[wordup] (no subject)

[Adam Shand]

From: http://www.aclu.org/congress/patriot_chart.html
Via: http://slashdot.org/

Surveillance powers
Changes being considered by Congress

On September 19, only eight days after the tragic terrorist attacks on New
York and Washington, the Bush Administration unveiled its proposed
Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), legislation that included many changes to the
nation's current surveillance laws. The chart below outlines the changes
proposed by the ATA, and the ACLU's objections to those changes.. Also
compared are the latest versions of anti-terrorism legislation being
considered in the House and Senate.

The ACLU has five overall concerns about the surveillance provisions of
the legislation being discussed:

 * They would reduce or eliminate the role of judges in ensuring that law
   enforcement wiretapping is conducted legally and with proper
   justification. There is no reason why the requirement to get a court
   order for surveillance should slow down the investigation of suspects
   for which there is evidence of terrorist activities.

 * They would dangerously erode the longstanding distinction between
   domestic law enforcement and foreign intelligence collection, which
   protects Americans from being spied upon by their own intelligence
   agencies, as happened during the Cold War.

 * The definition of "terrorism" is too broad, permitting the special
   surveillance powers granted in this legislation to be applied far
   beyond what is commonly thought of by the term. Under the definition
   proposed by the Administration, even acts of simple civil disobedience
   could lead organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of
   Animals (PETA)  to become targets of "terrorist" investigations.

 * Many of the expansions in surveillance authority being considered are
   not limited to even the broad definition of terrorism investigations.

 * The Congress is moving unnecessarily and irresponsibly quickly on these
   measures. It takes a great deal of time to deal with complex issues
   such as how to apply wiretap law to the Internet, and to think through
   all the possible unintended consequences of legislative language. Few
   of the provisions being discussed are needed for the current terrorism
   investigations, so Congress should take the time to do it right.

Security and civil liberties do not have to be at odds. Law enforcement
authorities already have great leeway under current law to investigate
suspects in terrorist attacks - including broad authority to monitor
telephone and Internet communications. In fact, under current law, judges
have rejected only three federal or state criminal wiretap requests in the
last decade.

<big table of comparisons at the web site> ...