Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] Re: Raleigh City Council USA PATRIOT Act Resolution Update

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Dasher <jdasher AT ibiblio.org>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Re: Raleigh City Council USA PATRIOT Act Resolution Update
  • Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 21:32:33 -0500


On Tuesday, Mar 9, 2004, at 20:58 US/Eastern, Phillip Rhodes wrote:

James Dasher wrote:


I don't like wiretaps or other infringements on my privacy, either.


My personal opinion, and I'm not alone on this, is that the 5th and
10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution do establish the right to
privacy, even if it's not explicitly spelled out. Many people
argue that if the right to privacy was so important, why wasn't
it put in as a separate Amendment... my belief is that the Founding
Fathers believed that right to be so "self-evident" that there was
no need to spell it out.

We could have an entire thread - heck, an entire *forum* - dedicated to this one question. But, briefly, that interstate commerce clause provided the wedge that federal legislators used to throw wide the doors to legislative hyperactivity. Regardless of what the founders intended - and I tend toward a stricter constructionism - the massive body of legislation and judicial precedent granting all sorts of powers to the federal government makes the assertion of a "right to privacy" shaky grounds, at best.

For numerous reasons, I think that a reinvigoration of property rights would stem the tide of invasive legislation - seat-belt laws, grade school zero-tolerance policies, zoning ordinances - that limit the individual exercise of liberty. A sort of "right to property" to replace the "right to privacy", if you will. But that, too, would take days to debate, and by then we would only have scratched the surface of a handful of the more brilliant and renowned thinkers on property, liberty, and law.

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? (To revisit a recent joke....)

Here's a pretty good analysis of some parts of the Patriot Act,
from Epic:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/

and here's another good review of it:

http://www.independent.org/tii/news/030915ONeil.html

I subscribe to the EPIC list, and remember reading some stuff, as well as skimming the legislation. I remember being unimpressed.

I'll take another look, though, and see if I remember why I thought the effort sort of frivolous, or if I find myself reflecting that my earlier impression was ill-founded.

Thanks for the links.

There's other stuff too. Like the ability to arrest and imprison
someone without telling them what the charges are against them,
and the ability to hold them (as far as I can tell) more or less
indefinitely... as long as they're suspected of "terrorism." (this may
only apply to immigrants... or maybe it's everybody, I'm not 100%
clear on that aspect myself).

I thought I remembered something about the Reno Justice Department using existing powers to do exactly that, and something about Ashcroft subjecting the use of those powers to judicial review, resulting in a few of the cases getting thrown out. But, again, I'll have to revisit the material.

Disclaimer: I haven't sat down and read the entire thing (It's something like 342 pages, IIRC, of legalese and cross references to other documents) so I'm only familiar with bits and pieces of it, and could be wrong about any specific point.

No worries. Thanks again for the links.

Regards -





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page