, both the Senate and House adopted changes for both Section 215 and the national security letter provision.
The Senate versions are far more protective of privacy rights than the House versions, which in some cases make the Patriot Act's excesses considerably worse. When Congress reconciles these two approaches in a conference committee this fall, people who care about privacy and reasonable restrictions on law enforcement need to insist on changes that make the Patriot Act better, not worse.