Gonzales and Mueller want your internet records - all of them.
Big Brother wants your online record: for two years.
http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-fi-internet2jun02,0,622125.story?coll=la-home-headlinesBig Internet and telephone companies are girding to fight an unprecedented call by the Bush administration for them to keep detailed records of customers' online activities for two years.
The request by Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III would dramatically expand the government's ability to track what people do online and with whom they communicate.
...
"What's special here is the scale," said Ohio State University law professor Peter Swire, a privacy expert who attended Thursday's meeting at the Justice Department. "The Justice Department is discussing requiring records for chat, e-mail, and Web surfing - that's billions of encounters per day."
And who pays for storage? And who gives up their freedom from invasion of privacy?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/fedagencies/july-dec01/mueller_7-5.htmlTIMOTHY LYNCH:...Now, if Mr. Mueller had a record and a reputation of demanding more openness from the government, more accountability from the government, then I think a very good case could be made he is the right man for the job and could come into the Bureau to correct some of these problems.
Unfortunately, his record and reputation indicate otherwise. He has advocated policies in the northern district of California that seek to insulate and to shield the government from its legal disclosure obligations. There is a landmark case called "United States versus Brady," which basically said that if the government has evidence in its possession that tends to show that the person being prosecuted is innocent, then it violates the due process guarantee in the Constitution for the government to have that evidence, but then to conceal it and not turn it over to the trial court or to the defense team.
RAY SUAREZ: So what are you saying Bob Mueller has done?
TIMOTHY LYNCH: He has instituted a policy in the northern district of California that we don't see in many other prosecutorial offices around the country. It's called Brady waivers. He has basically asked all the prosecutors on his staff when they enter into plea bargain negotiations, to make sure that the defendants sign what is called or come to be known as a Brady waiver, which means if he pleads guilty, he agrees that he is not going to come forward with a Brady claim later on. As a practical matter, what this means is a person could enter into a plea bargain, plead guilty; he could be sitting in jail, and evidence could be disclosed later on, evidence that tends to show that he is innocent; evidence that should have been turned over by the prosecutors, but because he signed the Brady waiver, he is not going to have a legal remedy to get a new trial.
Hmmm. Don't sign papers like that one.
Mueller tried to suppress reports of agents' crimes.
http://www.fbiwhistlestop.com/FBI/YearsOfFBIAgentCrimesDetailed.pdfThe report, released Wednesday by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, found that about one in 1,000 agents was dismissed for serious misconduct or criminal offenses by the FBI during the period examined, from 1986 to 1999. The average was between eight and nine per year. Although the numbers were small, the FBI's attempts to prevent the report's disclosure from the public and Congress since its completion in June 2000 are raising questions among FBI critics about an attempt to avoid embarrassment.
Hmmm. Hiding the truth is not the sign of a good public servant.
http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-fi-internet2jun02,0,622125.story?coll=la-home-headlinesBig Internet and telephone companies are girding to fight an unprecedented call by the Bush administration for them to keep detailed records of customers' online activities for two years.
The request by Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III would dramatically expand the government's ability to track what people do online and with whom they communicate.
...
"What's special here is the scale," said Ohio State University law professor Peter Swire, a privacy expert who attended Thursday's meeting at the Justice Department. "The Justice Department is discussing requiring records for chat, e-mail, and Web surfing - that's billions of encounters per day."
And who pays for storage? And who gives up their freedom from invasion of privacy?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/fedagencies/july-dec01/mueller_7-5.htmlTIMOTHY LYNCH:...Now, if Mr. Mueller had a record and a reputation of demanding more openness from the government, more accountability from the government, then I think a very good case could be made he is the right man for the job and could come into the Bureau to correct some of these problems.
Unfortunately, his record and reputation indicate otherwise. He has advocated policies in the northern district of California that seek to insulate and to shield the government from its legal disclosure obligations. There is a landmark case called "United States versus Brady," which basically said that if the government has evidence in its possession that tends to show that the person being prosecuted is innocent, then it violates the due process guarantee in the Constitution for the government to have that evidence, but then to conceal it and not turn it over to the trial court or to the defense team.
RAY SUAREZ: So what are you saying Bob Mueller has done?
TIMOTHY LYNCH: He has instituted a policy in the northern district of California that we don't see in many other prosecutorial offices around the country. It's called Brady waivers. He has basically asked all the prosecutors on his staff when they enter into plea bargain negotiations, to make sure that the defendants sign what is called or come to be known as a Brady waiver, which means if he pleads guilty, he agrees that he is not going to come forward with a Brady claim later on. As a practical matter, what this means is a person could enter into a plea bargain, plead guilty; he could be sitting in jail, and evidence could be disclosed later on, evidence that tends to show that he is innocent; evidence that should have been turned over by the prosecutors, but because he signed the Brady waiver, he is not going to have a legal remedy to get a new trial.
Hmmm. Don't sign papers like that one.
Mueller tried to suppress reports of agents' crimes.
http://www.fbiwhistlestop.com/FBI/YearsOfFBIAgentCrimesDetailed.pdfThe report, released Wednesday by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, found that about one in 1,000 agents was dismissed for serious misconduct or criminal offenses by the FBI during the period examined, from 1986 to 1999. The average was between eight and nine per year. Although the numbers were small, the FBI's attempts to prevent the report's disclosure from the public and Congress since its completion in June 2000 are raising questions among FBI critics about an attempt to avoid embarrassment.
Hmmm. Hiding the truth is not the sign of a good public servant.