Filed under: 1984, 2-party system, airport security, australia, barack obama, big brother, bush = obama, bush obama, civil liberties, civil rights, control grid, corruption, dictatorship, empire, FBI, federal crimes, george bush, government bureaucracy, government corruption, government crimes, internet, internet police, internet regulation, left right paradigm, nanny state, obama, obama = bush, obama bush, obama deception, obama fraud, obama lies, oppression, orwell, police state, privacy rights, right to privacy, search warrant, surveillance, suspicionless searches, warrantless search, warrantless wiretap | Tags: no change
Obama Wants Warrantless Access to Internet Activity Records
Washington Post
July 29, 2010
The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual’s Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation.
The administration wants to add just four words — “electronic communication transactional records” — to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge’s approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user’s browser history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the “content” of e-mail or other Internet communication.
But what officials portray as a technical clarification designed to remedy a legal ambiguity strikes industry lawyers and privacy advocates as an expansion of the power the government wields through so-called national security letters. These missives, which can be issued by an FBI field office on its own authority, require the recipient to provide the requested information and to keep the request secret. They are the mechanism the government would use to obtain the electronic records.
Stewart A. Baker, a former senior Bush administration Homeland Security official, said the proposed change would broaden the bureau’s authority. “It’ll be faster and easier to get the data,” said Baker, who practices national security and surveillance law. “And for some Internet providers, it’ll mean giving a lot more information to the FBI in response to an NSL.”
The Obama DOJ’s warrantless demands for e-mails
Google and CIA Plough Millions Into Huge ‘Recorded Future’ Monitoring Project