Anti-terrorism bill's "expiration date" may not mean much
On Friday, October 26, 2001, at 05:38 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote: Too many totalitarian surveillance state measures to comment on, but the "sneak and peek" provision is such a slam dunk violation of the Fourth Amendment that it bears special comment.
Other sections of the USA Act, which the House approved by a 357 to 66 vote on Wednesday, that do not expire include the following:
* Police can sneak into someone's house or office, search the contents, and leave without ever telling the owner. This would be supervised by a court, and the notification of the surreptitious search "may be delayed" indefinitely. (Section 213)
Anyone caught inside a house or office should be dealt with in the most expeditiious manner possible. Anyone picked up on crittercam surveillance cameras, and identified by any means, should be dealt with later. The offices and judges who order such sneak and peek invasions shluld be dealt with as well. All of those who passed this law have, in my political opinion, earned the death penalty, --Tim May "Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice."--Barry Goldwater
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Tim May wrote:
On Friday, October 26, 2001, at 05:38 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Too many totalitarian surveillance state measures to comment on, but the "sneak and peek" provision is such a slam dunk violation of the Fourth Amendment that it bears special comment.
Unfortunately, the Fourth doesn't ban secret searches it just bans warrantless ones. And that ban was destroyed years ago: UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/425/435.html Held: Respondent possessed no Fourth Amendment interest in the bank records that could be vindicated by a challenge to the subpoenas, and the District Court therefore did not err in denying the motion to suppress. Pp. 440-446. Since then most of our "papers and effects" have been open to warrantless searches. Any good computer mechanics out there who can rig an electro-mechanical interface for a computer-actuated spring gun. Double-barreled shotgun pointed at the keyboard. Enter the right passphrase within 30 seconds of starting your session or be splattered across the monitor. DCF ---- "If you want to accurately foretell the future, predict war. You'll always be right." -- Robert Heinlein Worldcon 1976.
On Friday, October 26, 2001, at 10:24 AM, Tim May wrote:
On Friday, October 26, 2001, at 05:38 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Too many totalitarian surveillance state measures to comment on, but the "sneak and peek" provision is such a slam dunk violation of the Fourth Amendment that it bears special comment.
Other sections of the USA Act, which the House approved by a 357 to 66 vote on Wednesday, that do not expire include the following:
* Police can sneak into someone's house or office, search the contents, and leave without ever telling the owner. This would be supervised by a court, and the notification of the surreptitious search "may be delayed" indefinitely. (Section 213)
Anyone caught inside a house or office should be dealt with in the most expeditiious manner possible.
Most people who detect an intruder in their homes going through their stuff aren't going to think "This must be a government agent performing an appropriately authorized black bag job." They're going to think "Holy shit! There's a criminal in my house." and do whatever they feel is necessary to defend their loved ones. So lets say a hypothetical woman named "Sue" ventilates "Agent Smith" (who she perceives as a burglar & possibly a rapist) with her twelve gauge. Will she be charged with a crime? Will she be "detained" until such time as the Feds have finished determining her involvement with terrorism? If she asserts her fifth amendment right to not answer questions will the FBI torture her until she "admits" she is a terrorist?
participants (4)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Duncan Frissell -
FogStorm -
Tim May