Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
On May 20, 2015, Paul spoke for ten and a half hours in opposition to the reauthorization of Section 215 of the Patriot Act. [46] At midnight on May 31, 2015, Section 215 expired. [47] With the passage of the USA Freedom Act on June 2, 2015 the expired parts of law, including Section 215, were reported broadly as restored and renewed through ...
A look at the post-Sept. 11 surveillance provisions that expired on Monday, June 1, 2015: Section 215 of the Patriot Act This has been used to authorize the National Security Agency's bulk ...
Argues that the Internet surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act updated the law in ways that both law enforcement and civil libertarians should appreciate. Michael J. Woods (2005), Counterintelligence and access to transactional records: a practical history of USA PATRIOT Act section 215, The Patriot Debates.
Section 215 also had a "gag" provision, which was changed to allow the defendant to contact their attorney. [222] However, the change meant that the defendant was also required to tell the FBI who they were disclosing the order to; this requirement was removed by the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act. [223]
Justice Department officials testified that Section 215 of the Patriot Act is analogous to grand jury subpoena authority, and that deceptive statement was made on multiple occasions. Officials also suggested that the NSA doesn't have the authority to read Americans' e-mails without a warrant.
The ACLU argued that the program violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of privacy and information as well as exceeding the scope of its authorizing legislation, Section 215 of the Patriot Act. The U.S. government countered that the program is constitutional and that Congress was fully informed when it authorized and reauthorized Section 215.
The movement featured an open letter to the members of Congress. [1] The letter calls upon Congress to: [2] Enact reform this Congress to Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, the state secrets privilege, and the FISA Amendments Act to make clear that blanket surveillance of the Internet activity and phone records of any person residing in the U.S. is prohibited by law and that violations can be ...
On November 5, 2013, Apple became the most prominent company to publicly state that it had never received an order for user data under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. [ 12 ] [ 13 ] On September 18, 2014, GigaOm reported that the warrant canary statement did not appear anymore in the next two Apple Transparency Reports, covering July–December ...