Patriot Act written before 9.11?

[acroso]

Anyone have any reliable news article on this with links etc?

[Kalifornia]

I dont know about that, but I do know that an ex CEO of Qwest claims that the NSA sought access to his data networks prior to 911, I can link that if necessary.

[liberteebell]

I did some research a long time ago and IIRC, it was written as an anti-terrorism act in 1995 and put aside for just the right time. :rolleyes: I'll see if I can find links.

[pdavis]

I don't know anything about that but I do know that the REAL ID Act (at least its equivalent) was written several years before the current REAL ID Act. http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst98/tst071398.htm

[szczebrzeszyn]

There were rumours about it in the past. The main argument was, that it could not have been written THAT fast, so it HAD to be started way before 9/11. But try to prove anything with this administration!

[bucfish]

The two senators that voted against it said that they had seen it before

[kigol]

eek.

[MikeSmith]

Here's something: http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/05.21B.jvb.usapa.911.htm

Just keep searching google...

[Carole]

This is old news to me, but I do not recall exactly where I read it. I just recall being totally annoyed and angered that they fooled so many people.

I'm sure if you google it you can find the origins of it.

It definitely was conceived before 911-maybe around the Oklahoma bombing or thereafter.

[MikeStanart]

There were rumours about it in the past. The main argument was, that it could not have been written THAT fast, so it HAD to be started way before 9/11. But try to prove anything with this administration!

Yes, I find it HIGHLY unlikely that it was written that fast, considering how massive it is.

[FireofLiberty]

The two senators that voted against it said that they had seen it before

Only one Senator voted against it, Russ Feingold.

[mello]

It's over 300 pages & congress only had 15 minutes to look it over on their intranet before the vote. I believe that John Ashcroft was the one that convinced them that it was imperative to vote yes.

[Anti Federalist]

John Ashcroft speaking out AGAINST government internet monitoring and holding encryption "keys".

Many of these provisons were in the un-PATRIOT Act along with banking "snooping" laws that were shot down in the 90's.

KEEP BIG BROTHER'S HANDS OFF THE INTERNET

(Orginally published 12 August 1997 in The Washington Times)

By Senator John Ashcroft
Republican, Missouri
Chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce and Tourism

[Senator Ashcroft takes issue with administration views on the Internet
and the use of encryption technology.]

The Internet provides a great opportunity to our country, in part by representing the most inviting form of communication ever developed. It draws people together from all corners of the globe to share and communicate on an unprecedented level, and brings all branches of government closer to the public that they serve.

The Internet allows small businesses to reach out across the globe and conquer the distances between them and potential customers. Individuals can view merchandise and make purchases without leaving home. The Internet also holds great promise for education. Students -- rural, suburban, and urban -- are increasingly able to access a wealth of information with their fingertips that was previously beyond their reach.

In order to guarantee that the United States meets the challenge of this new means of commerce, communication, and education, government must be careful not to interfere. We should not harness the Internet with a confusing array of intrusive regulations and controls.

Yet, the Clinton administration is trying to do just that.

The Clinton administration would like the Federal government to have the capability to read any international or domestic computer communications. The FBI wants access to decode, digest, and discuss financial transactions, personal e-mail, and proprietary information sent abroad -- all in the name of national security. To accomplish this, President Clinton would like government agencies to have the keys for decoding all exported U.S. software and Internet communications.

This proposed policy raises obvious concerns about Americans' privacy, in addition to tampering with the competitive advantage that our U.S. software companies currently enjoy in the field of encryption technology. Not only would Big Brother be looming over the shoulders of international cyber-surfers, but the administration threatens to render our state-of-the-art computer software engineers obsolete and unemployed.

There is a concern that the Internet could be used to commit crimes and that advanced encryption could disguise such activity. However, we do not provide the government with phone jacks outside our homes for unlimited wiretaps. Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web?

The protections of the Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to protection from unlawful searches is an indivisible American value. Two hundred years of court decisions have stood in defense of this fundamental right. The state's interest in effective crime-fighting should never vitiate the citizens' Bill of Rights.

The president has proposed that American software companies supply the government with decryption keys to high level encryption programs. Yet, European software producers are free to produce computer encryption codes of all levels of security without providing keys to any government authority. Purchasers of encryption software value security above all else. These buyers will ultimately choose airtight encryption programs that will not be American-made programs to which the U.S. government maintains keys.

In spite of this truism, the president is attempting to foist his rigid policy on the exceptionally fluid and fast-paced computer industry. Furthermore, recent developments in decryption technology bring into question the dynamic of government meddling in this industry. Three months ago, the 56-bit algorithm government standard encryption code that protects most U.S. electronic financial transactions from ATM cards to wire transfers was broken by a low-powered 90 MHZ Pentium processor.

In 1977, when this code was first approved by the U.S. government as a standard, it was deemed unbreakable. And for good reason. There are 72 quadrillion (72,000 trillion) different combinations in a 56-bit code. However, with today's technology these 72 quadrillion combinations can each be tried in a matter of time.

Two days after this encryption code was broken, a majority of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee voted, in accordance with administration policy, to force American software companies to perpetuate this already compromised 56-bit encryption system. In spite of the fact that 128-bit encryption software from European firms is available on Web sites accessible to every Internet user. Interestingly, European firms can import this super-secure encryption technology (originally developed by Americans) to the United States, but U.S. companies are forbidden by law from exporting these same programs to other countries.

I believe that moving forward with the president's policy or the Commerce Committee's bill would be an act of folly, creating a cadre of government "peeping toms" and causing severe damage to our vibrant software industries. Government would be caught in a perpetual game of catch-up with whiz-kid code-breakers and industry advances. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott has signaled his objection to both proposals.

The leader and I would like to work to bring solid encryption legislation to the Senate floor. Any proposal should give U.S. encryption software manufacturers the freedom to compete on equal footing in the international marketplace, by providing the industry with a quasi-governmental board that would decide encryption bit strength based on the level of international technological development.

U.S. companies are on the front line of on-line technologies -- value-added industries of the future. Consider this: Every eighteen months, the processing capability of a computer doubles. The speed with which today's fastest computers calculate will be slug-like before the next millennium or the next presidential election comes along. The best policy for encryption technology is one that can rapidly react to breakthroughs in decoding capability and roll back encryption limits as needed.

The administration's interest in all e-mail is a wholly unhealthy precedent, especially given this administration's track record on FBI files and IRS snooping. Every medium by which people communicate can be subject to exploitation by those with illegal intentions. Nevertheless, this is no reason to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open our ATM records, read our medical records, or translate our international communications.

Additionally, the full potential of the Internet will never be realized without a system that fairly protects the interests of those who use the Internet for their businesses, own copyrighted material, deliver that material via the Internet, or individual users. The implications here are far-reaching, with impacts that touch individual users, companies, libraries, universities, teachers, and students.

In December 1996, two treaties were adopted by the diplomatic conference of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to update international copyright law. These treaties would extend international copyright law into the digital environment, including the Internet. However, these treaties do not provide a comprehensive response to the many copyright issues raised by the flourishing of the Internet and the promise of digital technology. We must work to keep the scales of copyright law balanced, providing important protections to creators of content, while ensuring their widespread distribution. In an attempt to meet these goals, I introduced the Digital Copyright Clarification and Technology Education Act of 1997.

Equally important, we must begin a process that is structured to balance the rights of copyright owners with the needs and technological limitations of those who enable the distribution of the electronic information, and with the rights and needs of individual end users. The current treaties and statements are not sufficient, and include some language that could create legal uncertainty. This vague language could lead to laws that ignore technical realities. The language must be clarified through the enactment of legislation in conjunction with the Senate's ratification of the treaties.

Another issue that could prevent the Internet from reaching its potential is taxation. If we tax the Internet prematurely or allow discriminatory taxing, we may stifle a burgeoning technological development that holds much commercial, social, and educational promise for all Americans. Taxation should be considered only after we have fully examined and understood the impact that unequivocal taxation would have on this new means of commerce. The Internet Tax Freedom Act would allow for full consideration of the opportunities and possible abuses by placing a moratorium on further taxation of online commerce and technologically discriminatory taxes. It is important to note that S. 442 will allow states and local jurisdictions to continue to collect any tax already levied on electronic commerce.

On-line communications technology is akin to the Wild West of the 19th century. To best settle this new frontier, we should unleash American know-how and ingenuity. The government's police-state policy on encryption is creating hindrances and hurdles that will eventually injure our ability to compete internationally. Government's role should be to break down barriers, to allow everyone to excel to their highest and best.
__________
Senator Ashcroft is a member of the Senate Commerce, Judiciary, and Foreign Relations Committees. His Web homepage is: http://www.senate.gov/~ashcroft/ and his e-mail address is: john_ashcroft@ashcroft.senate.gov

Global Issues
USIA Electronic Journal, Vol. 2, No. 4, October 1997

[Bradley in DC]

Virtually all of it had been debated by Congress and rejected previously. After 9/11 DoJ (and Treasury, etc.) put together their wish list and resent it to Congress. I testified (on the financial provisions) before a House Judiciary Committee briefing on what because the USA PATRIOT Act. All of us testifying were well versed in our issues and the specifics of the just-introduced bill--because there was nothing new in it (at that time).

http://www.cdt.org/security/010911response.php

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21203.pdf

http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/RL31377.pdf

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/51133.pdf

http://www.cdt.org/security/usapatriot/011210crs.pdf

Lori and I were instrumental in these efforts:
http://www.cdt.org/security/011002fcf.shtml

http://www.cdt.org/security/011002eagleforum.shtml

Rachel and I were instrumental in these efforts:
http://www.cdt.org/security/011019sneakandpeek.shtml

[Anti Federalist]

Virtually all of it had been debated by Congress and rejected previously. After 9/11 DoJ (and Treasury, etc.) put together their wish list and resent it to Congress. I testified (on the financial provisions) before a House Judiciary Committee briefing on what because the USA PATRIOT Act. All of us testifying were well versed in our issues and the specifics of the just-introduced bill--because there was nothing new in it (at that time).

http://www.cdt.org/security/010911response.php

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21203.pdf

http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/RL31377.pdf

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/51133.pdf

http://www.cdt.org/security/usapatriot/011210crs.pdf

Lori and I were instrumental in these efforts:
http://www.cdt.org/security/011002fcf.shtml

http://www.cdt.org/security/011002eagleforum.shtml

Rachel and I were instrumental in these efforts:
http://www.cdt.org/security/011019sneakandpeek.shtml

Good links!

I was compiling those when you posted.

Since you were there, give me a timeline please: date of introduction and date of House passage.

[Bradley in DC]

It's over 300 pages & congress only had 15 minutes to look it over on their intranet before the vote. I believe that John Ashcroft was the one that convinced them that it was imperative to vote yes.

The story has only leaked in bits and parts, but John Ashcroft was a pro-privacy/civil liberties hero behind the scenes at DoJ. He valiantly fought back the worst provisions from the DoJ bureaucrats while standing up to President Bush on illegal spying, etc.

His office was open and receptive to working with Free Congress (where I was at the time) and other groups in our coalition to hear our arguments and, in some cases, amend the proposals and constructive criticisms.

[Anti Federalist]

The story has only leaked in bits and parts, but John Ashcroft was a pro-privacy/civil liberties hero behind the scenes at DoJ. He valiantly fought back the worst provisions from the DoJ bureaucrats while standing up to President Bush on illegal spying, etc.

His office was open and receptive to working with Free Congress (where I was at the time) and other groups in our coalition to hear our arguments and, in some cases, amend the proposals and constructive criticisms.


That's good to hear, especially since I had a rant going about "flip flopping political sluts".

[Bradley in DC]

Good links!

I was compiling those when you posted.

Since you were there, give me a timeline please: date of introduction and date of House passage.

There are much better, explicit sources in the links.

The immigration (northern border) provisions, if memory serves--it was a VERY hectic time, were the main "new" ones (thanks, DiFi!).

The act was clearly a mixed bag: many truly horrendous provisions, some legit ones to "update" to new technology, etc., some neither good nor bad (making FinCEN a legislatively approved bureau of Treasury rather than an administratively created one solely) and a few even that I had agitated for previously (directing FinCEN to establish a highly secure network for BSA form transmission, etc.).

[bcreps85]

The Patriot Act was basically just compiled anti-American legislation that had been shot down time and time again previous to 9/11. After 9/11 everyone got scared/lazy and decided to drop the ball...

[mczerone]

On-line communications technology is akin to the Wild West of the 19th century. To best settle this new frontier, we should unleash American know-how and ingenuity. The government's police-state policy on encryption is creating hindrances and hurdles that will eventually injure our ability to compete internationally. Government's role should be to break down barriers, to allow everyone to excel to their highest and best.

Like mandating backdoors that the NSA can use at will, without a trace, to decode any data transaction?

The Biggest problem I've ever had with the LP platform is some insistence on non-encrypted communication - and I think they chose the stance based on decent intentions, but misunderstand that there does exist a true form of secure encryption.

As a mathematician, I know that Public key cryptography is perfect for financial transactions, and email security. Only intended senders can read messages, and you can verify the sender. The Government couldn't even open messages. And with the latest generation of Prime-testing algorithms it is only more secure.

[hotbrownsauce]

The Bush Administration made a legislative proposal 8 days after 9/11/2001 named Mobilizing Against Terrorism Act. Orrin Hatch, Arlen Specter, Patrick Leahy and John Ashcroft introduced a new bill named anti-Terrorism Act of 2001. The bill was based upon many different pieces of legislation that were introduced before 9/11/2001 but condemned. Due to many extremely controversial parts in the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 draft, Viet Dinh updated, edited, and added to the document along with some help by Frank James (Jim) Sensenbrenner, Jr. and John Conyers. The final draft was then introduced in October of 2001 called the USA Patriot Act. Which stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.

It is a hideous piece of legislation that had many authors.

[liberteebell]

The Patriot Act was basically just compiled anti-American legislation that had been shot down time and time again previous to 9/11. After 9/11 everyone got scared/lazy and decided to drop the ball...

Scared is more like it; they're always too lazy to read the bills. Wish I still had the email but a friend of mine who was a lobbiest in DC on 9-11 said that the congresscritters went running and screaming into the streets when they thought an attack was imminent.

Mission Accomplished.

[Truth Warrior]

Problem (9/11) ---> Reaction ( public outrage, fear ) ---> Solution ( War on "Terror", Patriot Act passage and implementation, etc. ) ---> ??? ( NAU?, NWO? )
Big wheel just keeps on turnin'.