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.'"

Comments

This must change

[AKAImBatman]

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!

Re:This must change

[OddThinking]

Don't get me wrong: I agree, we should contact our representatives and make some noise. But...

To be honest, must people are not going to care until it happens to them. My parents (and I think most people) may not agree with it, but rather than disagree with it, they would rather just avoid thinking about it.

Unless we get some honest politicians (I love throwing oxymorons into my posts), the situation is probably going to take a long time to correct. But, if no one does anything, it will never be corrected.

Re:This must change

[OddThinking]

Anyone who gets one of these letters has a moral responsibility to disobey it.

The problem is many of those 140,000 also have other moral responsibilities, such as providing for their children. I think a good 10,000 would do the trick.

Re:This must change

[nahdude812]

I understand your point and agree with its core meaning.

I'd like to point out though that most likely the vast majority of these letters were served to corporations, and probably 90% of them hit the same dozen or so corporations (big ones specializing in communications like Verizon & AT&T). You don't get to be a big corporation like these by standing on principle.

Re:This must change

[AKAImBatman]

Also remember that in our system the only way to challenge a law as unconstitutional is to break it.

"Four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo - use in that order." --Ed Howdershelt

This fellow did the right thing. He challenged it in court first. And he did get somewhere, but he's still under a gag order that he has not been able to change. Only then did he resort to breaking the law in order to challenge it.

Breaking the law comes with a lot of consequences, so choose your battles carefully. Only do it when you are sure you're getting the best bang for your buck. Otherwise you'll just waste away your ability to fight.

Re:This must change

[eck011219]

Indeed. There may be a moral responsibility to disobey the unconstitutional law, but there is at least technically a legal responsibility to obey it. While I applaud what this guy did (and it sounds like he's relatively unencumbered by family responsibilities, though you can't really know that from the article), I think about dragging my wife and daughter through this kind of thing and my skin crawls. And really, they are bigger than me -- could be that I'd fight the good fight, whittle away my and my family members' lives and resources, and then end up in jail anyway.

I'm not saying I wouldn't do it or that the guy was wrong to do it -- I think he's spot on in his reasoning and approach. But this administration and its worker bees throughout the rest of the federal government have shown an uncanny ability to destroy people -- a very scary thought. At least we have Congress starting to fight them now.

Re:This must change

[AKAImBatman]

Unless we get some honest politicians (I love throwing oxymorons into my posts), the situation is probably going to take a long time to correct.

I think you overestimate the corruption of the political system. Politicians may often be underhanded, sneaky, and less than honorable (despite the title bestowed on them), but that doesn't mean that they're all of one mind on issues. For right now they are still duly elected and answerable to the public. If you draw their attention to important matters like this, most of them will take action.

If we fail to take action on this issue, then I guarantee that the Congress we have today, with all its faults, will be replaced with a perfect congress. Perfect, as in they will be elected and responsible to no one but their secret masters: "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer" -Adolf Hitler

* Translation: One World, One State, One Leader

Re:This must change

[polar red]

We should have 140,000 people in jail right now for talking about them, Provided They don't end up as enemy combatants. Oh you say they aren't enemy combatants ? How are you going to prove that ? You're not allowed a trial ! Yeah, vote republican !

Re:This must change

[meringuoid]

"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer" -Adolf Hitler * Translation: One World, One State, One Leader

Since when does 'Volk' mean 'World'?

Re:This must change

[russotto]

Exactly zero of those 140,000 have violated one of those administrative gag orders, here in the land of the free and the home of brave. Either the government has already gotten so terrible that to defy it is mere foolishness, or the people have gotten the government we deserve.

Re:This must change

[Applekid]

"For right now they are still duly elected and answerable to the public. If you draw their attention to important matters like this, most of them will take action."

IF politically expedient. Look at the nonsense with all the "think of the children" stuff being tossed about. Being the lawmaker that's going above and beyond the mere protection of children is good press and good voteablility. You're, um, not going to be the one AGAINST children, are you?

Even when it's the right thing to do and there is outcry about it, politicians get their staff to conduct some polls and figure out the path of least potential political damage to themselves or their buddies and that's what they do.

No doubt a lot of these guys start out thinking they're going to make the world a different place. When they get high enough, they get hooked. Power is a drug. Congressional members get many perks and privilages. Even if they maintain a good heart and want to change things for the better, seniority is everything and if they don't continually get elected then they don't have any pull.

"If we fail to take action on this issue . . . the Congress . . . will be replaced with a perfect congress."

Eventually? Like an entropy of good? What about the old timers that, at this point, are probably never going to be "dethroned?" The likes of Ted Kennedy, Ted Stevens, Patrick Leahy, Orrin Hatch? Not exactly like walking down a hallway fo pleasant dreams. What about every time Mickey Mouse is on the edge of getting put into the public domain congress, regardless of which party is in power, always retroactively extends the privilage of copyright? I mean. Come. On.

Maybe if the legislative branch had term limits we might be able to get some new blood in there more regularly, maybe even make it more difficult (read: prohibitively expensive) for special interests and corps to buy lifer politicians.

(That felt good to get out. Not trying to troll or anything.)

Re:This must change

[truthsearch]

The corporation didn't read the letter, a human did. The corporation can't perform any actions to comply or resist, only a human can. Corporations are just collections of people. Those people can and should stand up for what they believe in, even if it means losing their job.

And before anyone pounces and says I wouldn't be willing to lose my own job for what I believe in, I already have.

Re:This must change

[AKAImBatman]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - When we give up our freedoms to fight for them, we've already lost.

And when we've given up our will to fight for our freedoms, we have also lost them.

THINK for a moment, man! The revolutionists who made this country possible petitioned both King and Parliment first. They made every effort to bring the situation back under control before they pulled out their weapons and opened fire. Had they done nothing but shout a big 'ole "FUCK YOU" to the British government, it is likely that they would not have gotten the support necessary to fight the war. In fact, it's just as likely that the American people would have seen the revolutionaries as dangerous men to be around, and never would have ratified the Lee Resolution - the official act of separation from Britain.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

[...]

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

[...]

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

Soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Get the order right.

Re:This must change

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

There may be a moral responsibility to disobey the unconstitutional law, but there is at least technically a legal responsibility to obey it.

Not really. If the law is unconstitutional to begin with, there's no onus on anyone to obey it. It's the government is acting illegally here, not you. Don't be so quick to kow-tow to imperial officials waving official orders about. You'll set a bad example.

Re:This must change

[Archangel Michael]

"I think about dragging my wife and daughter through this kind of thing and my skin crawls."

Does the thought that the government is increasing its unrestricted powers make your skin crawl more or less? If less, I suggest you review the previous states of USSR and Nazi Germany, where the police had unrestricted powers unchecked by independent parties.

My view is that there is nothing that makes my skin crawl but pseudo secret letters that supposedly have gag orders attached. I'm sorry, but First Amendment of the US Constitution says you have a right to speak your mind.

I can't think of anything creepier than secret power hungry government agencies that abuse and restrict GOD GIVEN RIGHTS in the name of security. I sure don't feel more "secure" with them, do you?

Re:This must change

[finkployd]

Many would be willing to sacrifice their jobs and possibly freedom to stand up to a corrupt government, but how many are willing to financially devastate their families to do so? It always amuses me when (and I am not saying this is you) single college students look with distain at a middle aged homeowner with 3 kids who is not willing to chuck it all down the drain to stand up to a law he does not agree with.

It is simple risk analysis, when people see government terrorizing their own citizens and think "that could happen to me", that is when they stand up, damn the consequences. That is basically how it happens historically, but right now the abuse is not widespread (or public) enough to enrage the average citizen. In fact, I know more people thinking that a citizen revolt would be more likely triggered by the widespread (and blatantly public) abuse of eminent domain than patriot act abuses.

Finkployd

Re:This must change

[theonetruekeebler]

[M]any of those 140,000 also have other moral responsibilities, such as providing for their children. How about their moral responsibility to provide their children a future where there isn't a secret police, with zero accountability, conducting secret investigations of their masters' political enemies?

There's an axiom that any law that can be abused will be abused. The current administration demonstrates this with jaw-dropping alacrity. Look at the U.S. Attorney firings. Look at the 30,000 investigations the FBI has admitted to conducting illegally. All done under the umbrella of laws designed to fight terrorism. Look at how they've repealed the Posse Comitatus Act, and wait until the goddamned Army is deployed in your neighborhood, because wouldn't you know it? some guy down the street from you smoked pot once, and the war on drugs is a national emergency. Or maybe it wasn't pot. Maybe he's using peer-to-peer to tell the world about other government abuses.

That ain't the country I want my children growing up in, and it's here. Now.

Re:This must change

[i.r.id10t]

BOSTON - National guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed on April 19th by elements of a para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

Speaking after the clash Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement. Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group's organizers as "criminals," issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government's efforts to secure law and order. The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.

Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.

One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that "none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily." Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government's plans. During a tense standoff in Lexington's town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists. Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange. Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored,
armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces overmatched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat. Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops. Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as "ringleaders" of the extremist faction, remain at large.

April 20, 1775

Re:This must change

[baldass_newbie]

They made every effort to bring the situation back under control before they pulled out their weapons and opened fire.

That would explain that 'semi-automatic' weapons ban that Congress is considering.
Don't want those scary 'semi-automatic' weapons in the hands of the wrong people.

Re:This must change

[J.R. Random]

Plenty of Democrats voted for the Patriot Act. If you really care about the Constitution, you should vote Republican -- so long as that Republican is Ron Paul.

Re:This must change

[networkBoy]

As one of those parents (who has stood up to a particular insurance company) you need to understand what it would mean to see your wife and kids tossed out on the street because you are the wage earner of the family.
My kids are 3 and 4. My wife and I decided about 4 years and 9 months ago that she was going to stay home and go to school at night (when I'm home) so that our kids would always have a parent close. We made the choice to live "poor" so that we could be family centric, rather than both parents working and paying for daycare. If I got one of these letters I would contest it (through a lawyer) only so long as the real risk of lob loss and jail time were sufficiently low that I would not be concerned or could not back down and avert either.

I am loyal to my family first and above all else.
-nB

Re:This must change

[shutdown -p now]

The point is that, in a totalitarian state, you can feel more or less secure as long as you know the list of things you're not supposed to do, and follow it. That's precisely how most people in the Third Reich and the USSR got on with their lives. On the other hand, speaking out may or may not have any beneficial effect overall (and more likely it won't), but it will certainly get you in trouble personally. Most people opt for the first choice, for obvious reasons. That's why totalitarian regimes don't just crumble overnight. It's only when there are enough dissatisfaction, and everyone knows it, and there is generally too little left to lose anyway, when revolutions happen.

Re:This must change

[Antique Geekmeister]

I love youngsters. I suggest that you examine what happens to people who provide medical marijuana, people who blow the whistle on illegal chemical and bacteriological warfare attempts by the US, people who exposed the CIA use of LSD in experiments as an interrogation drug in the 60's, the McCarthy era's hunt for "Communists" at the massive cost of civil liberties, the illegal imprisoning of foreign nationals without charges filed or the Geneva convention or the US code of military justice allwed to apply to them,

Brave people do stand up to such abuse: but the risk for a small business owner of refusing to cooperate is quite high, even if they win in court. Take a look at Steve Jackson Games and the old Secret Service raid on them for an example of how badly aimed such an investigation can be, and of how innocent people can suffer as they try to stand up for themselves in the IT world.

Re:This must change

[ifdef]

I don't know about the 4th century, but the current Catholic teaching that I was taught in a course on Christian ethics is that the duty to obey one's conscience is a higher duty than that of obeying orders.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274), taught that one has a DUTY to obey one's conscience, even if the conscience contradicts the law, and EVEN IF the conscience is in fact objectively wrong. Of course, one also has a duty to inform oneself as best one can, so that one's conscience will not lead one astray.

If one disobeys the law in order to follow one's conscience, one has to be prepared for the practical consequences of this, which may include prison or worse. Nevertheless, one has a DUTY to do so.

Re:This must change

[dgatwood]

Gun control is inconsequential. The civilians will never have weapons that can compare with what the military has, so while limiting their access to assault rifles might slightly strengthen the position of an oppressive government over the people, the difference is thoroughly masked by the huge difference created by the civilians' inability to buy multi-million-dollar cruise missiles and stuff like that. In the grand scheme of things, that's like saying David would be unable to kill Goliath because the diameter of the rock was only 95% of the mass specified on the requisition form. :-)

The only way a revolution typically occurs in a modern technological society is when some portion of the military stages a coup. Anything else is largely impractical, and the only way that ordinary citizens of a country could do the same would probably involve guerilla tactics, at which point, a spear is as deadly as an uzi. I'd be very scared to think what a revolution in the U.S. would look like. I have a feeling it would involve handmade IEDs, poisoning of elected officials by hired staff, and other such tactics, none of which would involve any of the revolutionaries (or terrorists if they were unsuccessful or caused too much collateral damage) ever picking up any sort of gun. All I know is that I hope I'd be safely in another country if such a thing were to occur....

Re:This must change

[Anonymous Coward]

"Look at the U.S. Attorney firings."

You know, it's hard to sound intelligent when you say something so colossally wrong. What exactly was wrong with the firing of individuals who are hired by the President, serve at the pleasure of the President, and were fired by the President, an action that he is empowered to take (as Clinton did when he fired ALL of them)?

Oh wait there was nothing wrong with it at all. He was totally within his rights to do what he did, you just don't like it.

TRY to refute me. You can't. The President was allowed to do what he did, and you're a moron for falling for the latest attempt to find a "scandal" to hang on him.

How does it feel to be a moron who spouts off before learning the facts about the situation? Tell me, because I've never done it so I'm genuinely interested in how you feel.

Re:This must change

[crabpeople]

"which puts the average joe in a stinker of a position and leaves him making some difficult choices between doing what's right and doing what will preserve the safety of his family and himself."

Anyone who chose his family condems all families to live in tyranny. Its the same as when adama threatened to kill the chiefs wife because as he put it, *paraphrasing* when people pursue their own selfish goals, instead of the goal of the fleet then no ones children are safe.

Do you want your children to grow up in a world where you didnt fight the state back, when it is behaving contrary to the interests of the represented peoples and the supposed ideals of said state?

Re:This must change

[einhverfr]

But one of the great things I learned in the Quaker Church is that my conscience is subordinate to no one's, that I am responsible for my actions, and responsible for interpreting morality for myself.

I think that both the Quaker and Norse Pagan traditions place a great deal of emphasis on a few common things:

• We are responsible for living upright and moral lives. This is not ceded to organizations.
  
• There is a divine guilding inspiration (inner light/Voice of Christ in the Quakers, Odhr in the Norse) which must be listened to. This is not limited by virtue of tradition or heritage.
  
• One individual, ling an upright and moral life, buided by divine inspiration can make a difference.
  

While Norse Pagans and Quakers disagree about outward struggle, I would classify Quakers as being very similar in inner traditions to Norse Pagans, Sikhs, and other warrior-centric traditions because of the emphasis on inner strength, self-sovereignty, and what I would call heroism (though I don't think people in the circumstance always see it as such).

Re:This must change

[crabpeople]

"GOD GIVEN RIGHTS"

There is no such thing. Your ancestors fought and died for those rights. Attributing them to divinity disrespects your ancestors sacrifice, and the sacrifices of all who oppose tyranny and opression.
"God" can lick a nut for all the good he ever did, all the help he ever was.

Re:This must change

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly was wrong with the firing of individuals who are hired by the President, serve at the pleasure of the President, and were fired by the President, an action that he is empowered to take

I totally agree. Any prosecutor who has the gaul to prosecute the criminal cronies of the President should be fired. Come to think of it, firing should just be the first step. Since these disloyal lawyers have demonstrated that they think the law is more important than their personal loyalty to Our Leader, they are not only violating The Leader's trust, but aiding and abetting his enemies. And since the President is Leader of our country, that means they are attacking our fatherland. They are enemy combatants, pure and simple, even if they use law books instead of guns.

If The Leader is merciful, they could be sent to Gitmo. But if The Leader feels it important to demonstrate strength and resolve, they should be disappeared. Perhaps it would be necessary to remove them to a foreign country first, so they would have no rights. Kidnap them, haul them across the border, and then presto chango, anything The Leader wants is legal. Poof, no more pesky lawyer.

Re:This must change

[fruitbane]

Why not take the view that these "self evident" rights appear to be self evident because they are somehow beneficial to the social organization of humans? Or at least that they are consistent with the nature of human intelligence.

That aside, there are many, many societies around the world that have really not found these rights to be so self evident. I'd say that the vast majority of people in the world do not live with those rights and, in fact, many of them may not be able to fathom why we would want all of them. A couple of them, sure, but all of them?

So I would argue that these "self evident" rights are not really self evident at all. There are other rights acknowledged elsewhere that we don't have, and there are rights we cherish that others may perceive no need of. I do not think the US rights model is perfect, or for that matter perfectly inclusive. And in that case it doesn't matter where they came from, god or biology or out of a group of rebellious, stubborn intellectuals following along with the popular philosophy among other intellectuals at the time.

You see, sir, your logic is sound, but logic is a process, nothing more. When you apply logic to faulty premises you end up with faulty results. What you say is is not what I believe really is just because you say it is.

Re:This must change

[Mr. Slippery]

If there is no god, then there are no "rights" other than what man creates for himself.

Of course there are several non-theistic theories of rights, based on ideas of human nature and our minimum needs to have the ability to achieve happiness.

I like Kerry Thornley's formulation:

There are at least seven natural rights, or the Tao of human activity in society possesses seven attributes, or people are like machines only in the respect that they don't work good if you neglect their maintenance requirements.

What are the maintenance requirements of the human being? Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and food, clothing, shelter and medical care.

Keeping us confused and divided against one another about these rights, the multinational power elite teaches us in America that only life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights. In socialist nations they promote the view that only food,clothing, shelter and medical care are rights.

We are further encouraged to argue about whether rights must be earned or whether it is the duty of the government to guarantee them. Everyone necessarily struggles for their rights, and no government can ever guarantee anything except death and taxes.

All that bickering begs the relevant question: What can we do in voluntary cooperation to see that our natural rights, our intimate functional needs, are respected? Without that much, human beings are incapable of behaving as constructively rational and loving members of any population.

Invoking theism, as usual, explains nothing. We have no signed statement from any god or group of gods laying out rights; and even if we did, supernatualism in ethics or politics is simply the ultimate "might makes right" argument. Why should the opinions of some deity or deities determine what is right, other than the arguement "you're going to hell if you disagree"?

Re:This must change

[mrcaseyj]

>He also complains that he was forced to lie:

This is interesting. Doesn't one of the Ten Commandments forbid lying? Can the court compel you to break that? Of course the people of the US pay undercover agents to lie. If paying someone to lie on your behalf isn't a violation of the Ten Commandments then maybe compelling someone to lie isn't either. Or maybe the Ten Commandments just aren't followed that closely anymore, like slavery isn't, even though it is promoted in the bible(1 Timothy 6:1).

What if you were testifying under oath and you were asked if you received a NSL? Would you be required to perjur yourself. If you asked then the judge would probably be required to dismiss the question, but by making such a request you would give it away. Even if you just paused with a blank stare on your face, waiting for the judge to dismiss the question without your prompting, that would probably give it away unless the judge was very quick. What would be the proper response in that situation? Maybe the NSL would be a defense to perjury. Maybe it would be the lawyer who asked the question that would get in trouble.

Maybe in general you could get away with "no comment". If you get a trial would a jury convict you? (I'm deeply saddened I had to use the word "if") Would you be convicted if the government tortured a confession out of you while trying to find out why you were helping the terrorists?

This reminds me of how in Germany the government could order an organization to backdoor their software and keep it secret. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/08/21/net_anonym ity_service_backdoored/

I don't think the government can do that in the US but maybe it can. Anyway, I'm amazed that any company would trust software such as SAP or SUSE linux when the german government can get a window on everything you do whenever it can find an excuse. I would think German software companies and businesses buying German software would insist on a law banning such court orders. Won't it devastate the German software industry when companies realize this? Such a law might also need to prohibit such orders under any circumstances or else the President(Prime Minister?) might take advantage of something like the part of the US Constitution that allows the President to break any law if it's "necessary and proper". Of course some AMD processors are also made in Germany. I wonder if the German government has required stuff to be put in them. Some Intel processors are made in countries other than the US. I wonder if those countries are requiring implants as well.

Just throw it away

[oglueck]

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.

Re:Just throw it away

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck. Since the issue concerns national security, you will get detained as an enemy combatant, and thrown into jail with no access to a lawyer, let alone a judge.

Re:Just throw it away

[aicrules]

Yeah...parent is NOT informative. Parent is disinformative. The enemy combatant classification (nor the non-enemy combatant which I think you probably meant) cannot be applied in this way. It's posts like these that make the "by line" so accurate.

Re:Just throw it away

[voice_of_all_reason]

The enemy combatant classification (nor the non-enemy combatant which I think you probably meant) cannot be applied in this way.

And if it were to be, what are your options, noble grasshopper?

USA = USSR

[brabo]

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.

I for one..

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

yes

[Thaelon]

I suspected that the FBI was abusing its power and that the letter sought information to which the FBI was not entitled.

According to the Fourth Amendment you're right.
According to the PATRIOT Act, you're not.

Re:yes

[dougmc]

You also said it's "not right," but I don't think anything could be righter.

Well, what I meant was `not right' is that unconsitutional laws are even made, and when they are made, they aren't immediately overturned. Nobody should have to break a law that they know is unconsitutional and then wait in jail for what could be *years* before it works it's way through the courts so that somebody can actually declare the law unconsitutional. Assuming it gets that far -- a higher court may very well decide that it doesn't want to hear that case for whatever reason, and then you're just stuck in jail.

But yes, this sort of thing should be decided by the courts. But even before that, Congress and the President should not be making laws that are unconsitutional. They took an oath to uphold the Constitution and they should do so! Yes, some thing aren't quite so clear if they're consitutional or not, but many things are quite clearly unconstitional. And even if you're not sure, you probably should do some research before you push for the law rather than pass it and let the courts work things out later.

Alas, the system I describe does not seem to exist anywhere in the real world ...

Lawyer time

[TinBromide]

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.

Re:Lawyer time

[QuantumG]

Shya, you take that letter to a lawyer and the lawyer will give you the advice: do what it says and tell no-one that you showed me this.

Re:Lawyer time

[nomadic]

Attorney-client privilege applies generally if you meet with a lawyer to discuss a legal issue, even if you ultimately don't hire them, and even if it's a free consultation.

It's a Fear

[eldavojohn]

Also remember that in our system the only way to challenge a law as unconstitutional is to break it.

And I'm certain that the people who you're asking to break these laws are afraid that they'll be the only one and end up in jail or worse.

We should have 140,000 people in jail right now for talking about them...

I would wager that the FBI sent out initial "test letters" about clients to companies that--if necessary--they knew they could get a court order to acquire anyways. Once the company complied, the FBI probably evaluated the resistance said company gave. A low resistance would indicate that at anytime, the FBI could keep playing the same card (probably on the same individual) and continually receive information whether a court order would back them up in the end or not. I'm guessing the number of letters does not reflect the number of individuals who partook in the release of information.

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.

Re:It's a Fear

[terraformer]

I would wager that the FBI sent out initial "test letters" about clients to companies that--if necessary--they knew they could get a court order to acquire anyways. Once the company complied, the FBI probably evaluated the resistance said company gave. A low resistance would indicate that at anytime, the FBI could keep playing the same card (probably on the same individual) and continually receive information whether a court order would back them up in the end or not.

Dude, you are giving them way too much credit....

Re:answering by omission?

[QuantumG]

Some people consider omitting the truth lying.

Re:Hopeful thinking....

[ScentCone]

...1/20/2009 - That's all I have to say.

Why is that all you have to say? You're hoping that the executive branch is then run by the opposing party? But, the opposing party's majority supported the PATRIOT act, and supported renewing it because they saw the need to do so. Have you heard a single person (a plausibly electable C-in-C) that has actually said that despite the fact that congress voted on and passed (more than once) the legal framework for a change in how counter-terrorism intel is gathered/processed/shared that they would ignore that legislation? They (your presumptive opposing-party-president-elect) doesn't have any power or authority to change the legislation. That's for your congress to do. And the opposing party is already in control of congress. And guess what: all they can do is talk about non-binding resolutions that stamp their feet in disapproval over the conduct of the conflict in Iraq, and get in a lather over how a handful of US attorneys (ALL of whom work entirely at the whim of every president and are political appointees, and ALL of whom the previous administration fired without so much as a minor hissy fit out of congress) were dismissed.

If you don't like the PATRIOT act, talk to you congress creatures. They're the ones that passed it, they're the ones that renewed it, and they're the ones that could kill it off any time they want. So: specifically ask John Edwards, or Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama if they would ask congress to kill it off (since that's all they can do), and see what they say. Your date in 2009 won't change the fact that important changes the PATRIOT act brought forth are still going to be necessary. People can't bitch about the poor intelligence sharing/processing lapses leading up to 9/11, and also bitch about the piece of legislation that fixes the problem. I think there are some aspects of the act that should be changed - but only if another provision is put in place: we need a LOT more judges. Ones with the security clearances and training required to be a part of real-time counter-terrorism investigations/activities. These problems are not like normal criminal investigations, to say the least. If we all want judges to weigh in on when an IT shop should be, in the middle of security issue, asked to cough up some sort of information - well, we need a hell of a lot more judges who are able to constructively weigh in on that issue on a moment's notice, and with the IT-savvy skills to grasp the issues at stake. And those judges will all need infrastructure, staff, communications and all of the other high costs that go with making them available to the intel people that are trying to get the actual work done. There's a little more to it than Teh Evil Bush Wants To Document My Pr0n Habits So I'll Go To Gitmo.

Re:In liberal America ..

[Phreakiture]

In liberal America, the government (for the people, by the people) controls YOU !

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!

Patriot Act

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Actually NO ONE in Congress read it

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Bill Maher said it really well

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh? And who do you see rising up to take that liberty back at present?

By the time anyone gets serious, it will be far, far too late.

Re:Bill Maher said it really well

[daigu]

Has Iraq, Vietnam and all the other guerilla movements around the world over the last 100 years taught you nothing?

Re:Bill Maher said it really well

[Anonymous Coward]

I second this. The Iraqi insurgents have been giving our nation's military a hell of a time with mostly 1960's-era castoffs and improvised weapons. An insurgency in America would have superior equipment, the ability to hit the inner rings of Warden's five-ring system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warden's_Five_Rings) , and perhaps a psychological advantage (if the opposition had any qualms about fighting in their own back yards).

What remains to be seen is whether Americans have the will. So far that's looking pretty dim.

Gag orders make honest people into liars.

[rdmiller3]

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.

Democrats have proven they want to take away...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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 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."

(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.)

Re:Democrats have proven they want to take away...

[Dr. Manhattan]

I've got a little time to respond to a troll, so what the heck:

Every major attack against Christianity in the US...

There are no major attacks against Christianity in the US. So long as I'm quoting comics, I might as well quote Jon Stewart: "Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely, in broad daylight, openly wearing symbols of their religion, perhaps around their necks. And maybe - dare I dream it - maybe one day there could even be an openly Christian president. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively."

...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.

<Firefly>Yeah, I know. It was just funny.</Firefly>

Re:In liberal America ..

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Lesson For Tyrants

[Phat_Tony]

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.

Re:Warrant Canary

[metaglassic]

They update the canary on a weekly basis.