Slashdot Mirror
National Security Letter Plaintiff Speaks
Panaqqa writes "On Monday, the US government appealed a September ruling striking down a controversial section of the Patriot Act as unconstitutional. The section permits the FBI to send secret demands to ISPs (called 'National Security Letters') for logs and email without first obtaining a judge's approval. The ACLU has quoted the president of the small Plaintiff ISP, identified only as John Doe because of a gag order under the law, saying that the gag provisions make it 'impossible for people... to discuss their specific concerns with the public, the press and Congress.'"
Anyone appealing anything is hardly newsworthy. We knew it was going to happen. Just like whats-her-name eventually going to appeal the judgment of $222,000 against her for "making available 24 songs". Not meant as trolling; just a simple observation.
"Slapping lipstick on a pig does NOT make it Natalie Portman. Paris Hilton, maybe, but not Portman." - UncleTogie
"'impossible for people... to discuss their specific concerns with the public, the press and Congress.'"
So discuss away. Have sock puppets discuss away. Have your wife discuss away. Set up a blog to record all dealings with said 3 letter organizations. So what if they try to gag you. Leak stuff to the press. Hell even DRUDGEREPORT would cover it, if nobody else would. They can't hide if you speak out.
We have a right to remain silent, and the right to SPEAK.
The only question left is, what do you stand for? If you don't speak out, neither will the next guy and the guy after that. This is how tyranny wins.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
free-est nation in the world my ass. the country is slowly turning into totalitarian soviet rule under the guise of democracy.
The idea is that once these clowns are out of office, these attempts to remove procedural constraints on law enforcement will end, right? Bushies are evil and want to eat your babies and all that. But the pressure to create these laws comes from law enforcement itself. The DHS wants these limits removed so that it can more effectively combat crime and, as its name implies, keep the homeland secure.
So even after GWB leaves office, the DHS and all the subdepartments under it will still be there demanding to have more access with less oversight. Will the next President have the balls to dismantle DHS into its constituent parts? Hell, will the next President have balls at all?
The growth of government into a huge self-sustaining entity is the root cause of this type of abuse. Only by returning to a smaller government with a more focused raison detre can we expect to have the people running it rather than it running the people.
Of course, since that will never happen, I hope they provide lube.
Wow, never knew a piece of shit could get access to a Net connection or even know how to operate a webbrowser!
Someone flush this turd...
While your inflammatory comment will be taken for a troll, I think that you do bring up a good point, and it's one that I agree with. Tying the hands of law enforcement is counter-productive in some cases. Letting the NSA wiretap international calls is one way to gain valuable information, especially if the calls originate from a suspicious person or are terminated at a suspicious person. While it grates the wrong way for most slashbots, I think that they see espionage as wrong in this case because of its ease.
But the problem with this law is that it requires private citizens to comply with demands that originate wholly from within a government agency without checks and balances. The judicial stamp of approval, even if it is really nothing more than a rubber stamp, at least preserves the appearance of checks and balances. Removing that requirement to grease the wheels of law enforcement removes a critical check on the powers of the executive branch of government. If we don't have checks against the executive branch, then we have, in essence, a dictatorship where the executive decides what the law is and executes it according to his own wishes (or according to the department's wishes in the case of FBI or DHS).
He has been modded Score: 3, Funny. Ummm... looking at his website, http://www.adamdoyle.net/, I would say he is rather serious and quite niave about how the privileges given to certain organisations are being abused and will be abused by further administrations Furthermore, these abuses will creep further into everyday liberties we take for granted. This is one step in many already taken and being taken towards a place far away from democracy and the idea of liberty we claim to cherish.
Sharing one of these letters with your congressman is fine. The executive is supposed to keep them abreast of all matters anyway. I don't remember reading anywhere in the "patriot" act that congress asked to be left in the dark...
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Or are you ready for "Heil Bush!" followed by "Your papers." ?
At what point does the story become so absurd that people will rise up with some energy and stop this insanity.
This is one of a long list now that together paints absurdity:
gag orders from the state like TFA
fake government news conferences
secret rules for companies offering travel
warrentless searches, warrentless wiretaps without oversight
executive officials declaring they aren't part of the executive branch
former AG and AG in the approval process both who think simulating death by drowing is OK
overt torture of dissidents by the state
political litmus tests for federal prosecutors
taking water and degrading people with "security theatre" before they can fly
secret prisons
history rewritten with medals of freedom
CIA IG hamstrung by OMB red tape preventing the investigation of illegal activity
police that require papers on demand, without reason
overtly funding terrorist dictators, then attacking them
being tazed and arrested for asking tough questions to Senators and acting up
the lead opposition party candidate supporting the war through 2012
somehow "not finding" the Saudi prince who was "responsible" for the 9/11 attack
spending fully 60% of the global military expenditures ($623 Billion, not counting Iraq)
a looming awful choice: a draft -or- mid-east civil war. Pick one.
a president beating war drums about WW III
an endless war on fear that causes fear
This is the United States today. Any memory or idealism of some other "land of the free" is completely gone.
How do you know they are not listening to John talk to his wife or a political opponent plan his/her campaign? It seems like the John Doe bringing the complaint might know. He was forced to cooperate and is saying that he has something to say on the subject that you or I might be interesting in hearing.
I don't use a sig, but the answer is:
Lrf!
Being the freest doesn't make one free. Haven't been to Europe lately I take it?
Creative Demolition
It's not racist or bigoted or infringing on anyone's civil liberties - it's an accurate and reliable way to find out about possible terror attacks.
The ACLU isn't trying to eliminate all wiretapping. They're on record as saying that there are times when wiretapping is necessary. I think any but the most deluded would agree that sometimes in order to stop people from doing very bad things, you need to use wiretapping. But this is the part that many people (not just the ACLU) object to:
Organizations like the NSA perform valuable service in defense of the country. So does the U.S. Navy. But just as I don't want the U.S. Navy deciding to bomb dangerous countries whenever it likes, I don't want the NSA deciding when to wiretap without any judicial oversight. Our system of government was initiated by men who were very aware of the dangers of too much power concentrated in one arm of the government. That's why we divide power in our government.
In a society that values the rule of law, the involvement of an independent judiciary in anti-terrorism matters is a good thing, not something to route around out for the sake of temporary convenience.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
His name is George Christian. I met him a few months ago when he came to my town for a speech about this very issue. He told us his story from his perspective. This was the day after the September ruling. I even have his card somewhere here on my desk. Boing Boing was all over this 9 months ago. Old news. Here's a few videos about this case: PBS (RealPlayer) (June 2, 2006), YouTube (September 5th, 2007).
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Consider carefully what has happened. The U.S. government has established that it can break the law, and demand that those who know about it keep silent.
That means that EVERY product and service from the U.S. could be compromised. Those who don't want to risk U.S. surveillance and control won't want to risk buying from manufacturers in the United States.
If you are a U.S. citizen, are you ready to be poor? Are you ready to live in a poor country?
The total amount of totalitarianism in Europe seems to be constant. It just moves around from country to country.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
NOTE: Osama never liked Mo and Abdul.
Many universities try to indoctrinate students, but the all-time champion in this category is surely the University of Delaware. With no guile at all the university has laid out a brutally specific program for "treatment" of incorrect attitudes of the 7,000 students in its residence halls. The program is close enough to North Korean brainwashing that students and professors have been making "made in North Korea" jokes about the plan. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has called for the program to be dismantled.
Residential assistants charged with imposing the "treatments" have undergone intensive training from the university. The training makes clear that white people are to be considered racists - at least those who have not yet undergone training and confessed their racism. The RAs have been taught that a "racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture, or sexuality."
FIRE reports that the university's views "are forced on students through a comprehensive manipulation of the residence hall environment, from mandatory training sessions to 'sustainability' door decorations." Residents are pressured to promise at least a 20 percent reduction in their ecological footprint and to promise to work for a "oppressed" group. Students are required to attend training sessions, floor meetings and one-on-one sessions where RAs ask personal questions such as "When did you discover your sexual identity?". Students are pressured or required to accept an array of the university's approved views. In one training session, students had to announce their opinions on gay marriage. Those who did not approve of gay marriage were isolated and heavily pressured to change their opinion.
The indoctrination program pushes students to accept the university's ideas on politics, race, sex, sociology, moral philosophy and environmentalism. The training is run by Kathleen Kerr, director of residential life, who reportedly considers it a "cutting-edge" program that can be exported to other universities around the country. Residential assistants usually provide services to residents and have light duties, such as settling squabbles among students. Kerr and her program are more ambitious. She has been quoted as saying that the job of RAs is to educate the whole human being with a "curricular approach to residential education." In this curricular approach, students are required to report their thoughts and opinions. One professor says: "You have to confess what you believe to the RA." The RAs write reports to their superiors on student progress in cooperating with the "treatment."
The basic question about the program is how did they think they could ever get away with this? Most campus indoctrination is more subtle, with some wiggle room for fudging and deniability. This program implies a frightening level of righteousness and lack of awareness. But the RAs have begun to back away a step or two. After telling the students the program is mandatory, the RAs sent an email saying the sessions are actually voluntary.
----------------
In one-on-one sessions with RAs (Resident Assistants), University of Delaware students were questioned: "When did you discover your sexual identity?" In dorm meetings, they were pressured to pledge their allegiance to university-approved views on race, sexuality and environmentalism. When FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) spotlighted the indoctrination, a university official defended the "free exchange of ideas." A few days later, the program was canceled.
How can academics talk about "critical thinking" while turning residence halls into reeducation camps? Well, they meant well. Everyone agrees they meant well. If only academics were capable of thinking critically about their own assumptions.
Thanks to FIRE's links to ResLife (Re
The following is a copy of a National Security Letter, the FBI has requested that we remove all contents that would make them look bad
Dear Plaintif,
Sincerly
Special Agent
John Smith
Make SELinux enforcing again!
There is a simple solution to a significant portion of this bullshit (which will absolutely not become a reality until there is an actual revolution and the current establishment is dissolved): DO NOT, under ANY circumstances, allow the GOVERNMENT to appeal a decision made in the courts. EVER, EVER, EVER. (implied underline, strikethrough, blink, and high-voltage electrical shock)
The moment "the government" attempts to appeal a court decision, it is PAINFULLY CLEAR that "the government" is serving its own interests, rather than those of the people. If the court has made an incorrect decision, let THE PEOPLE appeal the decision. Let a private citizen (or group thereof) take up the torch and fight the incorrect decision.
I have a difficult time imagining ANY situation in which "the government" should be allowed to appeal a decision made in the courts. All that really allows is to require only a very small subset of judges be corrupt. The government can simply escalate all the way to the top, past the non-corrupted officials, at which point the case falls under the control of the corrupt party, and "the government" wins.
-G
P.S. I absolutely loathe the term "the government." It is only used to make those being abused by "the government" think there is a single, cohesive entity against which one can wage battle. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The only way to fight this creature is to destroy the entire thing at once. A Wish would do it, and maybe a Fireball, but only if you roll really, really high.
P.P.S Sorry if the paragraphs above are a bit muddled or poorly organized. When I get riled up, I have difficulty organizing my thoughts.
Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
Because most of the products in it are from American companies, and a good deal are made in America. Unless you've got a Via processor, your processor is American. Intel, AMD, Motorola and IBM are all American companies. A good deal of their fabs are American as well. Your harddrive, while not manufactured in America is likely from an American company. Seagate (and by extension Maxtor) and Western Digital are both American and that is by far the largest share right there. How about video? Both nVidia and ATi are American as well (ATi was Canadian but they are now owned by AMD, who is American).
I'm just saying if your paranoid rant is for real, you probably need to dump your computer and get a new, and not nearly so fast, one. Of course either way you go, you are probably getting parts manufactured in China. Well if you want to really get all conspiracy nutjob, how about that place? They are flat out about government control. They publicly censor information and so on. They wouldn't even have to break the law to compromise a product and make people stay silent about it.
Or are they ok because you just hate the US?
If you are going to start mistrusting all products from a given country, you can pick much better targets than the US. Of course you will find it kinda hard to buy many things. Turns out that while the US makes the news on account of being big (and on account of this being a US based site) if you live in and investigate another country you discover that most of them have their own "big brother" stunts they pull. There is, as far as I've seen, no perfect nation where the rulers are all fair, just and uncorrupt. That is because all nations are ruled by humans and all humans are imperfect.
If this is just another ill informed anti-US rant, please get off the Internet.
Yeah, baby! You tell 'em!
What?
Anyone else think it's funny that this news of the appeal comes on the same day that Congress bashed Yahoo for giving in to China's laws against free speech? (Not that the appeal wasn't expected though)
I doubt that. More like Heil Clinton. Bush will be gone in a year (good riddance).
.... "Papers please, or you'll end up like Vince Foster."
And it will be exactly this
Though, I have to say, I didn't think it could get much worse than Bush 1, then came Clinton, then Came Bush 2. I suspect Clinton 2 is going to be the worst of all of them. Which is saying something.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Actually, how hard would it be for the ISP to store digital copies of said files?
Then how hard would it be for some unknown "hacker" to randomly hack the ISP, deface their website with the said documents, slander the ISP, etc as "cowards" and then forward a copy of this to every 2600, world net news and drudge style publishers out there... cat would be out of the bag, and ISP would simply have to "reinstall a server due to possible rootkit installation" or some such. And if everyone at the ISP has alibis, and the "hacker" doesn't talk... well then, the world is a better place for it.
I am amazed that nobody has done this yet.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Anger problem. The parent post was written by someone who thinks he has an opinion about government, but is only angry.
His name is Norm de Plume, A.K.A. Henry Miller, A.K.A. Ham Berger, A.K.A. Been Laden, and he operates a terrorist ISP for islamofascists. I thought everyone knew that!
Wow. That was a great read. I am indoctinated. FUCK YEAH!
subject line, come now sing it with me
they should have nothing to fear or to complain about.
FlyingPizzas.com, for the tasteful hermit
You probably can talk about it with your wife. Spousal privilege is rather powerful. Your spouse can't testify about what you said to them in confidence (as in when no 3rd party is around), even if incriminating. Also, your spouse cannot be forced to be a witness against you in a trial. They can choose to, if they wish, but they cannot be subpoenaed or compelled by any party.
It is a privilege nearly as powerful as attorney client privilege. Since spouses are considered to in many ways legally be the same person, they are granted the right to free and open communication, without fear that it will be used against them in trial, civil or criminal.
Imagine how his business would boom if privacy advocates and tin-foil-hatters accross the nation started transferring their business to him.
Why We Fight.
Explains how we got here, what we're facing, and why we are screwed. US Government is FUCKED by private interests, largely because there is no line between the two any more.
I'm getting my son EU citizenship and teaching him French. Hopefully that's enough to ease his transition to a new continent.
I don't know about the "Heil Bush" part, but I already got the "your papers, please." at LAX when I was coming home a few weeks ago. I was in line at the security checkpoint, and this Indian character in a security jacket went down the line looking at everyone's boarding passes, saying, "I'll need to see your papers, please." When he got to me I asked him if he knew how scary that sounded. He looked at me and blinked, and finished the line saying, "Tickets, please."
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The terrorists hate us for our *muffled attempt to speak through gag*
Presumably finding the information requested takes a reasonably amount of effort and it thus costs. There are various financial disclosure/reporting laws ... does the ISP need to say that it has cost it $X
complying with NSA requests ?
I fear living under this kind of fascist government more than I fear their jackbooted thugs, guns and threats of imprisonment.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Of course, at that point you threw him out the window and exclaimed to the passengers, "No tickets!"
The nuke will not be ticking. The person who delivered it there will also be the person who pushes the button to set it off. What, you think an organization that specializes in suicide bombers wouldn't be able to find someone to do that?
The whole "ticking bomb" scenario is a straw man. Any organization with basically competent operational security (which is something that Al-Qaida has demonstrated) will compartmentalize essential information so that no one person can compromise the whole plan. Well, except for the man carrying the nuke, but if you catch him he just pushes the button.
And assuming for the moment you do have a "ticking bomb" scenario, and you've got the guy who can lead you to the bomb, all he has to do is run out the clock. It's amazing how much a person can endure if they know they only have to do it for some definite time, even if they don't expect to get a free ticket to Paradise out of it.
There is a story I read years ago, possibly in a science fiction magazine, that I'd like to track down, and can't. I believe the title was "Citizen Torturer" but I've been unable to find any reference at all to anything by that name. The basic premise was that ordinary citizens were recruited and trained as official government torturers for just such "ticking bomb" scenarios, and their purpose was gradually expanded until they were doing such things as torturing a group of office workers, knowing all but one of them were innocent, to find the one who was embezzling. That is chillingly like what we've seen with everything from the RICO Act to these National Security Letters. First the extraordinary power is for a specific, worthy goal, such as going after the Mafia, then it is broadened to apply to other sorts of "bad guys", and in the end it is turned against ordinary citizens. I want to read that story again, so if anyone can give me any information -- the name, the author, anything -- I would very much appreciate it.
They who came for my mother were islamists. They raped her and killed her for her religion. In case you didn't know, that's legal where I came from. That's who America is fighting, when the rest of the world is capitulating. Cheer the Spaniards for acceding to Al Quaeda 800 years after surviving their last invasion of Spain; Spaniards will speak arabic soon, and their women will be property. That is what happening because you are the cowards who are whining.
+1 if I knew how to get mod points
I dunno where you're from, but here in America, Congress creates law, the Executive branch enforces it, and the Judicial branch interprets it. Checks and balances. I won't say that I'm especially happy with the three branches as they stand, but having the Judicial branch call the work of the Congressional branch unconstitutional is par for the course, and means that the system is working properly. Now, if this decision gets overturned on appeal, I'll be mighty mighty pissed, but for now I'm happy.
"Besides, the society as a whole usually does not look at lawbreakers as heroes"
No, the US society really doesn't. To a suprising extent.
I went on a tour of Alcatraz recently, I found it utterly amazing that when the tour guide told us about the indian/student occupation of the island that took place after the closure of the prison. She explained about the fact it was a protest against the taking of indian land and how they'd declared that at the time.
She went to great lengths to try and explain to the (mostly american) crowd how, sometimes, criminal activity has an intent other than just vandalism and damage, and how sometimes, decades later, you can even look back and see what motivated them, even if it didn't justify breking the law.
That staggered me. That these people have such an awe for laws and lawmakers that they don't even consider that some people, in some circumstances, break the law as legitimate protest. No, they just write it off in their heads as the work of "criminals", "lawbreakers" and "vandals" and let history sort them out.
It's incredible, given the origins of the nation, that US society has sunk so far into the "authority is always right" mindset.
(in no way do I mean to imply other societies have not, before I get blasted with mindless patriotism by a flag-worshipper)
Sorry but big government is bad, its horribly bad. Why? Because it puts forward the belief in people that its futile to challenge it. Simply put the government is so large as to be monolithic. They have created so many laws and rules that no one can really challenge it.
Voting? Are you kidding? Democrats and Republicans have engineered the system to ensure that you only can choose amongst them. They constantly redraw districts to split the vote between themselves! Then they put forward ridiculous requirements to prevent people from actually getting on the ballot. Worse, our press goes right along with them. Look no further than the debates for various offices!
I used to think people were just apathetic, but labeling the population as that is truly unfair unless you acknowledge the reason. That reason is : The Federal Government is beyond the scope of reason, its level of interference in people's lives is far beyond reason, and the two parties who control use the powers of Government to buy votes and punish or prevent dissent.
Oh, but you claim you have your freedom of speech and you can vote for who you like. Freedom of speech is meaningless when you can't act on it. Freedom to vote? Its meaningless when the system is rigged from the get-go. Sure you can say what you want, who is going to hear it? Sure you can vote for who you want, see the previous freedom of speech issue to understand whats wrong with that.
You asked why none of the people running for office are being held to the requirement of fixing it? Simple, because its far easier for them to rely on one sides hatred of the other to get elected than to change it. Besides changing the system is detrimental to their power. Its far easier to play off your fears, founded or not, than to actually do something which might strip them of the power they are really after. No, the leaders in the vote getting for nomination aren't looking to fix anything, they are looking for power. They are going to get it because people will vote in whomever is going to give them the most and take it from someone else. That is the America that politicians love, the one they breed. The selfish self centered idiots who will pull the lever for the D or R who promises them free stuff.
To get control of our country back from Democrats and Republicans we are going to have work from the local level and go up. Get after your state senators and representatives (state level). We are already seeing local school districts adopting the same air of aristocracy as Washington, keep this up and no level of government is going to be responsive because they won't have to.
Hell at the rate we are going enough people will be either work directly for the government or rely on it to live that their vote will be guaranteed to keep the system in place.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The only problem is that for every one like you who shares your noble opinion, there are a thousand US "customers" who are numbnuts that just don't give a fuck. We call them "sheeple" and they are the overwhelmingly vast majority.
Here is the ACLU press release on the district court ruling from September.
I suspect we've far from paid for it. It seems all too likely that we'll be paying for the current administration for many years in fairly painful ways. I hope I'm wrong.
A valid point. But also consider the "what if convicted felons were allowed to vote." Locally, it has the potential for organized crime to gain an advantage. Felons (not necessarily convicts) could work to elect a local Sheriff that was lax on enforcement. In a more extreme case, they could work to install someone who might be susceptible to corruption. In larger elections it's a pretty moot point, but locally, there are more implications if this were allowed.
In some sense, it is a rather broad and general way of trying to keep the "lunatics from running the asylum."
You are right that you can't discuss classified information with your wife, but in that case there's a whole separate process for getting cleared. You don't have clearance to access classified information until you've been vetted by the FBI and issued a security clearance. This is just a normal gag order from a court.
How it works needs to do a section on government.
... illegal ...?
1) Make arbitrary law violating existing case law and constitutional ammendments
2) make said law, and enforcement of, secret
3) issue gag order making discussion of said law, enforcement, and trial to determine legality
4)
5) profit!
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.