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.'"
Being the freest doesn't make one free. Haven't been to Europe lately I take it?
I live in France. Can you tell me how France is "not freer" than the USA? Or any other European country for that matter? Are you sure the USA are freer than Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan and every country of Europe (not put together)?
My point is, if the USA have ever been "the freest country in the world", it had to be a long time ago, if ever (for example, a few countries had abolished slavery before the USA even existed)
You just got troll'd!
No, I'm afraid it's nuts. A minor ruling by a local court would then outweigh the ability of the US Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of a law itself. The ability to appeal is vital to prevent a badly handled first trial from ruining a person's life, or destroying an otherwise fine institution. And the court hierarchies exist for a reason.
Mind you, they're badly abused by people who spend their way out of suffering consequences for crimes. But I don't want to see some corrupt judge running for re-election rule without any check on their authority when the government is involved.
Correct: they can go to the court up to 72 hours after the wiretapping, and get the approval to use the data already collected. There are judges waiting 24/7 to grant these warrants (literally). If the warrant is refused, then the data is inadmissible and unusable. But in 2005, for example, 2,072 warrants were requested and ALL were issued. The total denial rate in all of FISA's history is way less than 0.1% (no hard data handy).
The broader problem is that the current administration has declared that it doesn't needed even these rubber-stamp warrants. The only reason for this has to be that people are being tracked who shouldn't be. Political opponents, perhaps? Lawyers for pending government cases? The fact is, without a warrant/record of WHO was tapped, there's no oversight as to why they're being tapped.