Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

PATRIOT ACT being used in non-terrorism cases

Options

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    dahamsta
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,659 ✭✭✭✭dahamsta


    They're using it to try and put Adrian Lamo in jail for hacking the New York Times too. See this piece from SecurityFocus via The Reg. In other news, there's a (relatively) credible effort to repeal contentious parts of the act. Bush and Ashcroft will battle hard to keep it the way it is though.

    adam


  • Options
    #3
    Hobbes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    hacking in the USA has been considered a terrorist act for some time now, so technically they are using the right laws even if those laws are wrong.

    However there have been other cases which shouldn't of been covered by it. Some months back a mother was arrested and everything siezed under the PATRIOT act as they claimed she was selling pot (ooh the evil terrorist). The judge of the case threw it out of court and slapped all the cops for doing it.


  • Options
    #4
    dahamsta
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,659 ✭✭✭✭dahamsta


    Originally posted by Hobbes
    hacking in the USA has been considered a terrorist act for some time now, so technically they are using the right laws even if those laws are wrong.
    S'a bit circular, innit? That's what the thread's about. Unless you're talking about some other laws?

    adam


  • Options
    #5
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Originally posted by dahamsta
    That's what the thread's about.

    I think the point Hobbes was alluding to is that the law is not being mis-used. It is doing exactly what it is supposed to do, to the people who it always said it was going to cover.

    Yes, there are some saying "We did not intend for...", but all they're doing now is echoing the fears of those who protested to the potential applications of these laws in the first place.

    Back then, the excvuse was "we don't intend it to be used in this way". Now thats changed to "We did not intend", but either way it doesn't matter. The law made certain things possible for the law-enforcement agencies, and they are now making use of that. Thats not mis-use of a law, thats just use.

    jc


  • Options
    #6
    Hobbes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    My comment was in relation to the hacker incident. Hackers have been classed as Terrorists for some time now. I may of even made a comment in this forum, so a search may find the date.

    As for the original post it is frightning, and the laws I believe have a stipulation that they should only be used against terrorists.

    But I am sure they will just change the word terrorist to mean "people we don't like".

    Btw, I see now just opening a bank account in the US (regardless if american or not) gets you put on an FBI file. Also pray you never do business in anyway with a terrorist.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    dahamsta
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,659 ✭✭✭✭dahamsta


    My comment was in relation to the hacker incident. Hackers have been classed as Terrorists for some time now. I may of even made a comment in this forum, so a search may find the date.

    I didn't know that. Presumably this happened under Bush/Ashcroft, or was it one Clinton slipped under the rug? Either way, it's - pardon my Klatchian - fupping retarded. How is hacking into a commercial newspaper - through badly-secured proxies -and taking data on columnists out to prove that you did it "terrorism" exactly?

    As for the original post it is frightning, and the laws I believe have a stipulation that they should only be used against terrorists.

    Far as I'm aware, yip. This was my point.

    But I am sure they will just change the word terrorist to mean "people we don't like".

    Heh, you mean like reporters Mikey McDowell doesn't like? :)

    Btw, I see now just opening a bank account in the US (regardless if american or not) gets you put on an FBI file. Also pray you never do business in anyway with a terrorist.

    Up until very recently various details (including your name, religion and the meal you requested) were in federal agency databases before you got on the plane to the US. That's been suspended now, so these days it's the minute you get off the plane, where you'll be fingerprinted. It's also very likely that you'll be in quite a few private databases when you leave, for example in New York most hotels require ID at checkin.

    I've always wanted to go to ApacheCon and this is the first year I would have been able to afford it, via sponsorship. I won't go though. I refuse to submit to this authoritarian bullsh1t.

    adam


  • Options
    #8
    Hobbes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    It is ashcrofts baby I am sure..

    I did a quick search and I only make a passing mention to it in a thread on the 18-06-2003. It would of been a little while before that.

    It covers script kiddies as well.

    Google found this
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/21854.html

    Bush admin to make hacking a terrorist offence
    By Thomas C Greene in Washington
    Posted: 25/09/2001 at 08:57 GMT

    ...

    Among the many provisions to make the entire US populace an Enemy of the State and therefore subject to suspicion were two which nearly gave me a stroke: one positively Nazi innovation enabling the indefinite detention of suspicious aliens with a prohibition on judicial review so no judge can stop the insanity (which proves that they know it's unconstitutional); and one which would elevate hacking to the level of a terrorist act and invoke a mandatory life sentence.


  • Options
    #9
    sovtek
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭sovtek


    Originally posted by Hobbes

    But I am sure they will just change the word terrorist to mean "people we don't like".

    Right now that's about 50 % of the American population and about 90% of the rest of the world.
    Hell...according to the PATRIOT ACT my wife is a terrorist.

    meanwhile....somewhere in Virginia...a Cray starts processing.


  • Options
    #10
    dahamsta
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,659 ✭✭✭✭dahamsta


    Thanks for that. I have my doubts that legislation passed though, it strikes me we'd have heard a lot more about it if it had.

    By the way, this - including your name, religion and the meal you requested - is incorrect. I got a little mixed up, the religion part came from media speculation that the meal you chose could be used to guage your religion.

    adam


Advertisement