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.
Absolutely. Also remember that in our system the only way to challenge a law as unconstitutional is to break it. Anyone who gets one of these letters has a moral responsibility to disobey it. The government issued over 140,000 of these letters with gag orders. We should have 140,000 people in jail right now for talking about them, nothing else could demonstrate how abusive these letters are.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
That's easy for you to say if you are not the one who could be locked up for any period of time, without a trial, based on the accusation that you are helping "terrorists"
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 so then that part of the USAPATRIOTACT is null and void, as anything that conflicts with the Constitution in federal code is legally null and void.
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
not contact the aclu, although that would be a good step 2, I'd hire an attorney because until they're hired, its not client/attorney privilege. Taking the letter to a lawyer that you haven't hired without any signatures is akin to flashing the letter to random people and hoping its not a breach of the gag order.
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
You obviously havn't read the PATRIOT act or the national security survailiance act. They explicitly give the FBI the ability to issue "National Security Letters" which have the force of warrents but don't need to be signed by a judge. You can be arrested for failing to comply, so they are somewhat more than a "request".
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.
That's the thing: No, we didn't.
The government has been encroaching on our personal liberties one piece at a time for a century.
You may want to blame the government of the past 30 years, but here's a quote from former attorney general and later Supreme Court justice, Robert H Jackson in 1940--61 years before USA PATRIOT Act.:
-Robert H. Jackson
Realize this was back in 1940, when the federal body of law was half what it is today.
I would argue that focusing on the last few decades of law is the exact reason why we can't get serious reform. Once the American people wrap their heads around how much and how long they've been screwed over the years, it'll really put the problem into the correct context.
Both parties have given incredible powers to the government over the years, and "the lesser of two evils" mentality is to blame. Once you realize how terribly they both have systematically and deviously plotted and executed their plans to control you, you'll realize that neither of the two can be trusted.
Of course, this all sounds like alarmist melodramatic BS... until you see this.
We were robbed because we were afraid of what our fellow citizens were doing. By bowing to the the pressures of the 'crisis of the day,' we allowed the government to seize control. The alien and sedition acts made it a crime to criticize the federalist government. The FBI was doing (illegal) drive-by shootings on the homes of suspected KKK members. Alleged Communists were "convicted" without proper trial by the hundreds (sometimes 50 at a time). Alleged child molesters have been tracked down and their property searched and seized without proper warrants. Now, with the advent of the terrorist into our country, the executive branch doesn't even need to explain itself when it knocks down your door.
Latewire
Having hand guns and rifles is not a trivial thing. These are the tools that can be used to take one's liberty back - when you don't have any other options. It's why there is a 2nd Amendment.
The President can declare anyone an enemy combatant under the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Contrary to what some believe, this is NOT limited to non-citizens. Given how little judicial or other oversight or scrutiny that is able to be placed on the Presidents actions, even if the power were abused by declaring a civilly disobedient citizen an enemy combatant, how many years would they waste away in a secret prison before anyone was even able to find out what exactly happened to them or why?
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
> You can be arrested for failing to comply, so they are somewhat more than a "request".
Not true. Also under the reauthorization of the act, you can disclose the letter to your attorney (a good idea) to help you decide if you wish to comply. Disclosing the letter to anyone else (especially the subject of the investigation) will get you into serious trouble.
[Insert pithy quote here]
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.
The government has faith in itself. Registered US mail is acceptable even for transmission of classified material. Sure, he could have refused to sign for it, but he would have had no reason to do so until after he knew the contents.
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
Also remember that in our system the only way to challenge a law as unconstitutional is to break it.
I don't think that's true. Four librarians from Connecticut challenged the law without breaking it and won, after which the FBI withdrew the SNL.
What I don't understand is why the FBI doesn't get a good old fashion search warrent signed by a judge in accordance with the fourth amendment. I always thought having a judge sign off on these things was part of the checks and balances designed to prevent abuse.
Your information is out of date: the US is the 'world leader' in prison population both in absolute terms and per capita.
The article that you link to is from 2001. Since then, tens of thousands of people in Rwanda who had been detained on suspicion of participation in genocide have been released, bringing Rwanda's per capita rate under that of the US.
Over the same period, the per capita rate of imprisonment in the US has increased.
See the leading report on such statistics for further details, sources of data and so on.
Those were left-wingextremists. Right-wingers have no problem with kings and the like.
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.
It's pretty much obvious, really. Don't be critical of your government. Support any initiatives that your government brings (wars, anti-minority laws, increased surveillance etc). Don't be friendly to pariahs (these days most likely Muslims, but also anyone with Middle Eastern roots or appearance). Be patriotic as in "we are always right because ours is such a great country". Don't use crypto, don't regularly meet with other people in private facilities (aside of work, of course - I mean clubs with restricted membership, that sort of thing), and in general don't act in a way that makes it look like you're hiding something. Oh, and, of course, report any behavior contrary to the description above (aka "anti-American behavior") to authorities.
Of course, you can still just happen to be the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time, or stumble on something important by accident, or, say, one of your relatives or friends could do something wrong. But the chances of that are pretty low, as long as you don't stick out.
Having said that, the US is still far from a true totaliarian regime. I'm not even speaking of the likes of North Korea, Saudi Arabia, or Turkmenistan; but pretty much any ex-USSR country (except for Baltic states) is far worse than US with regards to freedom. I know of Russia because I live here, and I know that the rest are at least not any better (except maybe Ukraine and Georgia), but even so even here it's not nearly as bad as what true totalitarianism is. Yet...
First you state that there is a big stink about the eight fired 8 attorneys, which compares to no uproar when Clinton fired all the attorneys at the beginning of the term.
This is deliberately misleading, since the mid-term firings for possibly political reasons are different from wholesale replacement at the beginning of an administration -- which Bush also did.
Then you attempted to defend your initial statement by pulling a quote from the beginning of the Bush administration -- which is also misleading, since the actual context was that he was leaving them in for a short time before replacing all of them. You conveniently made it seem as though the administration left them in place, which they did not.
Maybe you didn't know these facts when you made your posts, but it sure seems like you were deliberately misleading for effect.
Not so. Wrongful termination suits are still made (and sometimes won) in at-will employment states; why would it be different for political employees?
It doesn't matter if they were appointed by the same guy originally.You're right. But the reason they were fired does matter. Firing a US attorney for political reasons (such as to evade an investigation into the Plame leak, or to punish someone for *not* announcing an investigation into one's political opponent before an election, or to punish someone for investigating a political ally) is clearly an ethical violation (and, actually, a legal violation).
Funny how you miss the above-average performance reviews most of these appointees received.
I see. According to your thinking, manipulating federal employees (potentially for political purposes, which is the reason this is a scandal) in order to manipulate an election is A-OK. Funny thing is, it's illegal to do so, as those attorneys are employees of the federal government, not employees of GWB, or employees of the Republican Party. One cannot use federal resources such as those attorneys for election purposes.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Look up the case of Bill Cheek sometime. He was an electronics hobbyist producing a very simple box that sliced up PSK data streams so, for instance, a hobbyist could decode police dispatching systems. He produced them for sale. With absolutely no warning, FBI agents raided his house and took practically everything he had to make a living, from computers to paper records, and refused to let him touch them at all. The production of data slicers was not illegal, nor was it particularly serious. It was basically people in the government harassing someone. The government dragged his case out for months, until he died of lung cancer. He was saddled with thousands of dollars of legal fees, and eventually his wife was too. There is no way you can stand up to the government; they have unlimited resources and lawyers on tap. It may be a moral imperative, but that has to intersect with practicality for the individual, too.
Clinton's actions were not comparable. He cleaned house at the beginning of his term, common practice; Bush did the same at the start of his term, unremarkably.
What's remarkable here is the unprecedented mid-term selective firing of prosecutors, apparently politically motivated
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood