Photo - Marten Newhall - Unsplash
Controversial issue
PATRIOT Act, 2001 11 . .
— - . .
The public took this news extremely negatively. Primarily because it violates the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which prohibits searches without good reason and a court order. Critics were made by various human rights organizations - for example, the American Civil Liberties Union and the nonprofit foundation Americans for Prosperity - as well as senators from the Republican and Democratic parties.
Among the latter, Ron Wyden stood out. He called the text of the document “dangerous”, because its vague wording opens up opportunities for abuse.
His point of view was shared by a representative of the firm Fight For The Future, which protects the digital rights of US citizens. In his opinionThe PATRIOT Act must be buried, as it is one of the worst laws passed in the last century. Its ineffectiveness has even been confirmed by a government organization - the United States Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Council (PCLOB).
This year, its employees prepared a report in which they said that over the past four years, the PATRIOT Act has only once allowed law enforcement officers to obtain valuable information.
Not the first time
The US authorities tried to amend the legislation back in 2016 to give the intelligence agencies the authority to study browsing history. When investigating cases involving especially dangerous crimes, the warrant was replaced by a letter from the head of the department of the federal bureau.
Photo - Martin Adams - Unsplash
FBI chief James Comey called the need to go to court "a typo in the law." But providers, major IT companies and human rights activists who criticized the initiative did not agree with him. They noted that law enforcement officers infringe on the privacy of Americans. Then the amendments expanding the powers of the FBI were rejected .
What's next
Although the amendments to the PATRIOT Act have been approved, the situation is far from complete. More than fifty human rights organizations are calling on politicians to reconsider the decision.
In May, several congressmen also tried to change the situation. They proposed an amendment that would oblige the FBI to receive an order to view the history of visits to sites on the side of Internet providers. But only one vote was not enough for its adoption . Although then four senators did not vote (for various reasons), so their opinion may turn the tide in the future.
1cloud.ru:
— ?
: AdTech- GDPR?
« »:
: ?