| |
The debate about the FBI obtaining Las Vegas Jan 1 room lists with no court auth.
by Elonka at 4:13 pm EST, Jan 6, 2004 |
Rattle wrote:
] ] The FBI demanded Las Vegas hotels turn over their guest
] ] lists leading up to New Year's Eve to check against a
] ] U.S. master list of suspected terrorists, a law
] ] enforcement official said on Sunday.
] ]
] ] The demand for "patron information" went to all major
] ] hotels in the Nevada casino and entertainment city, said
] ] the official who declined to be named.
]
] What was the money line in all the recent Vegas advertising?
] "What happens here, stays here." Well, not this New Years..
]
] ] A second U.S. government official said to his knowledge
] ] only one hotel had balked at providing its bookings list.
] ] Newsweek, the first to report the FBI demand, said one
] ] big hotel had refused and was "slapped with a subpoena."
]
] I would really like to know what the hotel was that required
] the subpoena. I'd like to know too. (gears up for a big vent) But I also think that there's probably much more to this story than is in print. For example, suppose the FBI has a list of 1,000 possible suspects. Yes, they could go to each hotel and say, "Here's a list of 1,000 names, can you please run through the names of everyone in your guest list, and let us know if any of the names appear there?" That kind of request would put a sizable administrative burden on the hotel, which would be multiplied by the number of hotels that would each have to run their own search. It would also tip the FBI's hand as to just who it was that they were keeping an eye on! Much easier is for the FBI to say, "Hi, we're worried that someone's trying to blow up your city this week. Can you please give us a list of names of who's at your hotel, so we can check it against our criminal database?" It's pro-active in a time of crisis, it doesn't put the burden on the hotel to do law enforcement's job, and it doesn't plaster long lists of confidential suspect names in every hotel backroom. If I were a hotel manager, I wouldn't have any trouble providing the list, though I would ask for a "friendly" subpoena (subpoenas aren't always "slapped"), to verify that the request was coming from a bonafide law enforcement agency, and, yes, to address privacy concerns. As a related subject, the concept of hotels keeping track of who's staying at their establishment, and working with law enforcement to track down criminals, is nothing new. I'd love to see some statistics that show how often that major hotels work with law enforcement -- my guess is that for the big hotels, it's probably a daily basis, which would also affect (in my opinion) the ease with which they'd hand over a patron list. If it's *not* something that's routinely asked for, the fact their FBI contacts were asking for it would probably have a great deal of weight. I know this is putting me way out on the conservative side of our community here, but I feel strongly about this. Okay, done venting, Elonka :) |
| |
RE: The debate about the FBI obtaining Las Vegas Jan 1 room lists with no court auth.
by Rattle at 7:23 pm EST, Jan 6, 2004 |
Elonka wrote:
] If I were a hotel manager, I wouldn't have any trouble
] providing the list, though I would ask for a "friendly"
] subpoena (subpoenas aren't always "slapped"), to verify that
] the request was coming from a bonafide law enforcement agency,
] and, yes, to address privacy concerns. I don't have a problem with it if its done through the legal system.. Subpoena the info. Just don't use "National Security Letters" with attached gag orders. I don't like the idea of all this secret collection of information without any kind of oversight outside the intelligence agencies using the powers. Its all about oversight. I don't think there is any. I have a problem with that. Unless I am mistaken, the closest thing to review I think these actions go under outside the agency they are used, is when it gets leaked to the press like this. I also have a much lower threshold for sounding the bullshit alarm because of the way these powers are being expanded.. That being, with as little public discourse as possible while still having the ability to look on the up-and-up.. The timing, the senate voice votes, the lack of press, etc.. These things all heighten my tension over the issues at hand, and I see no reason why they shouldn't. ] I know this is putting me way out on the conservative side of
] our community here, but I feel strongly about this. So do I. And let me state as clearly as I can: If this is viewed as a 'liberal' vs. 'conservative' issue, then America is truly fucked. What's the problem with using the legal system for this Elonka? Why do we need a separate infrastructure with less protections for our civil liberties? You yourself said that you would ask for a "friendly" subpoena. Why? Don't show me one situation where these powers were used in a reasonable manor and expect me to believe that they are always going to be used in a reasonable manor. That's wishful thinking, not something I'm going to take to the bank. Not something I am going to bet my country's future on. And I didn't even come out all guns shooting and over react this time, like I did over that sacurrent article.. Shesh.. :) |
|
| | |
RE: The debate about the FBI obtaining Las Vegas Jan 1 room lists with no court auth.
by Elonka at 9:18 pm EST, Jan 6, 2004 |
Rattle wrote:
] I don't have a problem with it if its done through the legal
] system.. Subpoena the info. On this we agree. :) ] Just don't use "National Security Letters" with attached gag
] orders. I don't like the idea of all this secret collection
] of information without any kind of oversight outside the
] intelligence agencies using the powers. Here's where I diverge. Secret collection? No oversight? Gag orders? I mean, I agree with the statement in general, but what does that have to do with this Vegas story? This story was *not* secret. In fact, plenty of papers were covering the fact that the FBI was on the job in Vegas, as a way of decreasing public fears. Just google the story. But then "Wired News" gets ahold of it, banners it with a big emotional headline, and all of a sudden the privacy people are jumping up and down and screaming, "See? See?" ] Its all about oversight. I don't think there is any. I have
] a problem with that. Unless I am mistaken, the closest thing
] to review I think these actions go under outside the agency
] they are used, is when it gets leaked to the press like this. Or when somebody files a lawsuit. Or when the ACLU gets ahold of it. There are *lots* of watchdog groups that are willing to scream bloody murder at the drop of a hat, with or without just cause. ] I also have a much lower threshold for sounding the bullshit
] alarm because of the way these powers are being expanded.. Well, the definition of BS is subjective. :) Personally, my own alarm sounds for a lot of the stuff I see posted on Memestreams, especially when people start throwing the words "police state" around. I think some of our users need to get out more, and see what a *real* police state is like. Because lemme tell you, the U.S. just ain't it! But until that promised "squelch" function gets implemented, or the reputation agent really does catch on to the fact that there are certain people who I have *no* desire to ever see a post from, I have to keep scanning headlines from people who I think are... (takes a deep breath and deletes a few words).... from people who I think could do better to inform themselves on the issues. :) ] That being, with as little public discourse as possible while
] still having the ability to look on the up-and-up.. The
] timing, the senate voice votes, the lack of press, etc..
] These things all heighten my tension over the issues at hand,
] and I see no reason why they shouldn't. I agree that tension is high, and that public discourse is good. But I also think that timing has to play a factor. Passing a law is hard. Getting everybody's signoff takes a long time. Sometimes, to survive, I believe that it's better to do your best to make a fast and reasonably good decision, than to take a long time to make a perfect decision. Also, as I underst... [ Read More (0.6k in body) ] |
|
Wired News - FBI obtains ALL Las Vegas Jan 1 room lists with no court auth.
by Decius at 9:56 am EST, Jan 6, 2004 |
] The FBI demanded Las Vegas hotels turn over their guest
] lists leading up to New Year's Eve to check against a
] U.S. master list of suspected terrorists, a law
] enforcement official said on Sunday. This is the reason they are checking IDs at hotels now. |
Wired News - FBI obtains ALL Las Vegas Jan 1 room lists with no court auth.
by Rattle at 3:04 pm EST, Jan 6, 2004 |
] The FBI demanded Las Vegas hotels turn over their guest
] lists leading up to New Year's Eve to check against a
] U.S. master list of suspected terrorists, a law
] enforcement official said on Sunday.
]
] The demand for "patron information" went to all major
] hotels in the Nevada casino and entertainment city, said
] the official who declined to be named. What was the money line in all the recent Vegas advertising? "What happens here, stays here." Well, not this New Years.. ] A second U.S. government official said to his knowledge
] only one hotel had balked at providing its bookings list.
] Newsweek, the first to report the FBI demand, said one
] big hotel had refused and was "slapped with a subpoena." I would really like to know what the hotel was that required the subpoena. |
|
|
