Author Of The Patriot Act Says Patriot Act Was Written Specifically To Prevent NSA Data Mining
from the well,-how-about-that dept
We already wrote how the main backer of the Patriot Act, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, has said that it was never intended to allow dragnet surveillance of all phone records, as recently revealed. However, it appears he's not done yet in fighting back against this abusive interpretation of the law he sponsored and championed. He's now claiming that those who are defending the NSA and claiming that there's no big deal in having the NSA collect all that data are spewing "a bunch of bunk" directly claiming that the key provision of the Patriot Act, Section 215, was drafted to prevent such data mining.Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, who introduced the PATRIOT Act on the House floor in 2001, has declared that lawmakers' and the executive branch's excuses about recent revelations of NSA activity are "a bunch of bunk."He also claims that people calling Ed Snowden a traitor are off base because without Snowden, he wouldn't have known how the Patriot Act was being abused. That's quite an incredible statement when you think about it. While we can argue that Sensenbrenner, given his role in Congress, probably had an obligation to further investigate how the law was being used -- especially given the warnings raised by other members of Congress -- it still seems to weigh pretty heavily in favor of showing how valuable these disclosures have been as whistleblowing. The very author of the Patriot Act claims that the leaks enabled him to realize that the law is being used in direct contrast to his intentions. Perhaps it's now time to fix that.
In an interview on Laura Ingraham's radio show Wednesday morning, the Republican congressman from Wisconsin reiterated his concerns that the administration and the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court have gone far beyond what the PATRIOT Act intended. Specifically, he said that Section 215 of the act "was originally drafted to prevent data mining" on the scale that's occurred.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: jim sensenbrenner, nsa, nsa surveillance, patriot act, section 215
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
however, i believe it was just another bill intended to do the opposite as far as law enforcement is concerned but to stop, as usual, the people from doing anything undetected!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BALONEY! At best, DIDN'T WORK!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BALONEY! At best, DIDN'T WORK!
The difference between all previous evidence, and this latest leak, is that there is solid evidence that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what the NSA has done. That and the proof has been flaunted by the media rather aggressively.
It is akin to me accusing you of being a shill for techdirt. Unless I can show financial records directly linking you to techdirt's payroll. The claims are easily dismissed. But if I gain those records, it would be a more difficult for people to ignore the argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: BALONEY! At best, DIDN'T WORK!
Except the law did NOT grant that kind of power. The law granted the government the ability to SEEK a court order. Nothing says that the order has to be GRANTED when it's blatantly unconstitutional.
It would be like if you passed a law allowing people to get restraining orders, and I convince a judge to grant one for me against everyone in the country, and then I have anyone who tries to shake my hand arrested. The problem is not with the law; it's with how it was applied by the judge. When an order applies to everyone in the country, that's a good sign that it's overbroad and should be denied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: BALONEY! At best, DIDN'T WORK!
True, strictly speaking, but when the law is so obviously open to inevitable abuse of that sort at the time, as the Patriot Act was, then there is huge a problem with the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean good for him for what he's doing now, but where the hell has he been for the last 12 years?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the other thing is that before voting a bill into law or giving it a time extension, it should bloody well be checked through properly, not just granted out of hand!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are few things more dangerous than...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There are few things more dangerous than...
The good news is that this is a rare bird indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How pathetic is it that a contractor working for the NSA knows more about how laws are being applied that the F***ING representative that wrote the thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How to Handle a Poor PR Situation
by Charles Carreon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sensenbrenner has no credibility
Or, here's an amusing, but similar example to make that point.
Sensenbrenner: As you all know some people recently froze to death this winter because they accidentally locked themselves out of their home during a snow storm. In order to prevent the problem of people locking themselves out of their home by accident we're giving everyone a lock pick so they can't do that anymore, and teaching everyone how to use it properly.
Public: But then criminals can get into your home to no problem.
Sensenbrenner: Nonsense! That'll never happen, it'll be written right into the training material not to do that!
*a few years later*
Public: Home break ins have gone up over 10,000% since you passed your lock picking bill. It's been a disaster and abused just like we predicted.
Sensenbrenner: OMG, I'm SHOCKED that someone abused my lock picking law, even though I wrote write in it to NOT do that! Well we can fix it with a few small adjustments.
Public: Like getting rid of the lock picking program?
Sensenbrenner: No! That's a vital tool to stopping people from locking themselves out of their homes! In the name of home security we can't do that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sensenbrenner has no credibility
It is a decent example in some ways but terrible in most - break ins would probably remain relatively constant. People are not likely to spend 2-20mins picking a lock when they can break a window in 5 seconds with a rock.
The people who perform break ins are unlikely to have been held back by a lack of knowledge of lockpicking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A bill for the people
Then see how long it takes for all of these spy programs go away.I mean if they have nothing to hide...
On a side note. If everyone's secrets become available to everyone, the Tabloids will have nothing to write about except alien babies.
Think of the Tabloids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A bill for the people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah, memories.
He authored it, and voted for its' passage. He didn't understand how it could be abused and used for less than noble purposes?
What was that saying?
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah, memories.
I mean, most judges would have the sense to know that getting phone records for the ENTIRE COUNTRY on a daily basis for YEARS is unconstitutional.
Seriously, what is the point of even HAVING the FISA court if they aren't going to deny something like this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ah, memories.
Political cover.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, now it's patently obvious the law should be re-written to make this perfectly legal...in fact, it should be amended to be 3 times as intrusive just to be sure it can't be challenged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NSA interpretation of the word "collection"
Officer: You are under arrest for possession of marijuana.
Suspect: But it is for medicinal purposes and I only intend to use it for that purpose.
Officer: What condition do you have that warrants possession of it?
Suspect: I don't have any medical conditions. I just have it in case I develop one. Then I will use it for that.
Officer: Oh ok then. You are free to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NSA interpretation of the word "collection"
Second, if the cop did ask that, and the suspect gave that answer, then the cop doesn't say "off you go, then," the cop adds yet another charge to the list: perjury, for lying when obtaining the medical marijuana card.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NSA interpretation of the word "collection"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NSA interpretation of the word "collection"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh wait...public officials never had good intentions since the '60s...
Never mind...
*drinks the milk*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's a hint moron, don't write laws like this without doing the proper research into the possible consequences--you know, like how your supposed to do your job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since the dawn of time...
The most commonly known example was the bull from the Holy See saying suspects could only be tortured once, after which inquisitors brought up the notion of continuance.
What's extra special was the idea that confessions of witness during torture were regarded legitimate, so that a suspect would be tortured until he or she revealed accomplices.
That then led to the idea of torturing those who witnessed an incident, even if they weren't suspect. It was just to make sure they weren't omitting any details.
You'd think after that we'd have learned that any stupid law that was given too wide a net would be applied to every ridiculous situation it could.
But no. Just because we elect the bastards doesn't mean they gain a modicum of sense of responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
need more Snowden's
WHAT BILL COVERS THAT,which ever one does,we all need to act like EGYPT IS.THERE'S ALOT OF ABUSE GOING ON IN OUR COUNTRY AND 5 KIDS MY LADY AND I HAVE HAD OUR LIVES DESTROYED. Look up how many lawsuits against child welfair,good lawyers lives ruined, good psychiatrist complaining suing. Because a carrier they worked hard for was stolen from them because they wouldn't go along with destroying American people.look up agenda21,they took 1500 homes in Florida, people only have 65%of there land somewhere in the middle of this country,can't remember it all.hope everyone pulls together soon,we're loosing here.forced vaccines in Maryland, gun point medicine FORCED BRAIN IMPLANTS,RFID CHIPS IN OUR HANDS.You know, I thought yea,not me,then I woke up sore hurt,my ears never stopped ringing after that,Dam,they got me,forced brain Implanted me,probably my kids too.not hard to tell when you hurt in key places in your skull and it doesn't go away,EVER.Think About It.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]