Slashdot Mirror
IT and A National Security Letter Gag Order
fstyke writes "An article in the Washington Post (anonymous for obvious reasons) describes the trauma the president of a small US IT company faces after receiving a National Security Letter. This is sent by the FBI demanding information (140000+ have been sent between 2003/2005 according to the article). Makes for an interesting read of the side effects of receiving such a letter and its requirements for the recipient to remain silent about even the fact he/she has received it.'The letter ordered me to provide sensitive information about one of my clients. There was no indication that a judge had reviewed or approved the letter, and it turned out that none had. The letter came with a gag provision that prohibited me from telling anyone, including my client, that the FBI was seeking this information. Based on the context of the demand -- a context that the FBI still won't let me discuss publicly -- I suspected that the FBI was abusing its power and that the letter sought information to which the FBI was not entitled.'"
Having secret police and no accountability goes against the very grain of what the United States stands for, and what the Constitution says. Our forefathers explicitly ensured that we would have the rights necessary to overthrow our government if things got out of hand. The government exists to serve the people, not the other way around.
If you haven't done so already, I highly recommend contacting your representatives, writing to your local newspaper, and otherwise telling anyone who will hear that this is unacceptable. We cannot have the government secretly snooping around in our private information and lives. Let's kick up a stormcloud and make sure this gets changed!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
before the Patriot Act!
posted anonymously for obvious reasons!
...1/20/2009 - That's all I have to say.
If the FBI denies its existance and you are not to speak about it, you can just silently throw it in the bin and forget about it, right? I mean they can't possibly sue you over something that doesn't even legally exist. Okay, maybe in a country like your they can.
When I was a kid (10 odd years), I remember the Soviet Union; massive check-points at borders, customs officers that gave you a cavity check at will, and a police state that didn't care much for the privacy or rights of it's citizens... Remember KGB (FSB now) and GRU ?? Anyone ??
That nightmare is now over, and I can freely go to and from Moscow, to visit my grandmother and friends. Or, I can have them board a plane and come to Amsterdam... with almost no delays at the border(s)...
But hey, those KGB and GRU bastards were hired by... the white house, and their methods are now common practice in the USA and it's 'allies'..
You yanks didn't win the cold war, you lost... but you kinda don't get it... but I'm sure your children will, and they will look at you for answers.
--- 'Pain heals, chicks dig scars... glory... lasts for ever!' -- "Footstep" Falco
It would never work with me. I'd get stressed, get wasted to relieve the stress and blab like there was no tomorrow.
IANAL, but without a court order signed by a judge, it's a strongly worded REQUEST.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Do you get put on secret trial in a secret court? Or secret penalties from the IRS? What he should do is look at the info himself, and decide if something is suspicious. If it looks like something illegal going on, help out the FBI, if not then make them get a judge involved, and protect the privacy of his customer in the meantime.
Recently I received CONTENT REMOVED from the --- regarding one of my CONTENT REMOVED. It was delivered personally by two CONTENT REMOVED in a black CONTENT REMOVED and they CONTENT REMOVED terrorist CONTENT REMOVED you're not for us CONTENT REMOVED us.
Under the terms of the CONTENT REMOVED Act it appears I cannot CONTENT REMOVED or CONTENT REMOVED or even badgers. They said they had installed special CONTENT REMOVED on my CONTENT REMOVED connection and would be watching out for transgressions - even something as innocuous as calling G.W. CONTENT REMOVED failure or librarians CONTENT REMOVED CONTENT REMOVED Harry Potter in Syria. Since contacting my la +++NO CARRIER+++
I for one welcome our baton-weilding, secretive, power-hungry overlords. Oh, wait. I thought we'd gotten rid of them when we got rid of the Gestapo/Stazi/NKVD?!?
Ho-hum. Back to the police state it is,then.
According to the PATRIOT Act, you're not.
Question everything
The letter writes what YOU say.....
It's only paranoia if your wrong...
I'd hire an attorney and take the letter to him. Its questionable legal practice and a non-approved letter (no judge, no warrant, no due process), is only worth the paper and ink, nothing more.
They may see your non-cooperation and go through proper channels, but that's what the attorney is hired for. I'd reply that it'd be bad business practice to breach client information, but would happily cooperate with the courts if funneled through proper channels.
Name, rank, and serial number. All you gotta give.
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
But, look, George Bush has never been too bright about understanding 'fereigners.' But he does know Americans. He asked this generation to sacrifice the things he knew we would not miss: our privacy and our morality. He let us keep the money. But he made a cynical bet that we wouldn't much care if we became a 'Big Brother' country that has now tortured a lot of random people...
In conclusion, after 9/11, President Bush told us Osama bin Laden could run but he couldn't hide. But, then he ran and hid. So, Bush went to Plan B: pissing on the Constitution and torturing random people...
They say evil happens when good men do nothing. Well, the Democrats prove it also happens when mediocre people do nothing."
Full text here.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Jeez I must be tired. 'We one' instead of 'We won' is bad even for me.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
how many recipients of these letters followed orders and gave up the information. We would never even know about it. Kinda scary...
As perverse as it may sound, I would also wager that there are individuals out there who would reply to these letters instantly and with a sense of pride for serving their country. I am very interested if the letters convey this attitude about this request for information. If they do, in fact, inform the individual that this is a matter of national security & that they will be bringing justice to the enemies of the United States, then I hope they are eventually published so we can all have a good laugh and that they might serve as a reminder for victims of future schemes.
My work here is dung.
My National Security Letter Gag Order
Friday, March 23, 2007; Page A17
It is the policy of The Washington Post not to publish anonymous pieces. In this case, an exception has been made because the author -- who would have preferred to be named -- is legally prohibited from disclosing his or her identity in connection with receipt of a national security letter. The Post confirmed the legitimacy of this submission by verifying it with the author's attorney and by reviewing publicly available court documents.
The Justice Department's inspector general revealed on March 9 that the FBI has been systematically abusing one of the most controversial provisions of the USA Patriot Act: the expanded power to issue "national security letters." It no doubt surprised most Americans to learn that between 2003 and 2005 the FBI issued more than 140,000 specific demands under this provision -- demands issued without a showing of probable cause or prior judicial approval -- to obtain potentially sensitive information about U.S. citizens and residents. It did not, however, come as any surprise to me.
Three years ago, I received a national security letter (NSL) in my capacity as the president of a small Internet access and consulting business. The letter ordered me to provide sensitive information about one of my clients. There was no indication that a judge had reviewed or approved the letter, and it turned out that none had. The letter came with a gag provision that prohibited me from telling anyone, including my client, that the FBI was seeking this information. Based on the context of the demand -- a context that the FBI still won't let me discuss publicly -- I suspected that the FBI was abusing its power and that the letter sought information to which the FBI was not entitled.
Rather than turn over the information, I contacted lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union, and in April 2004 I filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the NSL power. I never released the information the FBI sought, and last November the FBI decided that it no longer needs the information anyway. But the FBI still hasn't abandoned the gag order that prevents me from disclosing my experience and concerns with the law or the national security letter that was served on my company. In fact, the government will return to court in the next few weeks to defend the gag orders that are imposed on recipients of these letters.
Living under the gag order has been stressful and surreal. Under the threat of criminal prosecution, I must hide all aspects of my involvement in the case -- including the mere fact that I received an NSL -- from my colleagues, my family and my friends. When I meet with my attorneys I cannot tell my girlfriend where I am going or where I have been. I hide any papers related to the case in a place where she will not look. When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to look them in the eye and lie.
I resent being conscripted as a secret informer for the government and being made to mislead those who are close to me, especially because I have doubts about the legitimacy of the underlying investigation.
The inspector general's report makes clear that NSL gag orders have had even more pernicious effects. Without the gag orders issued on recipients of the letters, it is doubtful that the FBI would have been able to abuse the NSL power the way that it did. Some recipients would have spoken out about perceived abuses, and the FBI's actions would have been subject to some degree of public scrutiny. To be sure, not all recipients would have spoken out; the inspector general's report suggests that large telecom companies have been all too willing to share sensitive data with the agency -- in at least one case, a telecom company gave the FBI even more information than it asked for. But some recipients would have called attention to abuses, and some abuse would have been deterred.
If one is under a gag order, does one have to lie? From the article, "When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to look them in the eye and lie."
I would hope you can use the neutral "I cannot comment." The order does not say "lie about us" but "you can not discuss it." Yes, evasive answers can confirm suspicions in people (why else would they not answer?), but that should still be legit.
Similarly, meeting with an attorney on a case you can't discuss, just say "I'm meeting with an attorney, can't discuss, sorry."
Anyone else run into being forced to lie?
A.
Make multiple copies of the NSL, along with your story, set it all up so that in 30 days, if you do nothing, they get mailed out to all the media outlets, faxed out of the country to overseas media (BBC, et. al.) and then you go and hold a public announcement in front of the Capitol and say "Nope, not gonna do it." Utterly refuse to obey a law that is "evil."
The biggest weapon against overbearing government is transparency. If a government cannot withstand scrutiny, they are doing something very wrong. The PATRIOT act is the biggest piece of shit written, and Congress (most of whom never read it) just rolled over. Were they a computer, I'd FDISK them and start over.
a gag order is only a piece of paper. it only has the authority that you give it. if this fellow had said, "No, and by the way here's a public declaration that I got the letter." they couldn't have stopped him. they could have applied the penalties of law to him, but only AFTER he had gone public.
sure, they can silence a few. but if *everyone* who had gotten one of these letters had immediately gone public with it?
a law assumes that only a few people will disobey, and be subject to punishment. but when many many people disobey a bad law as a matter of course, it causes the law itself to be questioned, and perhaps overturned.
The USA is officially in a limited state of emergency, so this is not normal.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
When do they broadcast the 2 minutes of hate again? I must have missed it this morning.
Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
If I'd received one of those letters, I wouldn't want the hard copy just sitting around. So I'd scan it, and then shred the original. Then I'd store the electronic copy on a secure place on my hard drive. But it sure would be a tragedy if a couple days later some "hacker" mysteriously broke into my computer and got a copy of the letter and then put it on a P2P network for all to see. Gosh, FBI, that's too bad. I feel just terrible it got leaked, but I did everything I could to protect it. Too bad I'm just a normal citizen and not qualified to store classified information in my home, so I guess it's not really my fault. Sorry guys.
According to wikipedia:
Section 505 ruled unconstitutional
On September 29, 2004, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero struck down Section 505--which allowed the government to issue "National Security Letters" to obtain sensitive customer records from Internet service providers and other businesses without judicial oversight--as a violation of the First and Fourth Amendment. The court also found the broad gag provision in the law to be an "unconstitutional prior restraint" on free speech, so it was turned down.
So, why can't this guy talk about it yet? the law has been struck down.
ISPs who support civil rights could put a daily statement on their home page, or better yet email a daily statement to each subscriber stating that "There are currently no law enforcement investigations of subscribers." Then when the FBI comes knocking, the statement comes down.
Excuse me?!? Did you completely fail to notice that it was a conservative administration that did this shit? I'm a liberal, and I want my fucking rights back, motherfucker!
www.wavefront-av.com
9/11 may have been devastating, but it's not even close to the damage of turning the world's last super power into a police state.
It's more and more obvious that someone is so up for impeachment...
Oh yes, sorry, it's true you have the "liberal" meaning reversed over there ... I think I just meant the opposite you think I meant with this word.
The first rule of National Security Letters is you will not talk about...ah you get the point.
and you're welcome to it.
Is this really a power that we have given the FBI? I thought only the KGB could terrorize citizens like this.
The time he filed the challenge was as the US presidential election campaign was starting.
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 8:32(King James Version)
specifically the one of the customers who's information is requested? It couldn't hurt to hire a consultant on the legality of this letter.
And some people may feel strongly of the invasion of rights it implys. Maybe even enough to provide the service at a discount rate...
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
This is exactly the technique district attorneys use when summoning you before a grand jury in a sensitive investigation.
No judge. No accountability. Gag order. I was under one for 9 months in 1992.
It's a 'feature' of the system, and if they can't do it this way, the US Attorney will do it for them.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
This would be my response.
In this country, the law exists only as it interpreted by the Judiciary. Every session congress enacts law after law that conflict with one another, and with existing laws. Until precedent is set in court, the people of this country are left to make their best guess as to which seemingly conflicting laws will prevail. It is my firm belief that the specific powers granted to you by PATRIOT act, by which you are making this request, are unconstitutional. Therefore, as a law abiding citizen, it is my duty to uphold the law and deny your request until such time as you provide a warrant.
The PATRIOT act is the biggest piece of shit written, and Congress (most of whom never read it) just rolled over.
During the dabate over the PATRIOT Act, Ron Paul proved that it was physically impossible to have read the text of the bill before the vote.
FUD!
May be its not like during soviet times but it is still strange.
I have been checked for having passport in one of the Moscow train stations in 1998. (I arrived to Moscow stepped out of train and was going to train station to go to town) Policeman (Milicianer) came to me and demanded passport with visa.
That was so strange - I have not experienced anything like that in any other place i have been.
Given that GWB is the master of the signing statement a.k.a "I won't veto it, I'll just ignore it", and based on the current admin's stance that "the C-in-C can do anything in time of war", what would stop the new C-in-C from issuing an executive order abolishing the Patriot Act?
A signing statement is nothing more than an opinion stated at the time the bill is signed. Clinton issued them, Carter issued them, etc. A president making a signing statement is simply going on record about the context in which they're signing the bill, and actually saving everyone a lot of time and trouble when said law (or the way in which it's used or ignored) winds up in court. Would you rather that a president decide, personally, that he thinks a law is BS and makes a decision about if/how he'll apply it at a policy level within his areas of authority, but doesn't say so out loud? At least this way (when a signing statement does accompany the occasional new law) you know exactly where the administration stands on its use or lack thereof. Rather than wait a year to find out, in practice, what the administration thinks, you can get right back to congress, or right to court, and deal with it more head-on. I think presidents are doing us all a favor when they characterize their administration's take on a new law and how they'll approach its use or enforcement (or let it rot). I'm not talking about any particular president, or any particular law - just the whole evolving habit. I think this is more in the "better the devil you know... " category.
As for the new C-in-C abolishing the act? It doesn't work that way. He can only offer up new legislation that counters it or modifies it, and congress has to run with it, or modify that, or let it rot. Executive orders apply to things that are within the executive branch's area of responsibility/authority. If they stray from that, that's what the legislative and judicial branches are for. If the legislators (from both parties) who put forth and passed the PATRIOT act and its slightly modified later version don't want the executive branch to use it, or want it to be used differently, all they have to do is change it. All YOU have to do is convince enough people to elect congressional representatives that SAY they want to change it. Of course, you won't actually find more than a tiny minority of congress-people who say they think that the CIA and NSA and FBI shouldn't be able to share intel in the middle of a terror investigation, or that being able to establish the pattern of a bad guy's flurry of phone calls to the local Hamas franchise office while using half a dozen disposable TRAC phones bought for cash at a bordertown 7-11 is a bad thing.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Well, you know, that by now, you are on the "not allowed in" list. The NSA has passed all your info on to the Communication General Board (CGB) that we maintain in secret as part of the PATRIOT ACT. And if they do not have it, then I will have to report you or risk being transported up to one of our luxurious camps in either northern Alaska, Cuba, or Iraq.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
What is this Liberal America of which you speak and how do I get there?
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 8:32(King James Version)
Thank FSM there's still a little bit of Article I hanging on. If it weren't for a free press that's willing to cause a bit of trouble, we'd never have even heard about this.
No jokes, please
Sorry, meant to go farther. An "executive order" is a directive to all executive branch departments and agencies as to how they are to act. A "signing statement", according to GWB's apparent belief, is a directive to all executive branch departments and agencies as to how they are to implement the law at hand. The only difference is that one applies across the board, while the other applies to one bill
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 8:32(King James Version)
The future of our democracy depends on people like you to speak out. Thank you for taking the risk you have by contacting the press on this and please keep pursuing whatever legal avenues you have available to you.
Subvert the Data. Give 'em TONS of useless garbage, that is a wate of time, and both difficult and time-consuming to use.
Obfuscate, delay and malinger.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Remember John Travolta, in Pulp Fiction explaining that in people in Holland (where I live) 'drowned french-fries in mayonaise' and that 'a cop' had no right to search you in Holland ??
Well, that in the past now. Now they can pretty much do whatever they feel like. It's not that the law says; hey policeman, do as you please, but since the US of A wanted allies... we complied, and ANYONE can now be arrested in holland, for whatever reason they can think of. And it called 'come for a visit and answer some questions' by the lawyers of the state.
In moscow I know I can be asked for my passport any minute by any policeman, and they can fine me there and then... still, I'd rather pay 50 euros and eat dinner at home, than spend some days at the police station in Amsterdam to 'answer some questions' in the name of national security.
I'm not saying you're wrong, and it sucks to be halted my some form of authority, but after Spain...
BTW: Moscow is not russia, it is IN russia, but russia is more than Moscow, so scenes from moscow dont represent russia as a whole
--- 'Pain heals, chicks dig scars... glory... lasts for ever!' -- "Footstep" Falco
Every "gag order" is a state-backed command to lie. The "gagged" person is compelled into deceit.
What makes this really stupid, is the fact that the order implicitely assumes that they can trust the victim to comply, even though the only way the victim can comply is to be untrustworthy.
We're seeing some good political maneuvering here. With this appearing in the Washington Post, and support from ACLU lawyers, it's quite possible that the plan is to get this guy called to testify before a congressional committee. If he testifies under oath before Congress on this, that overrides the FBI's "gag order".
Here's what you have left: hand guns, religion, and they can't make you quarter a British soldier.
... the first two of those. Time and time again they have whittled away especially at gun rights. More recently, over the past couple decades, Christianity is their newest target.
...and the 3rd Amendment wasn't to protect us against having to quarter foreign soldiers in our homes, it was to prevent us from having to quarter US military in our homes and private property. Imagine how much money our military would save if they could legally say, "Hey there Mr Citizen... Ya know that spare unused bedroom in your house? Well, effective today, you're gonna have a have a couple new houseguests staying with you for a while."
Every major US city and state that imposes (unconstitutional) restrictions against private gun ownership has done so under predominately Democrat-controlled government who spearheaded the bans and restrictions as part of their party platform. The recent court decision declaring handgun ownership bans in Washington DC unconstitutional is an anomaly... they will "correct" that soon enough.
Every major attack against Christianity in the US is led by liberal or Democratic-run organizations and every big court decision that attacks Christianity (while ignoring or even protecting other religions) has been handed down by a Democrat judge.
(and on a wierd note, I have a good friend who is a retired wealthy businessman and has a very big house... and over the past few years he and his wife have graciously offered their spare rooms to pilot trainees at our nearby Air Force Base to live in free of rent while they complete their training classes and get shipped out. The new base commander has suddenly put a stop to that, citing that the retired man is effectively getting his 3rd amendment rights violated by giving away free housing to active duty military personnel and he can no longer do it for free, but can charge them a "fair rent" for room & board.)
The "limited state of emergency" of which you speak, to whatever extent it exists, has no legal nor practical bearing on this matter.
Anything that depends on simply trusting the government is -- if I may be excused for using a heavily-abused term -- un-American. Our system of government is built on openness, oversight, and active citizen participation. That's especially true when someone tries to sells us on an intentionally vague and open-ended "state of emergency".
Fair enough. Sorry about going off the deep end, then. Looks like yet another case of two nations separated by a common language :-)
www.wavefront-av.com
Liberal, conservative, what does it matter? These are our elected representatives doing this.
What side of the isle they park their chairs doesn't really matter. About the only thing that differs between the parties is what they _accuse_ the other party of doing even though they do the same things.
And there's our unelected overlords, the appointed bureaucrats that have no responsibility to even acknowledge the will of the public.
OK, So I'll get modded "Troll" and "Flamebait". But isn't it time you Americans fought back for your democracy, before you lose it all in the name of the "War against Terror"?
The USA is unofficially in a permanent state of limited emergency, so this is normal.
"This company/web site has never been served a national security letter and has never disclosed any information under a national security letter"
While I am sure that they could find a judge to compel you to keep such an announcement up even after you have received such a letter, such a statement can have a powerful viral effect. Also, find those privacy links at the bottom of the page and ask them if they have been served letters. If they say no ask them to place such a public statement on their web site.
As long as nobody is talking to those hit by these letter, the victims are just going to hunker down, keep quite and hope it all blows over. Once we start seeing who and what is hiding in the shadows the real problem may become clear. Turning on a little light can chase the cockroaches away.
So how about it SlashDot? Have you ever been served?
As long as one follows the guidelines of the corporation (which are presumed to be legal), a person in a corporation has no personal liability. So don't expect corporate folks to act like anybody cares about personal responsibility.
A corporation is not a place for "people to stand up for what they believe in". Their duty is to the stockholders!
I'll tell you what's politically expedient. Voting them out of office.
But, that entails being involved in the political process. Which, many of you are not. The ones who are not politically involved certainly didn't click "read more."
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
There are people who help citizens with governmental problems: they are call congressmen (and women).
They are YOUR representatives. If you ever receive a federal letter that makes strange demands of you, like this one, your first phone call should be to the office of you congressman. I can attest that congressmen do get involved on behalf of the citizens they represent in matters of federal government.
It makes a whole hell of a lot of difference when responding to one of those demand letters when it comes back to them on congressional letterhead.
Although this isn't a perfect solution, one thing that potential NSL recipients can do is maintain a warrant canary.
Basically, they commit to updating a cryptographically signed statement that they have not received a secret warrant along with a current news item.
I'm not sure if warrant canaries have ever been tested, and if one failed (the service provider was forced to update it) you would never know.
I would make 3 copies. Give one to my state's attorney general, and one to each of my senators.
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
I ran a small (2000 customer) ISP from 1999 to 2005. In the last 2 years I was there (2003-2005) we received 2 of these letters from (can't tell you) directing us to provide all data (radius logs, billing information, etc...) for a couple of individuals. The letters included a gag, were not judge issued, etc... Neither of those individuals accounts were canceled, nor did payment ever stop coming in - so I assume they were never arrested for anything.
.001 micrograms of psylocin) do not match the illegal substance I was arraigned for manufacturing (the arraignment was for psylocybin). The judge asks the DA to clarify for him what it is his asking to charge me for, the DA still pushes for manufacturing and jail time. The judge suggests he change it to simple possession of a schedule 1 and let me plead 1st offender given the information he's reviewed. The DA reluctantly agrees, and instead of going to jail for 30 years I get off with 5 years of probation and a clean record once I finished it.
On the other hand, multiple times over the years I was able to detect compromises on our systems - collect enough evidence to prove without a shadow of a doubt who had committed the unauthorized entry felonies, reported the information to the (can't tell you 3 letter agency), and never once had them do anything about it.
During my time running the ISP I ordered a $10 mushroom (illegal) spore syringe (legal) from the company in high times (pf) that no longer exists and tried to grow them at home just for fun. It was just a jar of moldy rice - no mushrooms. I get my house raided without a warrant, all my personal possessions confiscated (computers, tv, furniture) - charged with manufacturing a schedule 1 narcotic (which carries a 30 year sentence). I refuse to cooperate and narc out my friends that grow weed (I have no idea how they knew about them) in exchange for dropping the bullshit charges, so the DA takes the manufacturing charge before the judge. I point out to the judge that the lab test results (which were + for
Our government does a lot of fucked up shit.
This law sets a valuable example for tyrants.
When creating laws with horrific effects, always make sure that one of the provisions of the law makes it illegal for anyone with first-hand experience regarding how horrible the law is to testify, discuss, or even acknowledge any involvement or problems with said law.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
Bummer, is all I can say.
Those librarians were the second challenge to the NSLs.
e rs/22023res20051130.html )
The original challenge to the NSLs was from an Internet Service Provider ( http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nationalsecuritylett
The only reason the Librarians got released from the gag order was because the government made a mistake in redacting a document that was posted online and accidentally revealed their identities
"The ACLU filed the case in April 2004 on behalf of an Internet Service Provider that had received an NSL and was prohibited from disclosing that the FBI had sought information from it. In September 2004, the district court struck down the NSL provision as unconstitutional, with Judge Victor Marrero writing that "democracy abhors undue secrecy." In his landmark ruling, Judge Marrero held that indefinite gag orders imposed under the NSL law violate free speech rights protected by the First Amendment."
e rs/26404prs20060807.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nationalsecuritylett
> Depends on your philosophical roots. The Catholic Church, for example, explicitly stated that the moral responsibility to obey one's superiors supercedes other moral responsibilities. This was in the 4th century CE (IIRC, may have been the 5th century), but has so pervaded Western thought that it remains a huge problem today.
While true that one ought to obey one's superiors, I don't see how that overrides moral prohibitions. I.E. I don't see where you can get away saying "I was following orders" when ordered to do something immoral. I believe, in general, that only really applies when they order you to do something perhaps distasteful, but ostensibly moral (e.g. conscripted by a soldier to carry their packs for one mile, but carrying it for two; turning the other cheek, etc.).
And if you look at, say, the Apostles, they explicitly disobeyed the law in several instances, including the religious authorities who told them not to preach in the name of Jesus, among other things. A great many of them, in fact, were put to death for that disobedience (Stephen, Paul, etc.).
If you really want to see loyalty even to immoral commands, look to eastern thought, where morality is seen as less absolute and loyalty as a more absolute requirement, with such pronouncements as "I'd even become a demon for [person]'s sake!"
Expect this person, as well as any other NSL recipient that they could possibly claim might be this guy, to disappear.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
We *all* have a moral obligation to stand up and support people who may be put at risk by others violating these laws. That way if a husband or a wife has the choice, they can know that there is help and support available.
In the end, I also think there is a moral obligation to inspire others with deeds well done, to the best of our ability. This means standing up for what is right, whether (in this instance) it is defying these letters or helping those who need assistance because someone else defied one.
I think this point (as you have brought up) is interesting. I think it is worth considering. And I think it broadens the scope of the responsibilities of all of us who have not yet received such a letter.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
"Now I want you to go into that bag and find my rights."
"Which rights are those?
"There the ones that say, 'Bad Mother Fucker.'"
Similar to the site zero accidents since... then, when u get one of those letters just stop updating. youmight lose clients but you will have premptively avoided being screwed morally. after all if u are forced to update falsely...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
IANAL but in my experience, strictly speaking, the judge can't force him to lie. The courts aren't as I understand it in the business of perpetuating a falsehood. Rather the courts can, as instructed by congress order him to keep such matters secret. Whether he does this by lying or by so isolating himself from all of his friends, family, and coworkers that noone asks is up to him. I suppose if someone were to feel that their soul would burn in hell for all eternity if they were to lie they might opt for the latter route, perhaps growing increasingly hostile to all others around them as a way of dissuading questions.
Practically speaking wither choice seems terrible to me but then the people who wrote, passed, and abused this law clearly wanted it that way to make the bad guys suffer.
The catch is, as the War on Drugs (TM) has shown "we" are always the bad guys.
It never ceases to amaze me the ethical contortions people will go through to rationalize their choices.
A couple of points. If your wife was a good wife (and I have no idea whether she is or not) she would understand your desire not to compromise certain principles. Give her a chance, and stop using her as an excuse.
Second, what lesson are you teaching your kids? That safety and comfort are more important than standing up for something you know is right. Think about how their behavior will be influenced as a result. Stop using them as excuses.
Ultimately, yours is a post filled with equivocations and justifications of why your decision that inaction trumps action, despite the fact that you know what's right.
It is a genuinely cowardly man that hides behind his family as an excuse to avoid doing those things he knows will be painful, but must be done anyway because they are right.
"I am loyal to my family first and above all else."
If that were true, you wouldn't be selling out their futures for safety and comfort in the present. You are. So stop telling that lie.
The FBI massacred 85 citizens at Waco and bulldozered the evidence the next day. Nobody said anything about it. FBI agent Lon Horiuchi shot Vicky Weaver through the head as she stood holding her baby at Ruby Ridge. Five FBI agents took the Fifth on Capitol Hill. None were ever charged with any crime and all still work for the FBI.
These are real people who are dead today because of the US Government. Remember that when the Gest-- I mean, the FBI, sends you a letter.
Always remember Waco. Remember Ruby Ridge. Never forget.
Large numbers.
Federal agency can prey on one poor objector, two, maybe 5. But if say 10000 people with illegal warrants of info from FBI/CIA/NSA get together on 1 day in a court of law or somewhere else where they can make a public statement and demand protection from government abuse/retribution, then something will be done. The US is not an orwellian nightmare just yet - scandals are scandals, and our govmint still fears them.
The question of course is how to arrange for such a meeting with fearful participants making the arrangements, and the possibility of FBI interfering. Can someone think of a techie solution? It's mathematically impossible methinks, even if our ISPs were not on the bad side.
"Maybe in the 18th century, but today I'd like to see any of that stand up to US Armed Forces tanks, snipers, bombs, chemical, biological, nuclear weapons."
Who do you think makes up the US Armed Forces? Citizens. I love when your response is given, because it displays a profound ignorance of reality. If you believe the US Armed Forces would, as a whole, wage all out war against their families, friends and neighbors, then you are beyond reasoning with.
You haven't thought about it, you're just regurgitating anti-gun propaganda.
Its called the USSR and it failed.
Conservative relative to what? Haven't you noticed that the Republican party isn't very conservative anymore? It's only conservative when you compare it to France.
This democracy that we used to believe we had here does not exist.
remember April 19, 1775 and Nov 4, 2008
Retain an attorney, go right down to the nearest Federal courthouse and set up an appointment with a Federal judge. Let him decide how to deal with it. If he tells you to comply, that's it.
No way the FBI can stop you from doing that, regardless of how "secret" the letter is. And if they ARE abusing the Patriot Act, the judge may - not necessarily will - determine that. Or he will refer it up to the "secret" court that deals with these issues.
You might get off the hook, you might not. But it's the only way I see to deal with what are basically "secret police" tactics which are closing in on Gestapo methods.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
It's right above the great lakes stoopid.
Problem is, your so full of dung I can smell you out here in Sacramento all the way from where your sitting right now in "Rove's Shop." All you are is part of the new cyberwar campaign (again direct from Rove's Shop.) Why do they complain, and compare the greatest nation in the world to Nazi Germany or pre-war Italy? Because Gore didn't win, Kerry didn't win, and for the love of God, Hillary better not win. Answer: MEDIA BLACKOUTS
Broadcast media does not cover topics about electronic voting machine failures like Bradblog.com does. Broadcast media does not go against AIPAC, like Mike Malloy does. There's a lot that is being blacked out, and Tony Snow-Job (from FOX news) is just the tip of the iceberg of disinformation and lies coming from these corrupt murdering bastards. Add to that the Patriot Act and people are SCARED to SPEAK OUT.
You wanna know why Bush is in office?
The (electronic Voting Machine Companies) product is crap, and unconstitutional. And their math is treasonous. And their (ELECTRONIC) parts come from communist china! (Who knows what happened to the parts at the DOPING LEVEL) And these people that keep screwing with our elections are not getting the proper punishment (18 months for the workers in OHIO who purposely screwed with a recount that cost and election to be decided by a JUDGE! Ack!!!!!!!), Punishment, I add, after the fact; when the corrupt candidate is elected, and writing more god damned pork bills, and breaking their oaths by destroying our constitution (Which is pretty screwed up now on the 1,2,4,5,6,7,8th amendments), and shoving some twisted FAKE (look at Bohemian Grove) version of christianity down our throats.. There's no accountability when there is no oversight, and the judges are owned by the Bush Crime Family. They Currently OWN The Executive, the SENATE (Even though the MSM says they don't THEY DO) the NSA, CIA, the DOD, The Judicial, and the fourth estate (e.g. THE CORPORATE MAINSTREAM MEDIA.)
Look I am a veteran, (without attacking you personally) I'm just telling you, that your totally full of crap. Go back under your cyber warfare rock in Karl Roves SHOP!!! Go on, cry about our lack of freedoms and our supreme oppression while you openly speak your beliefs on a public website that continues to remain standing, especially with the rather anti-Bush, anti-Republican stance it's known for. Oh yeah, and thank freedom that you can even view sites like Slashdot. Actually that's (Slashdot) has been threatened. How'd you like to get DDoS'ed for your opinions?
Is a DDoS attack Freedom of speech? Or is it a felony? Should the government administration who lied to you at the VERY BEGINNING about the WAR in IRAQ (WMD's) be trusted and allowed to keep secrets from the people and claim this and that bull crap that they're above all law? No accountability, stay the course. No, and I've personally had it with you. Go on and CRY when someone disappears with no warrant and no charges over a bullshit law (Patriot Act) with no oversight.
I want you to remember this.
(and this comes from a Veteran)
YOU ARE THE ENEMY OF STATE! Do you fucking hear me!?
Stick your Hah. Hah.Hahahahah! in the mirror and watch your back.
Yes, Mr. Orwell, We have finally arrived.
It has come down to...
We, The People,
Them, The Government.
The next one From Wikipedia: Human events He has been featured on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity & Colmes, Kudlow and Company and Special Report with Brit Hume -- So basically he's a fucking retard. Again a FOX NEWS relationship. suck and fuck and cook and clean (Scrub my ass baby! you incestuous fucker)
This is in regard to your "http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=10101&
Next we have mensnewdaily (MND COMMENTARY) COMMENTS ! = FACTS
Scroll down anyway... A. The shell is old, from before the 1991 Gulf War, so it's not what we were looking for.
Since the cease-fire that suspended the Gulf War depended on Saddam's handing over to the UN "[a]ll chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities", this shell is precisely what we were looking for, especially if it predates 1991. This shell and others like it is why the UN passed 17 resolutions demanding that Saddam disarm. No matter how old it was, it was still lethal. There is no statute of limitations on weapons of mass destruction. Answer: The WEAPONS INSPECTORS KNEW IT WAS THERE. But ya yanked them out.
Hell ya been re-writing history. Busy aren't ya?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.htm
(Fuck FOX NEWS!)
Then the last one you cite.
Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.
So your full of shit. "S.H.I.T." GO CLIMB BACK UNDER YOUR FUCKING KARL ROVE SHOP ROCK!!!
By the way I noticed you said NOTHING about what I said about electronic election fraud.
I guess you just sealed the deal.
I am pretty much done with you.
Your torn up from the floor up.
While you might have resources and psyops to fuck with most people, I AM NOT MOST PEOPLE.
(Posted by DrRevotron, who is unable to post under his nickname due to Slashdot's fucked up (Political) Karma system.)
OMGZ TEH KARL ROVE. OH NOEZ NOT TEH ROVE.
You never cease to amaze me. Throwing around the words "Karl" and "Rove" in no particular order is what every liberal does in the face of cold, hard facts.
So somehow, your entire argument is justified, and all my resources are shot down, simply because they have been featured on Fox News? Just because it wasn't posted by some self-important asshole blogger doesn't mean that it isn't news and isn't true.
And because I said nothing about the electronic "election fraud", I am somehow seceding to your all-powerful intellectual ability? You disgust me, you anonymous coward. That may be just a random nickname for Slashdot anonymity, but in this case, it fits - You truly are one anonymous coward.
You are not most people, I will indeed give you that. You are not most people in the sense that most people in this fucking country will come right out and say what they want, without hiding behind pointless phrases and stupid references to political figures. Most people would use their common sense and at least provide some counter-evidence other than the fucking NEWS NETWORK THAT THE INFORMATION CAME FROM!
Mod me a troll, ban me from Slashdot. I don't care anymore. You, sir, are a fucking hypocrite, a fucking lunatic, and quite possibly the thickest, most stereotypical liberal I have ever had the displeasure of speaking to! Let Hillary win. Pull us out of Iraq. Let the Islamo-Fascist terrorists win and continue their "holy war" against the United States. But know this - When their "holy war" hits our shores once more, you'll come to realize what the hell your lunatic politicians are unleashing on the world.
Actually citizens can challenge unconstitutional laws through the court system by filing a lawsuit and pursuing it through the court system, and that is what the ACLU has done - http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nationalsecuritylette rs/index.html
I would publicly announce the contents of the order. I would not care about the consequences as things like this need to be made public knowledge or we risk further corruption.
Support your local school shooter, give them your firearms.
Well, this is the moronic aspect of it all. The FBI has the power to basically nuke your life if you do that. I'm not sure if they can organise a one-way to Gitmo (oh, no, you're not a foreigner so I guess that's OK then) but as 'terrorist' is the new 'communist' they can pretty much do as they please without any judicial oversight.
So, in short, if you do that I wish you well. You'll strike a blow for the democracy that has left the country - but you may just have f*cked up your life and that of anyone you're associated with (you didn't really think they'd stop at you, did you?).
Unless some oversight is brought back it's only going to get worse. Imagine if you have ONE (1) corrupt official in that lot. Given the volume that isn't quite as unlikely as it seems, but just imagine what power these people have been given without any decent oversight. Stupid.