response 32 of 116:

Sep 17 06:06 UTC 2003

I haven't read this, but I've heard rumors of its existence, and just found
it via a Google search.  It looks relevant:

Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal
Investigations

Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section
Criminal Division
United States Department of Justice
July 2002

http://www.cybercrime.gov/s&smanual2002.htm

response 34 of 116:

Sep 18 20:01 UTC 2003

The part of the USA Patriot Act that people are discussing
is section 215 of that act, which adds a new section 501 to
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  The amended
version is 50 United States Code section 1861.

Basically, section 501 says that an FBI agent may make an
application for an order requiring any business to produce
"any tangible things" to a special, secret court.  The
court is not allowed to deny the application for an order
if the form is correct.  (No, I'm not making this stuff up!)
Then it goes on to say:

"No person shall disclose to any other person (other than
those persons necessary to produce the tangible things
under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation
has sought or obtained tangible things under this section."

response 36 of 116:

Sep 18 20:33 UTC 2003

So, David, in your opinion, that section would absolutely preclude the 
consultation of an attorney by anyone receiving such a request?

(Mary slipped in)

If that is so, then I would personally volunteer to violate that law and 
pursue it as a test case should the issue come up.  That is completely 
beyond the pale.

response 38 of 116:

Sep 19 00:48 UTC 2003

Yes, but the point here is that, if I'm reading Dave's coment correctly, 
this law prohibits anyone from consulting even their own attorney about 
the proper response to a specific request, at ANY TIME, EVER, after the 
request is made.

response 40 of 116:

Sep 20 00:04 UTC 2003

Which makes it ever more essential tat we consult an attorney IMMEDIATELY 
upon receipt of such a request, while waiting for the source of the 
request to provide proof that they are indeed legitimately entitled to 
make it (in the interests of National Security, of course).

response 42 of 116:

Sep 22 13:22 UTC 2003

There are no court decisions interpreting this language.
From the plain reading of this provision, there is no exception
for consulting an attorney.  Congress *could* have included
such an exception, since it felt free to include the "other
than those persons necessary" exception.  But it didn't do so.

Now you see why libraries and other businesses have been jumping
up and down about this bizarre part of the Patriot Act.

response 44 of 116:

Sep 23 09:04 UTC 2003

It's quite possible parts of the patriot act wouldn't survive a good
constitutional challenge -- and it's also quite likely the government is
going to avoid doing anything that would risk such a challenge.  Also,
parts of the act have time limits, and all this is likely to change in
due course anyways; parts of the government are already gearing up to
try to push through what they strenuously deny is "Patriot II",
meanwhile other parts are getting cold feet about what they passed in
the heat of the moment.  As a practical matter, I'm not at all convinced
it's worth worrying too hard about this -- we all know the government
isn't supposed to just toss people in jail indefinitely without due
process of law, and yet this already happens: if the government decides
to show up with steel toed thugs, there ain't nuthing we can decide here
that amounts to a hill 'o beans.

The best we can do is continue to do what we have always done with grex,
which has its genesis in the coffee houses of the 1790's even as our
constitution was originally being drafted -- and that is not to talk
about what we ought to do in response to our government, but to talk
about what our government is, is not, ought, or ought not do, why, and
why not.  Those I submit are far harder questions than what do do in
response to a lawyer or a thug -- by the time that happens, the time for
policy making has long since passed.

[ Canada, incidently, is no citadel of freedom compared to the US.  They
have a deserved reputation for politeness, and rumour has it Canadian
politics are far more liberal; but perhaps the former is in part due to
the far more fragile constitutional basis of Canadian freedoms.  It's a
lot easier to respect a fragile glass vase than an iron pot.  The latter
may be due to the comparitive absence of the puritan and the cavalier in
Canadian pioneers. ]

response 46 of 116:

Sep 23 18:35 UTC 2003

The point is, it wouldn't be for the sake of Grex.  Grex would be 
incidental to the matter.  The point would be to initiate a challenge 
which would overturn a law which has a serious potential chilling effect 
as long as it stands.

response 48 of 116:

Sep 25 00:39 UTC 2003

Re: #46
True, but you still need at least one grex staffer willing to reduce
his/her quality of life to "camp X-ray" level for an unknown number
of years (while the legal wheels slowly & fitfully grind) for the
eventual greater good...hopefully.  Perhaps i just haven't noticed
the staffers rushing to volunteer for this.

response 50 of 116:

Sep 26 05:08 UTC 2003

re #49:  I don't understand what you mean when you suggest that Grex gave 
the ACLU it's name and resources for their political lawsuit, when the 
reality of the situation is that they invited us to take part in a suit 
to overturn a law which would have resulted in the end of Grex if left 
unchallenged.

The interests of the ACLU ARE the interests of American citizens, whether 
we support them or not.  

response 52 of 116:

Sep 26 15:23 UTC 2003

I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong.  The only agenda the ACLU has is 
preserving the Bill of Rights for the benefit of all Americans.  There 
are a lot of people who seem to be incapable of realizing how the ACLU is 
serving their interests, but it does nonetheless.

The most challenging thing about what it does is that often the cases it 
takes on are unpopular, but that is the crux of the issue.  The Bill of 
Rights protects all citizens, but the protections it offers are 
significantly more important for those who are in the minority, and 
often, those who are in the minority are so because they hold unpopular 
beliefs.  If supporting the majority position is your choice, that's 
fine, but if it is the only choice, then it isn't a choice at all.  The 
ACLU is working to preserve that choice.

I don't care what issue you disagree with the actions of the ACLU about, 
they are still serving your interests.  You may not believe it, but 
you're wrong.

And by the way, *I* didn't "hav[e] Grex promote *[my]* politics..."  The 
board voted, and perhaps the membership did also (I don't remember), on 
being involved in the lawsuit.  The decision was not made by one or a few 
individuals.  And further, if you think the existence of Grex was not 
threatened by Michigan Public Act 33 of 1999, then you do not understand 
the law as it was written, period.  (Sorry!)

response 54 of 116:

Sep 26 15:58 UTC 2003

Re #51:
> Grex was never threatened, or at risk of being threatened, 
> by the state of Michigan or any of it's laws.

From what I read of the law, I think Grex was seriously threatened by
it.  I think the only way you can say Grex wasn't is if you're assuming
that we would be ignored by law enforcement because we're small.  I
think that's a dangerous assumption to make.