
Report on FBI’s Use of Patriot Act Highlights Need for Intelligence Reform - DiabloD3
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/oversight-report-fbis-use-patriot-act-highlights-need-intelligence-reform-crucial
======
chris_wot
I wrote most of the Wikipedia article on the USA Patriot Act many years ago
when I was deeply involved in Wikipedia. I read the entire Act and chased down
every regulation, part of the U.S. Code that was modified and tried to write a
balanced explanation of the controversies surrounding it.

I wrote so much material that I wrote seperate articles on each of the
sections of the Act. I recommend reading the bit on section 215 to understand
what it entails:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_summary_of_the_Patriot_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_summary_of_the_Patriot_Act,_Title_II#Section_215:_Access_to_records_and_other_items_under_FISA)

------
logn
The talking points that keep coming up in discussions about reform center on
metadata and phone records. This is only a small part of the story and I wish
groups like EFF would do a better job publicizing the rest of what Snowden
disclosed. And the pro-liberty talking heads feel the need to tell us everyday
that metadata matters and surveillance is bad which hampers their ability to
ever get any other message into the discussion.

Also regarding metadata, if we don't even have a definition of what it is,
that's quite worrying. For instance, you could take my comment, run it through
an NLP summarizer, AI sentiment analysis, etc (along with cross-referencing
back to everything else I've ever written and analyzing that). I.e., they
could be generating their own metadata which is basically the data, but more
useful.

I wouldn't be surprised if metadata is construed to mean that it's the actual
text/content since it's metadata to other data (just depends on your frame of
reference).

~~~
mikegioia
Do you realize in your own comment, you focused the entire thing on metadata
and phone records, without saying what the other (implied) larger part to the
story is?

If it's not just all about metadata and phone records, then what is it?

~~~
logn
The irony is not lost on me, but at least my voice in the debate doesn't
really matter (I'm more concerned about people on the Senate floor, TV, radio,
etc). For what it's worth, I replied elsewhere in this thread with a summary
of the bigger problem as I see it.

------
drawkbox
I'd be ok with us throwing out every bit of law enacted Sept 2001 and after.

Then closely re-examining these one by one and put back in, I'd bet not 10% of
it makes sense to do in a non-fear induced populace.

But the problem is, once you give up freedom easily, it is very difficult to
get back if ever.

To help fix this we could do a few things:

\- There should at least be a 2 year window for any terrorism law where there
is no possibility of renewal after the event. A new bill covering the same
would need to be in review for 2 years.

\- If we want law that sticks without horrible details, we need to remove fast
tracking. Bills about freedoms should be public and in discussion for years.

\- Bills should also only be named SB[number] and HB[number] and no marketing
/ 'freedom' propagandized bill titles.

The real patriot act would be repealing the Patriot Act. Then writing a new
one with a numeric code, that has to be discussed on the details of that bill,
not the name. The bill would have an automatic 2 year expiration with no
chance of renewal, and then this debate is brought up every 2 years. This
needs to be an issue in every election.

~~~
Sven7
These are just short term hacks. The problems we are dealing with are third or
fourth order consequences of the size of the defense budget. These issues will
disappear if budgets shrink or get reallocated towards "peace" goals rather
than "defense" goals.

------
MCRed
I don't like the word reform. I think the correct word is Repeal.

"Reforming" by bandaging over is not sufficient.

These "reform" bills can also be very long and end up containing things that
make things works.

A repeal bill could be extremely short and succinct, sufficient for everyone
to read it.

The PATRIOT ACT should never have been passed, and that it has persisted for
so long, as far as I'm concerned, is proof positive that our government is a
criminal enterprise. (IT's not following the constitution.)

Many liberals and conservatives over the years have told me that government
works, that democracy works.

Well, the PATRIOT act is my refutation of that claim. IF you believe that
democracy works, then it's time for you to work to really change things.

Excuse me for the "get off of my lawn" bit here- but when I was a kid the
country really was different, it really was a lot more free. It's hard for
people in their 20s to see it now because of the perspective of age, but if
things continue in 20 years you'll be able to see it.

~~~
chris_wot
If you want to repeal it, fine. But what precisely do you want to repeal?

You really want to repeal section 215 of the Act. The Patriot Act covers a lot
of uncontroversial ground - if you repeal the entire Act it will cause utter
chaos and there will be side effects most people don't want or expect.

The problem IMO is not the Act. That had flaws which have been remedied by the
courts over the years. The issue is how agencies like the NSA are interpreting
the laws and making up secretive (!!) legal fictions to justify the way they
do things... in secret. And the FISC is too secretive and willing to rubber
stamp the secret requests of the government, leaving little or no opportunity
for public scrutiny.

But you see, that's a problem with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(aka FISA), which was enacted after the Church Commission found egregious
violations of civil liberties in the 60s and 70s. The Patriot Act amended this
law, but the structural problems exist even without the USA Patriot Act's
amendments, and where even reasonable measures made by the Act have,
ironically, been deliberately misinterpreted by government agencies.

~~~
MCRed
You're correct that the FISA needs to be repealed as well, and it's continued
existence shows the PATRIOT ACT is not an anomaly. Those egregious violations
of human rights need to be prosecuted, not "reformed".

I don't think there's any part of the PATRIOT ACT that is "uncontroversial"
the entire thing should god. The claim that it will cause "utter chaos" is
kinda silly. We didn't have utter chaos before it was law. IF you think there
are bad side effects people don't want, then name them.

Too many people think that government is a good thing and that most of what
they do isn't evil, and thus they just give the benefit of the doubt time and
time again. Well, you may not be doing that, and that might even be true for
the government as a whole, but the PATRIOT ACT does not deserve the benefit of
the doubt-- the provisions that are clearly abusive and extremely offensive to
the constitution show that none of it deserves the benefit of the doubt.

I looked at the section titles of your wikipedia article on it, and all of
them are either criminal acts for government to do or administrative enabling
of criminal acts.

What the Church Commission confirmed is what the founders knew, which was that
a federal "law enforcement" agency would become the secret police, and that's
why they forbade it in the constitution:

The only enumerated power for such enforcement is here: "To define and punish
Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law
of Nations;"

Everything else, and including everyone involved in propagating these crimes,
should be prosecuted. Their crimes are felonies if committed while armed,
under USC 18-242.

So yes, repealing the PATRIOT ACT doesn't go far enough, the government has
been abusing its powers since nearly the late 1700s.

~~~
chris_wot
If you looked at my link and got through it, I congratulate you :-) but we're
still talking about only title II of the Patriot Act!

FWIW, I personally don't find anything particularly controversial about title
III which deals with money laundering. I don't think concentration accounts
should ever be allowed, tightening the rules around identifying foreign
beneficial owners and a whole raft of measures were actually very effective
and fair.

Title IV had problematic aspects around modifications to the INA, particularly
around disallowing the entry of family of designated terrorists from entering
the U.S. as I feel that's overly broad and discriminatory. I'm particularly
cautious about the mandatory detention provisions, even with the safeguards in
place.

Title V was the one that introduced NSLs, but that was deemed unconstitutional
do it's a moot point now.

Title VI provided for victims of terrorism, public safety officers and their
families. Rolling back these provisions would be pretty bad.

I gotta dash, so can't comment on the other titles, from memory there were
some issues, but by and large many of the changes were benign.

That's the problem with the Act - firstly, the name causes suspicion
("Patriotism is the first refuge of a scoundrel"), it was pushed through far
too quickly and I doubt any members of Congress read it which is why it has
large holes in it, and parts as it was enacted were later deemed
unconstitutional.

The good citizens of the United States should really insist on smaller, more
focussed bills passed separately in future. And those pushing the bills would
be better off skipping cute backronyms like the "USA PATRIOT Act".

~~~
throwawayaway
just to clarify, NSLs are not moot, not unconstitutional and are still a
'thing'.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter#Histo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter#History)

there's more cute backronyms on the way:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act)

~~~
chris_wot
I'm sorry you got downvoted - you are correct.

~~~
throwawayaway
don't be sorry, it merely reflects on the wisdom of the crowds :)

------
paulsutter
> The FBI employs a “classified directive” to define the term “U.S. Person”
> and that the agency cannot definitively say what information counts as
> “metadata.”

If you agree this is bullshit, tell your representatives. And vote.

These people work for us.

