[IP] more on PATRIOT Act subpoenas (additional abuses)
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Eric C. Grimm" <eric.grimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 4, 2004 10:49:13 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx, Ip <ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [IP] PATRIOT Act subpoenas (additional abuses)
Dave --
It seems odd to me that the defenders of the PATRIOT act urge us to
look at
the details of the Act and stop viewing it as Federal law enforcement's
ticket to do essentially whatever law enforcement wants, without
procedural
safeguards.
When you get into the trenches and watch how they are actually using
PATRIOT, however, it becomes pretty clear that law enfocement has
interpreted it as their ticket to do whatever they want.
My personal pet peeve is the Treasury Department's abuse of PATRIOT, as
part
of investigations having absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.
For instance, I represent a small Internet service provider. Over a
year
ago, they received from the Customs Service (part of Treasury) a
subpoena
for a customer's personal information. The Subpoena purported to be
about
some buzz-word called "cybersmuggling" (how do you smuggle stuff over
the
Internet? -- perhaps we're closer to Star Trek transporters than I ever
imagined!), and had no apparent connection to terrorism.
And, of course, Customs insisted that we must not tell anyone else about
their Subpoena (don't want anyone to scrutinize and question what the
Government is doing, I suppose). I've provided a redacted copy of my
response letter to Customs (revealing no details of the investigation
or the
subject) to Chilling Efffects, and even they appear to be afraid to
publicize this abuse.
Most alarming was that Customs failed to identify any particular
section of
PATRIOT that served as the basis of the authority they purported to
exercise
(even after I asked them to identify the section they relied upon).
Instead, they simply referred to the PATRIOT act, by blanket reference
to
the Congressional Bill number for the bill that later became the act
(after
amendments).
What passed out of Congress was, needless to say, several hundred pages
in
length -- and Customs insists on leaving all of us guessing which
section
they rely upon. They did not evem bother to refer to the Public Law
Number
of the legislation signed by the President (instead they refer to the
pre-passage bill number)!
Concerned that Customs's approach may have been inappropriate, I sent
them
correspondence detailing these problems at length, and asking them to
correct the language used in their subpoenas.
The information we turned over was, essentialy, the same stuff that an
ISP
cannot withhold in the face of a civil subpoena. So, I very much doubt
that
the heavy-handed use of PATRIOT actually got Customs any information
that
they could not have obtained through less heavy-handed means.
About eight months later, same client received exactly the same
language in
another Subpoena (another investigation and another, apparently
unrelated,
target). Customs had not done a single thing to reform their conduct --
even though I had provided a detailed explanation of what was required
to
become minimally compliant with normal, professional, legal and law
enforcement practice.
The excuse given by Customs: They ran the language (referring to
PATRIOT by
bill number, instead of statutory section or even Public Law Number, and
requiring recipient to guess which of hundreds of pages of legislation
might
be involved) by "an attorney at the Justice Department" and decided to
stick
with the "PATRIOT means we can do whatever we want" interpretation.
No doubt many of your other subscribers have similar tales of woe to
share.
However, some of us are more wiling than others to stand up and
complain in
public in the face of Customs's "don't tell anyone else how we are
abusing
the law" command.
Eric C. Grimm
Calligaro & Meyering, P.C.
20600 Eureka Road, Ste 900
Taylor, MI 48180
eric[dot]grimm[at]CyberBrief[dot]net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf
Of David Farber
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 7:24 AM
To: Ip
Subject: [IP] PATRIOT Act subpoenas for artists opposing genetically
modified foods
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jim Warren <jwarren@xxxxxxxx>
Date: June 3, 2004 2:08:50 PM EDT
To: "Dave Farber: ;Declan McCullagh" <declan@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: PATRIOT Act subpoenas for artists opposing genetically
modified foods
If the allegations below are anywhere near accurate, this has GOT to be
one of the most bizarre examples yet, of abuse of the "PATRIOT" Act's
powers.
It appears that the FBI is either attempting to censor political art
... or is being incredibly stupid.
--jim
http://www.caedefensefund.org/
June 2, 2004
ARTISTS SUBPOENAED IN USA PATRIOT ACT CASE
Feds STILL unable to distinguish art from bioterrorism
Grand jury to convene June 15
Three artists have been served subpoenas to appear before a federal
grand jury that will consider bioterrorism charges against a university
professor whose art involves the use of simple biology equipment.
The subpoenas are the latest installment in a bizarre investigation in
which members of the Joint Terrorism Task Force have mistaken an art
project for a biological weapons laboratory (see background below).
While most observers have assumed that the Task Force would realize the
absurd error of its initial investigation of Steve Kurtz, the subpoenas
indicate that the feds have instead chosen to press their "case"
against the baffled professor.
Two of the subpoenaed artists--Beatriz da Costa and Steve Barnes--are,
like Kurtz, members of the internationally-acclaimed Critical Art
Ensemble (CAE), an artists' collective that produces artwork to educate
the public about the politics of biotechnology. They were served the
subpoenas by federal agents who tailed them to an art show at the
Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art. The third artist, Paul
Vanouse, is, like Kurtz, an art professor at the University at Buffalo.
He has worked with CAE in the past.
The artists involved are at a loss to explain the increasingly bizarre
case. "I have no idea why they're continuing (to investigate)," said
Beatriz da Costa, one of those subpoenaed. "It was shocking that this
investigation was ever launched. That it is continuing is positively
frightening, and shows how vulnerable the PATRIOT Act has made freedom
of speech in this country." Da Costa is an art professor at the
University of California at Irvine.
According to the subpoenas, the FBI is seeking charges under Section
175 of the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, which has
been expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act. As expanded, this law prohibits
the possession of "any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system"
without the justification of "prophylactic, protective, bona fide
research, or other peaceful purpose." (See
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/175.html for the 1989 law and
http://www.ehrs.upenn.edu/protocols/patriot/sec817.html for its USA
PATRIOT Act expansion.)
Even under the expanded powers of the USA PATRIOT Act, it is difficult
to understand how anyone could view CAE's art as anything other than
a"peaceful purpose." The equipment seized by the FBI consisted mainly
of CAE's most recent project, a mobile DNA extraction laboratory to
test store-bought food for possible contamination by genetically
modified grains and organisms; such equipment can be found in any
university's basic biology lab and even in many high schools (see "Lab
Tour" at http://www.critical-art.net/biotech/free/ for more details).
The grand jury in the case is scheduled to convene June 15 in Buffalo,
New York. Here, the jury will decide whether or not to indict Steve
Kurtz on the charges brought by the FBI. A protest is being planned at
9 a.m. on June 15 outside the courthouse at 138 Delaware Ave. in
Buffalo.
...<SNIP>...
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as eric.grimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/