Patriot Act Voting Shame

The House narrowly defeated an attempt to block the part of the Patriot Act allowing the government to snoop on people's reading habits.

The measure would have rolled back the part of the law allowing the government to get special court orders forcing book dealers and libraries to turn over records of purchases and Internet sites visited on a library computer. However, President Bush has threatened to veto any effort to weaken the anti-terror legislation.

The vote was 210-210, with a majority needed for the measure to pass. It seemed on its way to passing as normal voting time expired, but GOP leaders kept voting open for 23 more minutes, and convinced ten Republicans to switch their votes. Democrats chanted "Shame, shame, shame" as the votes were flipped. [via Metro]

Update: Triggerfinger has a list of the representatives who switched their votes from yes to no. [via Boing Boing]

see also: Gerald M. Carbone (FBI can access almost anything about anyone, Projo.com, July 5, 2004) says that Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to secretly demand almost anything, from anyone: "Just by certifying to the secret Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court that your records or things are relevant to an investigation, agents can demand them even though there is no open investigation of you. An FBI memo cites an apartment key as the kind of "thing" that agents can demand. Section 215 cites as examples, books, records, papers, documents, and other items." [via How Appealing]

from the archive: The Declaration of Independence [excerpt]

Cities Say No to Federal Snooping

Five Technically Legal Signs for Your Library

The Onion: "Flanked by key members of Congress and his administration, President Bush approved Monday a streamlined version of the Bill of Rights that pares its 10 original amendments down to a manageable 6...."

Attorney Elaine Cassel discusses a suit filed by the ACLU and a John Doe ISP against Attorney General Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller. The suit challenges a key section of the USA Patriot Act as being contrary to the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. In addition, as Cassel explains, sealing orders and gag orders relating to the case raise their own important First Amendment issues.

Aaron Swartz says the "ACLU argues [section 2709] violates the First Amendment because it categorically prevents people from speaking about the records taken. It violates the First Amendment because it allows the government to order the disclosure of constitutionally protected information without any oversight. It violates the First and Fourth Amendments because it provides no method to challenge the request. It violates the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments because it requires no prior notice of waiver of such notice."