PATRIOT Act II

So under the "Anit Terrorism" act you could be sentenced to jail for life with no parole for downloading music??

That is a tad much.

Hi all

Even if you Could "Stop This" ,

quote:
Originally posted here by Chuck56
Stopping it can be done, but you'd have to get the majority of Americans involved, and that's where the problem lies. It's done by making an issue of it and using the ballot box for starters. Most Americans today are too lazy, or too disinterested, or too brainwashed to realize what's happened. Or, they don't care. Surrendering a few liberties means nothing to them. End Quote

the Government can and quite often does these days, charge you with subversion, take every piece of communication equipment that you own without a warrant, they also Can and have in some cases taken ALL of a persons Property , again without a warrant and auction it , destroy it Etc.. with NO compensation to the "detainee" simply for being a suspect (This Happened to a Good Friend of mine.. a Political Science Professor at a reputable College) I guess it could get worse than that but when it gets to that point your life is basically destroyed... so my point is, # 2 will just be for filling in the gaps of #1 ... its bad enough right now, why dont we come up with a way to keep this from happening in the future....

Just my Opinion

Cheers and Happiness :)

Quote:

---

"As a "Federal terrorism offense," the five year statute of limitations for hacking would be abolished retroactively -- allowing computer crimes committed decades ago to be prosecuted today -- and the maximum prison term for a single conviction would be upped to life imprisonment. There is no parole in the federal justice system. "

---

I agree with Tomscrabshack, all those "my girl friend is cheating on me, please tell how to hack hotmail" are terrorists, and the statute of limitations is gone and that is directly related to Patriout Act X? Then they are locked up forever with no posibility of parol? We just had a dude convicted here that put a plastic bag over a ladies head, tie a hose around her neck and stab her until dead, while um - you understand. He only got 20 years and is being "rehabilitated" like everyone seems to want. He will get parol so that is very interesting that habib the hotmail hacker is gone for life. Any one seen any black and white on that?

House Bill 2417, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004, debuted in Congress last June, and was pushed back and forth between the House and Senate for nearly five months before finally making its way to Bush's desk on Dec. 2. The lengthy perennial bill authorizes appropriations for all intelligence-related activities and, on the whole, is fairly standard. However, the final bill was amended by the Senate to include a section that redefines and broadens the phrase "financial institution" -- an obscure yet sweeping change that, at least until challenged in court, will allow the federal government the ability to snoop into nearly every financial aspect of individuals' lives.

Previously, federal law enforcement officials could gain access to individuals' financial records from a bank only if those individuals were suspected of crimes and only after gaining the approval of a federal judge. But the new IAA not only allows the feds to snoop through financial records without a warrant and without demonstrating the person is actually a suspect in a crime, but also broadens the arena for snooping. The legal definition of "financial institution" previously referred only to banks. But now, the feds can examine financial records held by stockbrokers, car dealerships, casinos, credit card companies, insurance agents, jewelers, airlines, pawnbrokers, the U.S. Postal Service, and any other business "whose cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters." Federal law enforcers need only draft a "National Security Letter" requesting the records in order to get them.

taken from here http://www.austinchronicle.com/issue...ls_naked7.html

lumpy, the Patriot Act II was never passed :) I don't trust underpaid websites, especially when much more commonly used websites (slashdot) never mention anything of the sort. And we should all know how ever bit of news hits slashdot with full force.

Then again, I could be mistaken and you may be posting this in reference to something else, but I feel it is intended to try and prove Patriot Act II is in place. If needed, I will more than happily obtain the nessessary links to prove that it is in fact still under heavy rewrite, and nowhere near release, from sources well known and trusted.

While I understand many have finally accepted that, it would seem it has been ignored completely and discussion is still going on about how "anti-goverment" the people at AO are. While that is fine, perhaps we could move it to a new thread? Currently, hosting a different conversation in a false thread (patriot act II being released) only has other natrually question the conversation that takes place on the side, as being valid or tinfoil hatted.

No offence intended, but it you may get more/better responces if you took it to a new thread. Perhaps one entitled "Flaws of the government"?

Excellent someone who actually looked at some data: The act does indeed change the term "financial institution" and expands the list, I agree. But it doesn't give great giant leaping new powers to the FBI. You have a little more research to do. The IAA has absolutely NOTHING to do with the patriot act, or at least I can’t make a connection. Warrants or court order bypasses for those items were already passed decades ago. Unless someone points out what I am missing, it is all mostly hype. The "national security letter" thing is decades old. The ONLY thing this does is broaden the arena.

The previous definition of bank also did include a lot of what is being reported as "New” I find nothing obscure or sweeping about it. It simply states that the term financial institution includes new outlets and is very concise. You want to argue that, fine; I agree where there could be concern. The rest is bull.

Monitor Jewelers? Does anyone really think the government cares if you are buying a necklace for Valentines Day? Pay cash. I know you all are just posting articles you read. But here I’ll do the research for you. I’ll post the actual statute, unadulterated.

This was already an extensive list and I admit it adds a lot of new stuff, about 10 items. But a lot of that was already there. I have some insight into what goes on at banks, even little state banks see several money laundering schemes several times a year. Bank accounts are not private; they have always been subject to FDIC and ACUA audits. Some of you give the government way to much credit. Why do you think people have been keeping Swiss bank accounts for the last 50 years??

And for that matter why in the hell would ANYONE expect their internet use to be private??? When did that illusion arrive? We don’t have firewalls and IDS and IT security because the internet isn’t full of non-prying, law abiding internet users. We have them because anyone can drop a sniffer anywhere on the net and listen and poke WTF! Did we all drift into another dimension? Hell for all we know Gore could be a spook laughing at our OS footprints.

Quote:

---

-HEAD-
Sec. 5312. Definitions and application
-STATUTE-
(a) In this subchapter –
(1) ''financial agency'' means a person acting for a person
(except for a country, a monetary or financial authority acting
as a monetary or financial authority, or an international
financial institution of which the United States Government is a
member) as a financial institution, bailee, depository trustee,
or agent, or acting in a similar way related to money, credit,
securities, gold, or a transaction in money, credit, securities,
or gold.
(2) ''financial institution'' means -
(A) an insured bank (as defined in section 3(h) of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(h)));
(B) a commercial bank or trust company;
(C) a private banker;
(D) an agency or branch of a foreign bank in the United
States;
(E) any credit union;
(F) a thrift institution;
(G) a broker or dealer registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.);
(H) a broker or dealer in securities or commodities;
(I) an investment banker or investment company;
(J) a currency exchange;
(K) an issuer, redeemer, or cashier of travelers' checks,
checks, money orders, or similar instruments;
(L) an operator of a credit card system;
(M) an insurance company;
(N) a dealer in precious metals, stones, or jewels;
(O) a pawnbroker;
(P) a loan or finance company;
(Q) a travel agency;
(R) a licensed sender of money or any other person who
engages as a business in the transmission of funds, including
any person who engages as a business in an informal money
transfer system or any network of people who engage as a
business in facilitating the transfer of money domestically or
internationally outside of the conventional financial
institutions system;
(S) a telegraph company;
(T) a business engaged in vehicle sales, including
automobile, airplane, and boat sales;
(U) persons involved in real estate closings and settlements;
(V) the United States Postal Service;
(W) an agency of the United States Government or of a State
or local government carrying out a duty or power of a business
described in this paragraph;
(X) a casino, gambling casino, or gaming establishment with
an annual gaming revenue of more than $1,000,000 which -
(i) is licensed as a casino, gambling casino, or gaming
establishment under the laws of any State or any political
subdivision of any State; or
(ii) is an Indian gaming operation conducted under or
pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act other than an
operation which is limited to class I gaming (as defined in
section 4(6) of such Act);
(Y) any business or agency which engages in any activity
which the Secretary of the Treasury determines, by regulation,
to be an activity which is similar to, related to, or a
substitute for any activity in which any business described in
this paragraph is authorized to engage; or
(Z) any other business designated by the Secretary whose cash
transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax,
or regulatory matters.

---

Thats it , yep the austin chronicle made the whole story up , House Bill 2417 does not even exist

No need to get grouchy and smartassed lumpy. I said patriot act II, which is what this thread is titled after all, not housebill 2417. And yes, it is COMPLETELY different than the Patriot Act II

I'm moving this to Cosmos before someone gets killed.
I don't know about everybody else, but I can't even tell anymore who is on what side :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by pooh sun tzu
No need to get grouchy and smartassed lumpy. I said patriot act II, which is what this thread is titled after all, not housebill 2417. And yes, it is COMPLETELY different than the Patriot Act II

---

Unless I have mistaken your post: The original quotation referenced the "Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004" which regardless of the powers it does or does not give to the government was signed into law according to the Whitehouse.gov website. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0031213-3.html