Bringing It Full Fractal
So let's recap what we know. The PATRIOT Act mandates the expansion of federal law enforcement, permits the gathering/storage of data without the usual warrants, and instructs government officials to create centers for data sharing and analysis. The CSEA allows ISPs to send client data to any government agency, where it can be distributed and shared at the local, state, and federal level. To top it off, FISMA requires federal agencies to audit themselves for security risks, develop countermeasures, and implement policies that have to be followed throughout the agency. Even if we disregard Title 28 U.S.C Sec. 534 (which authorizes the FBI's fingerprinting and facial recognition database programs) what additional power could the Obama administration want from Congress?
Current legislation allows the federal government either passively to collect information on Americans via ISPs or actively collect it as a part of an investigation into acts of terrorism which its agents retain the sole authority to define. Also keep in mind that the CSEA and Title II of the PATRIOT Act allow ISPs to collect and send the electronic identification numbers of the devices used in their surveillance operations. Every personal computer, smartphone, and tablet computer contains and uses identification information that can be uncovered with network mapping tools and used to monitor activity on the device itself. In effect, the federal government could monitor the movements or activities of anyone possessing an internet-capable device and such action could be conducted, if federal law enforcement felt it appropriate to protecting national security.
Last Words
There were several proposals the president outlined that are more than worthwhile uses of time and government capital, but on the matter of information security the government needs no greater authority from Congress. If anything, Congress should endeavor to dismantle sections of the PATRIOT Act and CSEA that enable clandestine, intrusive surveillance of American citizens and devise safeguards against information gathering without probable cause.
Article comments
1 - pablo
You might have mentioned Alexander that all of the legislation that you cited is unconstitutional on its face as per the fourth amendment. I am not surprised however that you omitted that trivial fact.
2 - Alexander J Smith III
The Constitutionality of the legislation wasn't the focus of the piece, though I do agree that much of the PATRIOT Act is in violation of several Constitutional Amendments.
3 - pablo
Well that's great Alexander. I just don't see the point in writing about legislation that is unlawful on its face, other than to point that out.
4 - Igor
IMO the point of discussing unlawful legislation is to try to rescind it. But that may be impossible, given the political proclivities.
Fortunately, an astute person can devise sufficient personal security with easily available tools.
5 - Alexander J Smith III
-Pablo,
Unfortunately for us, those laws are the law, and they won't be unlawful until we (and our court system) step up to challenge them. While they're still around we have to talk about the powers they grant, even if we don't agree that they should be there in the first place.
6 - pablo
Igor and Alexander,
Then the thrust of the discussion should be about their unlawfulness, which I did not see in your article Alexander.
I'm RACIST? for criticizing Obama.
TERRORIST because I'm not with Bush.
ANTISEMITIC for not supporting Rothschild Zionism.
TEABAGGER for supporting the Constitution.
TRUTH-ER for asking unanswered questions.
TRAITOR for whistle-blowing on my corrupt Government.
CONSPIRACY THEORIST for presenting documented facts.
TROLL for uploading news, videos, quotes and U.S.Atrocities.
7 - Dr Dreadful
Then the thrust of the discussion should be about their unlawfulness, which I did not see in your article Alexander.
Hmm.
So the sub-heading "What Is and Isn't Legal" didn't clue you in?
8 - Alexander J Smith III
-Dr. Dreadful
LOL. I mean that section was there just to spell out what the current laws say. I can understand where Pablo is coming from, but I felt that discussing why the current laws are overstepping, or unconstitutional would have been slightly off topic and could really use an entire piece to cover that.
9 - Dr Dreadful
Yes, Alexander, your article can indeed be the jumping-off point for a discussion on the illegality (or otherwise) of the legislation. But Pablo isn't interested in having a discussion. He has already decided that the laws are unconstitutional and will merely scoff at anything anybody says to the contrary. Hence my ironic comment.
10 - pablo
It is ok Dread I know you like to take a swipe at me anytime you get the chance.
11 - pablo
And Dread yes I will scoff at anyone who says the contrary regarding the Patriot Act, who claims that it does not violate the Constitution, as it clearly does, it is not debatable, however that probably will not stoop the esteemed Supreme Court from saying otherwise.
As to discussion, I spent several years on this site discussing the issues of the day, now I prefer sniping. And snipe away I will when I choose to Dread, and I know each and every time that I do, you will be there to point your finger at me. Enjoy. :)
12 - Dr Dreadful
Fair enough, Pablo, although as I said, if all you're interested in is sniping about the unlawfulness of the Patriot Act then you can't really complain that Alexander isn't discussing it.