Hiro11

I see this thrown around a lot here, the Patriot Act seems to be very frigtening to people here. In the final analysis, though, how have people's rights been unduly infringed by the Patriot Act? Have your rights been personally infringed upon? How about anyone you know? Can you cite an example of privacy or civil rights abuse allowed under the specific provisions in the Patriot Act? Crucially, how do these purported infringements compare to having about 13 million illegal cameras photographing each private citizen on average 300 times a day? How about how they compare to rights abuses in any other country?

Sorry, I could probably be ignorant about all of this, but the Patriot Act, in and of itself, doesn't seem all that terrible.

TouristTrap

You would say that.

Elvira

Google for *Special Registration*, in particular the report compiled by AILA.

Having done your research, please report back.

fatbrit

You are. Bedtime reading here.

Hiro11

Surprisingly, as an NPR listener, I was aware of the ACLU's view on Section 215. I could easily produce any number of links defending section 215 from other lobbying groups. Also, it's worth noting that a recently declassified DOJ study found that the FBI has utilized section 215 exactly twice since it was enacted. Hardly a massive, day-to-day rights infringement. Lastly, how exactly are the provisions in section 215 worse than any other country?

To be technical, special registration is not part of the Patriot Act. In any event it mirrors provisions already in force in many other countries, notably across Europe. It's actually weaker in many ways than laws in force in countries like France and Germany. I'm not defending special registration, I'm just saying that it's provisions are probably no worse than any other country's and yet people single out the US.

I'm no fan of the FBI and I'm a huge supporter of individual privacy rights. My point is that people are seemingly singling out the US as a uniquely repressive place and I just don't see it.

Also, thanks for the gratuitous ad hominem attack, Trap

fatbrit

Think one of the general problems with much of the legislation passed from 9/11 until last January was that it concentrated power in the hands of the executive branch, and removed the checks and balances from the other two, supposedly coequal, branches. The checks and balances are what ensure the democracy here in America. Where is the problem with getting a freakin' warrant from the judiciary before you go out nosing in citizens' private business? This executive branch doesn't seem to believe it's necessary to have any checks on them whatsoever. I do! And I do for whichever person or party is sitting in the White House.

TouristTrap

You're welcome.

snowbunny

Would you consider Canada? Of course this would be for the massive timber industry, who also must care for trees with an emphasis on disease and insect control, etc. You might even find a province willing to sponsor you and fast-track you past the federal process.

Just a thought.

Tableland

Hiro

Saying the UK is worse than the US for privacy abuse is like saying hanging is worse than strangling. The fact is that neither nation is really safeguarding its citizens civil liberties. I have posted this before, but below is a list compiled by Privacy International with specific regard to the abuse of privacy laws. You will note that the UK is in the same section as China.


Privacy International, privacy rankings 2006:

Consistently upholds human rights standards:

1 Germany
2 Canada

Significant protections and safeguards:

3 Belgium
3 Austria
4 Greece

Some safeguards but weakened protections:

5 Argentina
5 Hungary
6 France
6 Poland
6 Portugal
6 Cyprus
7 Finland
8 Italy
8 Luxembourg
8 Latvia
8 Estonia
8 Malta

Systemic failure to uphold safeguards:

9 Denmark
9 Czech Republic
9 Ireland
9 Slovakia
9 Lithuania
9 New Zealand
10 Spain
10 Australia
11 Slovenia
11 Netherlands
12 Sweden
12 Israel

Extensive surveillance societies:

13 United States
14 Thailand
14 Philippines

Endemic surveillance societies:

15 United Kingdom
16 Singapore
16 Russia
17 Malaysia
17 People's Republic of China (Mainland only)

cindyabs

Interesting and surprising in some cases.

Elvira

I bet they counted CCTV and speeding detection cameras as "surveillance"...

TouristTrap

CCTV IS surveillance. The entire population is under Big Brother's watchful eye and ears.

The bit about it 'reducing crime' is not different from the 'War on Terror' bit given for the passing of the Patriot Act.

No difference in the long term.

Elvira

CCTV is a crime prevention measure. They are not surveying individuals. In fact the people watching the screens do not have a clue as to the identity of the people in the video. The videos are not archived but are continually reused/erased.

CCTV doesn't bother me at all. In fact they make me feel safer. I don't see how you can compare it with the sort of surveillance which is enshrined in the Patriot's Act.

As for speeding cameras: as far as I'm concerned, the more speeders who put other road users' lives at risk are caught and punished, the better.

TouristTrap

The Patriot Act is a terrorism prevention measure. How different is the rhetoric really? Not.

I don't have problems with speeding cameras. I do however, have problems with CCTV. I know how boring it must be for those watching, etc..but it is still keeping an entire country under surveillance both visually and aurally. Don't forget the last bit.

How do you know the tapes are not being archived?

I can't believe folk from the UK have no problems with this.

Ray

I agree with Elvira there and having been in quite a few
observation rooms ... there is nothing to few there ...