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.'"
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.
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!
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.
Interesting you should say that - it's a point I've been trying to make for some years now - pretty much since the wall came down - We saw actual breadlines under Reagan and Bush I - not something that gets talked about much, but it always struck me that such were scenes straight out of the Cold War era anti-USSR propaganda disseminated in the US public schools...
It's already happening - the answers areen't that difficult yet, since it's all right there in front of them - the hardest part is convincing the younger ones that it was ever any different.
"The Internet is made of cats."
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.
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.
Politicians used to poll their constituents on a regular basis to find out what we want our government to do. Now they sit back and wait for the lobbyists (legal bribers) to come tell them what the rich corporations want them to do - often against the wishes of their constituents. Their political party comes to them telling them how the "Party Line" will be voting in today's session and informing them of the consequences if they violate solidarity. And since 2000 the political back-biting from above paints them as heretics/terrorists for not supporting our new Führer.
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.
Ultimately, being unconstitutional is not enough. You also need an appropriate judge to rule that it's unconstitutional, and until that happens it's really just you hoping that an appropriate judge might rule that it's unconstitutional -- if it ever comes to that.
It's not right, but it's the way it is. The current administration has been pretty loose in it's interpretation of the Constitution, and so far the other branches of government have not done much to stop it, though that may be slowly changing now. You may choose to violate the law because you know the law is unconstitutional -- and you may even be right -- but it would be wise to consider how long it might take to get things straightened out and what it'll cost you.
I think you misspelled "cry".
But seriously,
Serve as a reminder? I don't think this is a minor problem, this is a strong signal of the US's descent into a fascist state. Leaning on patriotism and fear of reprisal to get people to report on their neighbors (we're all neighbors in the digital era)? Sounds familiar.
I really don't want to Godwin the thread, but in this case there is a parallel that is best not ignored.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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 former would simply be a more severe case of the latter.
Regardless, if lack of action can cause us to deserve such a government, then we should have gotten it a long time ago.
Preventing misuse of power is why we have seperate branches of government. In the long run, it is in the best interests of a government to handle these things internally, rather than let the masses take care of it.
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.
Almost the same. One difference: you presented your testimony to a Jury of randomly selected Citizen Peers. And if the FBI was required to convince a Grand Jury instead of a Judge that a National Security Letter was appropriate and present all of the information they obtained from it to said Grand Jury, that would be a check-and-ballance of accountability that might have prevented a hell of a lot of the abuses that have been reported. I could live with that.
going to jail in protest of these letters is about as effective as taking sand to the beach.,
Taking sand to the beach can get you sent to prison as well, at least in the UK.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
That is true in theory, but tell that to the agents at your door. I'm not saying one should follow unjust laws, nor am I suggesting one kow-tow to the officials. All I am saying is that the officials charged with the task of enforcing the law are going to do so until told otherwise by their superiors, 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.
It's actions like these by the FBI that exemplify the problems with the system. The government is going nowhere, and they have basically unlimited resources. They can just ride these things out. Look at the prisoners held indefinitely without trial or legal representation all over the place (Guantanamo is the most famous, but there are lots of places even in the states where it happens -- Cook County jail here in Chicago, for example). They're too scary for a lot of people, and therefore they get what they want. Simple oversight and adherence to the law by the agencies in question would fix a lot of this, but in the meantime, citizens, both innocent and otherwise, have some very real practical worries.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
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..."
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".
The government has been encroaching on our personal liberties one piece at a time for a century.
Ever since 1861, really. That's when they first elected a guy who represented specific, well-defined commercial powers and was willing to start wars and gag the press to fund them.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
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"?
"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?
This is a major reason why a lot of fundamentalist Christians continue to support the President -- it's cultural, even if they are not fully aware of it. Europe was forced to face this problem and try to find a solution in the 1940s and 50s; this remains a large area of psychological study even today. In the US, we touched on the subject during and after Vietnam, but culturally it still remains a problem.
There are a couple of books that go into it in depth, one is Conservatives Without Conscience light-ish read but very enlightening -- written by a former Nixon staffer, John W. Dean. Dean's book discusses more than this topic, but it's the foundation of his theory that the conservative movement has been taken over by people without an innate moral compass.
The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason -- the other, by Charles Freeman, is much drier, but really, in detail, explains the process by which the western culture became this way, with a focus on the church -- as well as the factors that led to these decisions being made. Not surprisingly, most of them came from a desire for security, an attempt to solidify power, or an attempt to destroy a rival.
I'm not saying that we don't have a moral responsibility to do the right thing even when ordered not to by our superiors (be they government, church, workplace, etc), I'm just saying that understanding the cultural reasons for people acting this way is the first step to rectifying the problem.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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.
I'm not judging anyone who follows the law and obeys a National Security Letter--I'm not sure what I would do if I were on the receiving end of one--but did Martin Luther King, Jr. have children for whom he needed to provide? How about George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Paul Revere, and the rest of the "Founding Fathers"? Did Mahatma Ghandi? I honestly don't know about most of these individuals but I'm pretty sure MLK did. And as I recall, Thomas Jefferson said something to the effect of "we study war so that our children may study math and science and so that their children may study music and art" which at least implies that he may have had children.
Part of providing for our children is providing for their freedom and their future. I would die inside if I elected to back down in the face of a tough choice and some day in the future, my daughter suffers because I didn't make a stand when I had a chance.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
You are absolutely correct and as an Asussie I would just like to say WE WANT DAVID HICKS BACK. That is all our PM has to say to the US and Hicks is free, many other countries (including the UK) have done so since the supreme court case, but our PM won't do it.
Australia is often touted as the US's "most loyal ally" and it's probably the reason why Hicks is a genuine political prisoner of the US. Since being captured by the N. Alliance and sold to the US military for a $100 reward he has been in gitmo for 5+yrs, mainly in a 23 hr/day isolation cell, yet he has broken no Australian or US laws, he has recently been charged retrospectively with a new law about "aiding terrorists".
It's not all bad though, I do admire his defense lawyer!
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I got the impression that the gag order became the more stressful aspect, he writes:
:-;
"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 wonder who can issue a gag order in the USA? An answer from a lawyer would be appreciated. It appears that the FBI thinks that they can issue gag orders without a judge's approval. I hope that a violation of such order is viewed leniently at least by a judge if not a jury. (On the other hand, violating the gag order may result in a terrorism charge and hence a loss of the right to the normal judicial process; and you do not want to wait 4+ years in military prison while Congress/Supreme Court/President figures the process out for you.)
He also complains that he was forced to lie:
"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 wonder why that is. Does the gag order describe this in detail? Why cannot you stay silent and say nothing or say that you are not allowed to discuss the matter based on your attorney's advice? (Using the latter form if you consult an attorney about this, which I certainly would do.)
My point is: can any (even judge underwritten) gag order force you to actively protect the information by telling a lie? What if your religion instructs you not to lie? I have no exact numbers how popular such religions are in the USA, but some are surely affected...
I am a former Quaker and currently a Norse Pagan. This is one area where both my past religious tradition and my current one are in complete agreement (though the viewpoint may be different). Although I speak from the perspective of a Norse Pagan here, it could be rewritten to be a Quaker view as well.
I believe that principle and troth to principle are more important than troth to other people. There are times and places to stand up for what is right, regardless of family encumbrances. In the end the only think that matters is how we have lived our lives, and it is better to be heroic and lose than conform to that which is unjust.
If I were to decide to fight something like this, it would be dangerous for my son and my wife. But I think that it is better to inspire people (including and especially my son) with deeds well done than to sacrifice those for the sake of comfort and apparent security. In the end, I have to trust that others around me who would see actions as noble would make sure my immediate family was taken care of.
We, like trees, grow not only into the light but into the dark as well. Both are necessary, and both in balance make us strong.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
I love old people who are too scared and complacent to stand up for what they believe is right. Its one thing to be a coward, but please don't disuade or scare other people who are willing to risk their very lives, by fighting. Life is suffering. Might as well live it honourably and with principled purpose.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
Oh, come on. I'll say it again. I'm not suggesting that people roll over for this kind of BS. I AM saying that it's a very difficult decision when your children's lives will be destroyed by your stand against the government (just or unjust).
It's all well and good to be all Ethan Allen dramatic about it, but I'm guessing you don't have kids. It's not a glorious decision to fight the corruption in the system -- it's a sobering, depressing decision to potentially condemn your family to a life without you. We should all be Steve Biko -- we won't all manage to do it. I simply meant to bring up the very real fact that it's a terribly frightening decision to make. Make it how you will -- I'd very likely fight such an order myself, as I wouldn't want to show my daughter that this kind of stuff is to be tolerated. But in doing so, I would be deciding to make her life a lot harder, and the thought of that sucks more than anything the government can do to me (except that car-battery-testicle thing -- I bet that sucks a lot).
If you have kids, you're not understanding my point -- it's that such decisions don't simply make themselves based on patriotism (the real kind, not the getting-assed-by-this-government kind). If you don't have kids, stop waving your Gadsden flag over me and my family. This stuff is hard enough to think rationally about without constant badgering from people who think they love this country more than everyone else.
We will, on the whole, survive this -- that is the beauty and strength of this country. Bush and his slavering fools have screwed up this country (and others) more than even my pessimistic estimations were prepared for. But the adjustment is already occurring -- Congress was changed by popular vote specifically in response to his tyrannical behavior. That is how it gets fixed, and it's happening. Getting yourself shipped off to Guantanamo is very noble in its own way, but you're DONE fighting if they take you there. Any chance to stay here and fight from within the system is much more effective, and a pleasant side effect is that your kids get to grow up with you.
I haven't had to make this decision personally, though I have in fact been involved in a situation where it had to be made (by my boss). I suspect he made the right decision (that's all I'll say, lest I get Slashdot subpoenaed for MY information). But he lives alone. We discussed it and decided that I and another person with a family who was involved should know nothing more about it. So I don't. I have no idea what he finally did about the request for information, and we're all happier for it. The DHS guy who came to the office was a scary MF, I'll tell you what. And if it had been me sitting there talking to him, thinking about my family, I would have been in a bind. I would have put him off to get more time to think about it all (as my boss did), but I would have been as scared for my kid as I would have been for myself and the potentially wrongfully accused at that moment.
THAT'S where I'm coming from. I'm not bandying about some pansy response to Big Brother -- I'm speaking with some experience in this (albeit secondary), and I was fortunate enough to have a buffer between me and the problem at hand. Many other people don't have that luxury, and my own limited experience leaves me with an enormous amount of pain and sympathy for those who had to put their own families on the line.
My experiences should have nothing to do with it, though. I could inject some dumb joke about the likelihood of an IT guy HAVING a family here (okay, I kind of just did), but it really is a livelihood-threatening decision that gets made by some person or other every day. But again, the point is that a responsible citizen is also a responsible parent, when the situation applies, and often that puts one at odds with oneself. Wave your flag over someone else, please. I watch C-SPAN almost every day -- I write my congresswoman and senators (all of whom happe
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.