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

In Soviet America

[AlphaLop]

The letter writes what YOU say.....

Re:My experience

[Anonymous Coward]

From: REDACTED
To: adnonsense
Re: Your post to www.slashdot.org on Friday March 24 at 09:43 AM EDT titled "My experience"

Your unauthorized post regarding recent contact from REDACTED regarding REDACTED has been received and reviewed by REDACTED. It has been determined that REDACTED was not responsible for the censorship of this posting. Furthermore, because of the use of the phrase "CONTENT REMOVED" rather than approved and commanly accepted use of "REDACTED" it has been determined that you were in fact the one responsible for the entire post. As your post exposed the nature of REDACTED to REDACTED the result of which may be REDACTED or REDACTED we have no choice but to REDACTED by the use of REDACTED to REDACTED.

REDACTED will be contacting you shortly to arrange transportation to your new lodgings at Camp Echo, Gitmo in lovely Guantanamo Bay.

Regards,
REDACTED
REDACTED,REDACTED
REDACTED

Re:Hopeful thinking....

[Red Flayer]

But, the opposing party's majority supported the PATRIOT act, and supported renewing it because they saw the need to do so

By "saw the need to do so" you mean "had a desire for relection", right?

all they can do is talk about non-binding resolutions that stamp their feet in disapproval over the conduct of the conflict in Iraq

That's funny, they are currently working on a new appropriations bill for the war in Iraq, and it looks like it won't pass without a clause stipulating the withdrawal of troops must begin in spring 2008. Check your facts. It also seems to me that you have an over-simpified view of how Congress works -- there is a lot of deal-making to do, a lot of feeling-out to do, and a lot of basic things that need to be addressed before any huge legislation like that can be brought up. And, of course, there is the over-riding pressure to ensure re-electability and to help secure the presidency for 2009. Any drastic action that alienates too much of the relatively-uneducated (on the issues) center is verboten. I know you are hinting at this in your post, but it's important to note that this is a problem with the politicial system, when bad legislation cannot be fixed for fear of a massive smear campaign (John Q. Senator voted to loosen controls on terrorists!!)

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.

Are people still buying into the "b-b-b-but Clinton did it" excuse for this, when what Clinton did was nowhere near the same? Clinton fired the attorneys when he took office, as did the previous regimes. Again, check your facts.

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.

False dichotomy. While there are good intelligence measures in the PATRIOT Act, there are also many parts of it that are bad, as you later agree in your post. It's not a logical fallacy at all to have a problem with the Act due to parts of it that are unconstitutional, while still supporting the both the stated intent behind the Act and the legal provisions within it.

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

Wouldn't help. The FBI et al will overload any number of judges -- this is the excuse for not requiring judicial approval, that it takes too long because of the load. If you double the number of judges, you'll simply find double the number of requests. If you train the judges to make quicker decisions, then the decision process will become more complex. The bureacracy is there for a reason -- to ensure that there is an excuse for extralegal activity to miss proper review.