4 ms·
I think it's fairly clear: http://www.restorethefourth.net/press/ http://www.restorethefourth.net/press/ 1. Enact reform this Congress to Section 215 of the US
by auston 13y ago
I think it's fairly clear: http://www.restorethefourth.net/press/ http://www.restorethefourth.net/press/
1. Enact reform this Congress to Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, the state secrets privilege, and the FISA Amendments Act to make clear that blanket surveillance of the Internet activity and phone records of any person residing in the U.S. is prohibited by law and that violations can be reviewed in adversarial proceedings before a public court;
2. Create a special committee to investigate, report, and reveal to the public the extent of
this domestic spying. This committee should create specific recommendations for legal
and regulatory reform to end unconstitutional surveillance;
3. Hold accountable those public officials who are found to be responsible for this
unconstitutional surveillance.
- tptacek 13y ago(1) Is never going to happen. Even civil cases in the US can be conducted under seal, and those very rarely pertain to national security. This is exactly what the parent commenter was referring to when he said that people should figure out exactly what their demand is; the demand in item (1) here is totally unrealistic. (2) and (3) seem very straightforward, realistic, and productive.
- scythe 13y ago(1) should be broken among its parts. The state secrets privilege is hard to get rid of, but it is realistic to call for the repeal of the "library records provision": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_records_provision#Section_215:_Access_to_records_and_other_items_under_FISA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_records_provision#Secti... Notably, Google itself has launched a campaign against the gag order related to NSLs, which we should all (hopefully) support!
- ScottBurson 13y agoI think the keyword in (1) is "blanket". I'm not sure exactly what the intended definition is, and this should be clarified, but I'd guess the intent includes surveillance without specific probable cause. If I'm right, then I think this might be achievable. It would not say that any surveillance could be challenged in a public proceeding, only indiscriminate surveillance. Production of a lawful court order would presumably be sufficient to inactivate this provision. Hmm, I suppose things could get sticky if there were debate over the lawfulness of the court order... nonetheless, I'm not prepared to give up on this yet.