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 ...
Section 215 also had a "gag" provision, which was changed to allow the defendant to contact their attorney. [223] 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. [224]
The USA PATRIOT Act was passed by the United States Congress in 2001 as a response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. It has ten titles, each containing numerous sections. Title II: Enhanced Surveillance Procedures granted increased powers of surveillance to various government agencies and bodies. This title has 25 sections, with one of the ...
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 ...
The following are controversial invocations of the USA PATRIOT Act. The stated purpose of the Act is to "deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes." One criticism of the Act is that "other purposes" often includes the detection and ...
Birth of the USA PATRIOT Act. The first version of the Patriot Act was introduced into the House on October 2, 2001, as the Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act of 2001, and was later passed by the House as the Uniting and Strengthening America (USA) Act (H.R. 2975) on October 12. [17]
On May 7, 2015, the Second Circuit held that "the telephone metadata program exceeds the scope of what Congress has authorized and therefore violates Section 215" of the Patriot Act. Judge Gerard E. Lynch ruled that the "staggering" amount of information collected by the NSA was a violation of the Fourth Amendment and the Patriot Act.
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.