Rattle wrote:
] w1ld wrote:
] ] Let the Patriot Act die is deserved death and bring on the
] ] guns and bombs where the real war of terrorism is fought.
]
] I agree with everything you said in spirit. However, I am
] 100% positive that it is not going to be allowed to expire or
] get repealed. If I judge the current political climate
] correctly, it would require evidence of abuse to start
] surfacing. And more then one case.. We will be lucky if any
] improvements or changes are made. We should focus on making
] sure it is not made permanent, as that's about the only
] outcome I can see actually happening.

My own opinion is that trying to attack the entire Patriot Act is a bad idea, but that it is worth focusing on getting specific provisions repealed or amended.

I've read large portions of the Patriot Act, and most of it is really unobjectionable, paperwork-streamlining stuff. But there has been an enormous amount of misinformation that has been distributed about just what it does. For example, there were lots of people screaming that the Patriot Act made hacking a terrorist activity, and that just wasn't true -- what it *did* do though was declare that if someone used a computer to affect systems in such a way that they caused a loss of life (like to turn off power to hospitals or cause a plane to crash), then that activity could be classified as terrorism. I don't have a problem with that definition.

There *are* specific parts of the Patriot Act though which do bother me, such as the possibility of putting librarians under gag orders and requiring them to divulge who checks out which book. To my knowledge that section of the Act has never been used, but every time I pass by a library, it's on my mind, and I don't like it. I don't like the idea of looking at a shelf of books and thinking, "Well, no one's probably going to care if I check out *that* book, but if I check out *this* book, then it may show up on an FBI agent's list somewhere." That crosses my Orwellian line of unacceptability.

I also have concerns about the recently-passed "Patriot Act 2" provision which allows federal investigators to access an enormous amount of personal financial information on anyone they want, and again placing the divulgers under gag orders, but with the investigators having to do no more than provide a letter saying it's related to national security. I agree with the Washington Post, in that it's too much power, with too little oversight.

My $0.02,

Elonka

RE: Patriot Act