In the article, there was a section discussing "Meet the Feds." From that section, I quote: "The Patriot Act was also called into question by attendees. The FBI representative asserted that just because the act had been passed didn't mean they had carte blanche to surveil anyone they wanted, that judges still had approve their requests. That reasoning only flew so far, however, as the questioner pointed out that such requests by the FBI are always approved, never denied."
I was the one who pointed out that the FISA court has only denied a single request for a warrant since its inception, and that the denial was overturned in the only time the FISA appeals court has ever had to meet.
Now let me ask you this: you mention that there is potentially recourse against the government for those who've had an ill-gotten warrant issued against them - what is the recourse if you're never told that the warrant was issued, and if it is "served" while you're at work, in secret, without your consent or knowledge? What is the recourse against a National Security Letter, whose very existence must be kept from you by the communications provider who receives it, even though it compels them to release a boatload of information about your communications through them? What is the recourse for those who've been hit with certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act when any precedent in their favor is automatically kept secret by virtue of the fact that all cases brought against the act are sealed, with no party being legally allowed to reveal who brought the suit, why they brought the suit, what the facts are in the case, or that there are facts in the case?
You can't fight what you can't see. You can't challenge what doesn't "exist".
You raise a fair enough question--a question that partly encouraged me to enroll in law school. Now, I won't know the answer right away . . . law school takes three years. But, I'll try to find the answer.
On the Subject of Warrants and the Patriot Act . . (Score:5, Interesting)
What we tend to forget is that, eve
Re:On the Subject of Warrants and the Patriot Act (Score:2)
Now let me ask you this: you mention that there is potentially recourse against the government for those who've had an ill-gotten warrant issued against them - what is the recourse if you're never told that the warrant was issued, and if it is "served" while you're at work, in secret, without your consent or knowledge? What is the recourse against a National Security Letter, whose very existence must be kept from you by the communications provider who receives it, even though it compels them to release a boatload of information about your communications through them? What is the recourse for those who've been hit with certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act when any precedent in their favor is automatically kept secret by virtue of the fact that all cases brought against the act are sealed, with no party being legally allowed to reveal who brought the suit, why they brought the suit, what the facts are in the case, or that there are facts in the case?
You can't fight what you can't see. You can't challenge what doesn't "exist".
Re:On the Subject of Warrants and the Patriot Act (Score:2)