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 $222,000 against her for "making available 24 songs". Not meant as trolling; just a simple observation.
"Slapping lipstick on a pig does NOT make it Natalie Portman. Paris Hilton, maybe, but not Portman." - UncleTogie
Sharing one of these letters with your congressman is fine. The executive is supposed to keep them abreast of all matters anyway. I don't remember reading anywhere in the "patriot" act that congress asked to be left in the dark...
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
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!
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
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.
Actually, that's the fun part. Most of them lost either "everything" or "close to".
Guess that's what happens when you go against Caesar... and the worst part was that they reinstated an easily exploited, very strong central government with "checks and balances" which were only seen as such by those promoting them.
Hell they had to EMBARGO and blockade Rhode Island to force them to ratify it, after RI shot it down in civil referendum, 11 to 1.
Makes one wonder if the American Revolution wasn't merely a power grab, and the Bill of Rights was a way to pacify the recently veteran revolutionaries who might've raised arms one more time before putting them away for the 230 year long winter that has set since then.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
In fact I have. I have spent the last 3 years living in and working in Spain and the UK. I would say there are much freer(sp?) states in Europe than the US. Many more.
I am missing your point about Europe and its relevance to my comment about the US slowly becoming a totalitarian state. That I know of, the number of totalitarian states in Europe has gone from about 50% in all of europe down to near 0% in the last 15-20 years. Sorry to ask and please forgive me, but can you please clarify because I am assuming I am completely missing something.
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.
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.
If you don't understand libertarianism, don't talk about it.
How we know is more important than what we know.
...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...