[e-privacy] FBI asks Congress for power to seize documents (fwd)

[George Orwell]

From: Andrew <neted at bhtrcom>
Subject: FBI asks Congress for power to seize documents
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 21:53:57 -0500

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/24/AR2005052400746_pf.html

FBI asks Congress for power to seize documents

By Alan Elsner
Reuters
Tuesday, May 24, 2005; 6:53 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The FBI on Tuesday asked the U.S. Congress for
sweeping new powers to seize business or private records, ranging from
medical information to book purchases, to investigate terrorism
without first securing approval from a judge.

Valerie Caproni, FBI general counsel, told the U.S. Senate
Intelligence Committee her agency needed the power to issue what are
known as administrative subpoenas to get information quickly about
terrorist plots and the activities of foreign agents.

Civil liberties groups have complained the subpoenas, which would
cover medical, tax, gun-purchase, book purchase, travel and other
records and could be kept secret, would give the FBI too much power
and could infringe on privacy and free speech.

"This type of subpoena authority would allow investigators to obtain
relevant information quickly in terrorism investigations, where time
is often of the essence," Caproni testified.

The issue of administrative subpoenas dominated the hearing, which was
called to discuss reauthorization of clauses of the USA Patriot Act
due to expire at the end of this year.

The act was passed shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. However
administrative subpoena power was not in the original law. The
proposed new powers, long sought by the FBI, have been added by
Republican lawmakers, acting on the wishes of the Bush administration,
to the new draft of the USA Patriot Act.

Committee chairman, Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts, noted that other
government agencies already had subpoena power to investigate matters
such as child pornography, drug investigations and medical
malpractice. He said it made little sense to deny those same powers to
the FBI to investigate terrorism or keep track of foreign intelligence
agents.

But opponents said other investigations usually culminated in a public
trial, whereas terrorism probes would likely remain secret and
suspects could be arrested or deported or handed over to other
countries without any public action.

CLOSED HEARING

Roberts intends to hold a closed meeting on Thursday, above the
objections of some Democrats, to move the legislation forward out of
his committee. But the provision still faces a long road before it
becomes law, since the Senate Judiciary Committee also has
jurisdiction over the bill, while the House of Representatives is
drawing up its own legislation.

Democrats on the committee expressed concerns and pressed Caproni to
give examples of cases where the lack of such powers had hampered an
investigation.

"I am not aware of any time in which Congress has given directly to
the FBI subpoena authority. That doesn't make it right or wrong. It
just needs to be thought about," said West Virginia Democrat Jay
Rockefeller.

Caproni said she could not cite a case where a bomb had exploded
because the FBI lacked this power, but that did not mean one could not
explode tomorrow.

She gave a theoretical example of a case where the FBI suspected that
a terrorist was about to do something but did not exactly where he
was. In such a case, it might subpoena hotel or EZ-pass records, which
would show where and when he had driven through toll booths in the
eastern United States.

Under the proposed legislation, those served with subpoenas would have
the right to challenge them in court. But civil liberties groups said
few were likely to do so, and the person being investigated would be
unlikely even to know that the FBI was seeking his personal records.

For example, if the FBI demanded a person's medical records from his
doctor, the doctor could challenge the order if he wished, but the
individual could not.

"Ordinary citizens are storing information not in their homes or even
on portable devices but on networks, under the control of service
providers who can be served with compulsory process and never have to
tell the subscribers that their privacy has been invaded," said James
Dempsey of the Center for Democracy, one of several groups opposing
the provision.