[IP] more on PATRIOT Act subpoenas (additional abuses)
I found the web site mentioned at the end quite interesting djf
Begin forwarded message:
From: Price Roe <priceroe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 27, 2004 11:52:10 PM EDT
To: 'Christian Bailey' <christian.bailey@xxxxxxxxxx>, 'Nick Confessore'
<nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: eric.grimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [IP] more on PATRIOT Act subpoenas (additional abuses)
Reply-To: proe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sound and fury signifying a large tempest in a tiny teapot. All of this
is subject to due process, and if anyone tells you differently, they are
ignorant about the way FISA courts operate. For those people who are
against PATRIOT Act, they can tell their congressman to vote against its
reauthorization (I am for its complete reauthorization, and then some).
This statement is pure folly, especially the "do whatever they want"
bit:
When you get into the trenches and watch how they are actually using
PATRIOT, however, it becomes pretty clear that law enforcement has
interpreted it as their ticket to do whatever they want.
Instead of hanging around salons with fellow conspiracy freaks, PATRIOT
Act critics should take some time to personally get to know our men and
women who are charged with preventing crime & terrorism and enforcing
our laws on our behalf. As I have the privilege of knowing many of them
personally, I have to smile at the silliness of the thought that they
seek the opportunity to "do whatever they want."
After the next terrorist attack that kills several hundred
simultaneously in NYC, WDC, Chicago, and LA via subway suicide bombers,
we'll see how many Americans want to re-tie the hands of our law
enforcement agencies.
PR
p.s. Don't believe the hype, and get the facts:
http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Bailey [mailto:christian.bailey@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 7:41 PM
To: Price Roe (proe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx); Nick Confessore
Subject: FW: [IP] more on PATRIOT Act subpoenas (additional abuses)
Sad, but predicted by many. CB
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of David Farber
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 7:31 AM
To: Ip
Subject: [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 rw99@xxxxxxxxxxx
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/