User talk:Mary Ash/sandbox/PATRIOT Act

The {{subpages}} template is designed to be used within article clusters and their related pages.
It will not function on User talk pages.

Imported article from Wikipedia

Feel free to edit this article, if you like. I'll try to work on it later but I need to start cooking dinner.Mary Ash 01:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Mary, we discourage importation of articles from WP as a matter of policy, especially in difficult and controversial areas such as politics and economics, where the standard of the WP articles is just not acceptable. In particular, this Act is very demanding to write on properly, and I am not capable of guiding you on it. I do not know US things well enough, and don't have the time to do all the research that would be needed. Unless you can find some experts on CZ to work on this with you, I would really prefer that we didn't start this article -- as a WP import, especially. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Martin I understand your concerns and I would appreciate ANY assistance concerning this article. While editing it though, it seems to be accurate. I will do some more research, as time permits, but the facts seem relatively sound. Mary Ash 15:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Mary, I have worked a fair bit in this area. There is a huge amount of context to explain why some things were rushed, some things were actually quite good but in the wrong legislation, and some may have been abused. Essentially, the article is no more than an edited list of provisions, with a huge number of citations, but very little synthesis and context.

Note that early in the WP import, it says "Key acts changed were the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 and Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), as well as the Immigration and Nationality Act". Would not a CZ article do better on establishing the background, given all but one of these links are red? These laws aren't always correctly cited -- the piped text for the FISA is correct, not the (red) article name.

Take, for example, Sections 206 and 216 dealing with roving wiretap authority, which has drawn considerable and not always accurate attacks. My greatest criticism is that it (and probably other communications sections) probably should have been amendments to the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which updated the Communications Act of 1934 to deal with more modern communications technology. Section 206 actually can be argued that it is consistent with warranted search, but a huge article is not the place to do it. For example, most of the issues in 216 derive from the Supreme Court decision, Smith v. Maryland.

If you were to work on this article, I would agree with Martin: don't import. It's an unreadable, uncontextualized (I don't think that's a word) article. For the best CZ quality, start small. Start with background legislation it changed. Start with no more than a Title of the PATRIOT Act. Be sure the smaller articles make adequate reference to preexisting law and relevant court cases. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

See PATRIOT Act Section 816 as an example of how to start small. Even this article can be expanded considerably, based on experience and general information on computer crime. Prior to this, the FBI would not get involved, even in medical systems, unless a clear $100,000 loss could be demonstrated.

This is an example of PATRIOT Act material with only a marginal relationship to terrorism, although, I suppose, it could be used if a terrorist damaged a computer. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Howard at least you and Martin are agreeing on something :-). I disagree with your comments about readability. The article is well organized and very readable. As to filling in the blanks (the red text) it will give someone plenty to do, perhaps you, when it comes to expanding this article. Overall, the imported article gives a broad overview and history of the topic. It can always be expanded. As to the facts, they seem to be fairly well...factual...LOL! I'll do some more fact checking but housework awaits.Mary Ash 17:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Mary, I personally find the article to be unreadable. I could only work on it in small sections.

How are you deciding that facts are factual, and, as important to CZ, well contextualized?

I do not support the importation of this article, certainly unless the red links are filled. Remember, a Wikipedia import, under CZ rules, must be substantially improved within a short time of importation. So far, I see essentially textual, not content, changes? Howard C. Berkowitz 18:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)