Archive.org Defeats FBI's Demand For User Information

eldavojohn writes "Although we don't know what they were after due to the settlement, a gag order was just released that kept Internet Archive member Brewster Kahle quiet. The FBI had issued a national security letter to them under the Patriot Act. Kahle fought it. Hard. The EFF came to the aid of his lawyers and what resulted was one of the only three times an NSL has been challenged: all three have been rescinded. The FBI agreed to open some of the court files now for it to be public. The ACLU added, 'That makes you wonder about the the hundreds of thousands of NSLs that haven't been challenged.'"

Comments

Stupid Questions

[Enderandrew]

I thought you couldn't discuss a NSL, so how would we know that hundreds of thousands of them have been issued?

Are they tracked somewhere publicly, and wouldn't that defeat the whole point of being secret about them?

And given that these are clear-cut violations of free speech, how is it that the entire NSL program still exists? The first time one of these was challenged, I thought any judge worth their salt would declare the NSL anti-constitutional.

Re:Stupid Questions

[dgatwood]

The first time one of these was challenged, I thought any judge worth their salt would declare the NSL anti-constitutional.

You'd think that, but you'd be forgetting that the courts have been packed by Republicans for the last 7 1/2 years, and cumulatively, 19/12 out of the last 28 years. The courts are no more able to defend civil liberties than we are at this point; they have been too thoroughly packed with people for whom civil liberties is a dirty word associated with "flaming liberals" and "tree hugging hippies".

Yes, the NSLs are blatantly unconstitutional and represent a direct attack upon the rights of individuals to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, among other things. They also dramatically expand the power of the government to monitor the citizenry in ways that the Constitution never intended to allow and, indeed, which could not reasonably have been foreseen by the funding fathers at all. This is why the Constitution must be a living document that must be periodically revisited and updated by people whose goal is preserving liberty, not concentrating government power. Unfortunately, the Constitution's fatal flaw is that the only way it recognizes for updating the constitution is through a process that does not readily allow for apolitical review (well, not counting judicial enhancement of the Constitution through binding precedents).

For the Constitution to truly be effective, it needs a procedure for review and amendment that formally allows for and defines the process for constitutional conventions and public referendums so that a proposed Constitutional amendment, upon receiving a 2/3rds of the popular vote in two consecutive election cycles, becomes ratified without the need to go through Congress or the state governments (but subject to judicial findings of unconstitutionality if it violates any fundamental Constitutional principles). Only then can the Constitution be a truly living document that protects civil liberties in the face of those who would turn our government into a totalitarian regime, given the opportunity.

Re:It's time for Civil Disobedience and Regime Cha

[dbIII]

Personally I think whoever chose the name of the bill and made sure it was rushed through without time for it to be read should be imprisoned as a driving force back to monarchy. Voting against it was deliberately made to look unpatriotic. Without being able to consider the content the vote was on the name alone - so the vote was along the lines of "do you want to look like a dirty commie or not? The guy that wants to be King says it's a good idea and if you go againt the King you go against the country".

Re:It's time for Civil Disobedience and Regime Cha

[Maxmin]

Quoting from your link-

"I have been very clear even as a candidate that, once we were in, that we were going to have some responsibility to make it work as best we could, and more importantly that our troops had the best resources they needed to get home safely," Obama, an Illinois Democrat, told reporters in a conference call. "So I don't think there is any contradiction there."

It's the perennial question - how exactly do we exit Iraq? What's your idea? Me, I'm against the war, but I'm not for pulling out hastily. Because, I wonder what will happen... will more people die, will it be as many as the U.S. and its allies have killed already ... will there be further ethnic cleansing and displacement of people beyond the millions who've been "invited" to leave their homes, etc.

Help me Obi Wan.