Slashdot Mirror
US Senate Asks for National Security Letter Explanation
A group of U.S. Senators are asking the FBI to explain a recent controversial National Security Letter sent to the Internet Archive. The Internet Archive was able to defeat the request with help from the EFF and the ACLU this past April. "The Internet Archive's case is only the third known legal challenge to NSLs, despite the fact that the the FBI issues tens of thousands a year -- more than 100,000 such letters were issued in 2004 and 2005 combined. But despite the lack of legal challenges from recipients at ISPs, telephone companies and credit bureaus, successive scathing reports from the Justice Department's Inspector General have found illegal letters and a willy-nilly culture within the bureau towards tracking their usage."
This is the sort of thing where somebody has to be first.
If everybody could agree to all publish their letters at once and all be first, then the FBI would be powerless [more or less]. It would blow the whole thing wide open. Everyone could analyze for themselves the validity of these claims, including lots of lawyers who would eat this up. We'd see that 99.9% of these are just a template *.doc file printed with regards to [insert company name here] and mailed off.
I'm all for having watchmen, but not when we don't get to watch THEM. Which is exactly what this
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
I don't know about the rest of /., but I think it is about time that the NSL usage was challenged. I'm glad that they finally found one that was worth challenging. These things are evil incarnate... or rather enable evil incarnate.
There simply is NOT enough terrorist activity or threat to warrant this kind of constitutional stomping authority. I really don't care if that sounds unpatriotic. I just do NOT believe that there was ever valid justification for such actions as allowed by the NSLs. They give carte blanche access to your information in ways that you are supposed to be protected from. Simply put, it is a non-supervised method to violate every or any citizens constitutional rights to privacy.
I'm tired of seeing arguments about how it's for security, or it fights terrorists. For FSM's sake, if it violates MY rights, then it's fucking wrong. period. no argument. for. ever.
I don't care if you tell me it will only be used in 'certain' cases.. I do NOT want you to have the ability to do so because I do not fucking trust you. ever. period. get over it.
The 2nd amendment is there to provide recourse to such actions by the government and I don't care if those in power think I'm saying treasonous things, I have a constitutionally guaranteed right to say them, think them, and 'believe it or not' act on them. I do NOT want this, or any, government to be snooping in my life, or anyone's life just because they can for expedience sake. Follow the law, do the right thing and you will have my respect. Don't and I will keep my gun very handy. THAT, my friends, is the intent of the framers of the constitution. Don't tread on me was used early on as a rally cry... I'm using it now. Don't tread on me or my privacy. It's time that ALL citizens of the USA said the same.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Seriously. Of course this is bad, but it's realistically just a matter of bureaucracy gone bad, with some potential for abuse. It's not like we're talking about some government wide x-files conspiracy to enslave the entire nation. It is just a precaution we need to take, to keep ambitious scoundrels from getting too many ideas.
Qxe4
the sad thing is that most of them actually believe that they do protect your freedom and your way of live by doing this. Good people in a bad culture leads to really, really bad decisions.
-- All this knowledge is giving me a raging brainer.
Gee, if only the FBI were required to get a warrant before making a search, we'd already have an explanation on record to look up. Too bad our founders didn't put anything into the constitution about that.
Play Command HQ online
http://uniset.ca/terr/news/lat_fbibreakin.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP
http://www.amazon.com/Bowling-Alone-Collapse-American-Community/dp/0743203046/sr=8-1/qid=1172469926/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-3962904-3664448?ie=UTF8&s=books
http://code.google.com/p/torchat/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_Shah's_Men
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_Contras_cocaine_trafficking_in_the_US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree
http://web.mit.edu/gtmarx/www/iron.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Rule_Book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeal_of_prohibition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writeprint
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance
http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/PhotoRec
http://www.eff.org/testyourisp/pcapdiff/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon
http://ai.bpa.arizona.edu/COPLINK/
http://ai.bpa.arizona.edu/research/coplink/authorship.htm
http://www.coplink.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
http://www.zurich.ibm.com/security/idemix/
http://packetstormsecurity.nl/filedesc/Practical_Onion_Hacking.pdf.html
http://www.williamson-labs.com/laser-mic.htm
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~dfrankow/files/privacy-sigir2006.pdf
http://freehaven.net/anonbib/topic.html#Anonymous_20communication
http://www.wiley.com/legacy/compbooks/mcnamara/links.html
Life's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
If an organisation is breaking the law (which is what "illegal" means, right?), why do police never get involved?
As an outsider looking in, it seems like the cycle is this:
Is it any wonder that nothing changes if there are never any consequences for illegal doings?
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
One of the overlooked problems with the NSL is that they provide a bureaucratic shortcut. You know, warrants are just so much work. Naturally it becomes the path of least resistance and so everything becomes related to terrorism just so they don't have to do all that work to get a regular warrant. You have to show probable cause, you need to identify the particulars of what you are looking for, etc... The best part is that you can do a really sloppy job and nobody will be the wiser, because they're all ecretsay.
There should be a little work involved, shouldn't there ? Wouldn't it be just great if those letters would actually apply to matters of national security ? The FBI has proven for us that they don't, just by the simple fact that they've generated so many of them.
FUD has ruled for many years now. Contact your congresscritter, register to vote, after all it is supposed to be your government.
Absolute statements are never true
You forgot the rest of that sentence: "...except for all the others that have been tried."
Slightly different sense, yes?
And since we all know how much difference that'll make, how about the day after the inauguration, we open the third box.
I think that's why other ACs up there were positing "What if everyone who had an NSL went public with it, (whether anonymously, or by simply upping a .torrent to WikiLeaks and following up with a blog entry under their own name)?"
That's what it means to open the third box. There's only 100,000 people who'd have to be rounded up, right? Dare them to file charges on everyone! Dare them to find 1,200,000 people for jury trials, all of whom will convict. That's working great for RIAA these days, isn't it?
Dare them to try and chase down 100,000 defense lawyers. And the millions of people who will be collecting ("gotta catch 'em all!", "I wonder if any of my friends got one?") their own copies of these embarassing letters just for curiosity. Keeping a lid on embarassing dcuments really worked great for Barbara Streisand, didn't it?
Yeah, it would suck to be the first guy crazy enough to do it. If you're a big powerful organization, picking off your critics one by one is child's play - when you've only got one or two critics to deal with at a time. As the Anonymous Vs. Cult of Scientology thing shows, the this approach just doesn't scale when you've got over 9,000 showing up at worldwide protests every month. Fair Game:Stop.
Y'know, if just one person does it, they'll think he's really crazy and disappear him. If two people do it -- in harmony -- they'll think they're both terrists and they'll disappear both of 'em. But if three people do it - can you imagine? Three people postin' an NSL to their blog, singin' a bar of Anonymous' Restaurant, and upping an NSL? They might think it's an organization. And can you imagine FIFTY people a day? I said FIFTY people a day -- loggin' in, copypastin' "Anonymous' Restaurant" and uploadin' an NSL to Wikileaks? Friends, they may think it's a MOVEMENT, and that's what it is:
THE ANONYMOUS' RESTAURANT THIRD-BOX MOVEMENT.
And all you gotta to do join it is to put on a Guy Fawkes mask (or not!) and upload your NSL to Wikileaks (or just post it on your blog) the next time it comes around on the guitar...
Until there are cases where criminal convictions are challenged on Constitutional grounds, we will not learn just how much abuse, for example how often are instances of these letters used to uncover political information about lawful activities. Tools such as this are so dangerous to freedom that severe sanctions should exist for frivolous use.
I don't believe for a second thagt most of the people involved in the abuse of these NSLs believe that they are truly protecting our freedom.
war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength
Apathy overwhelmed your culture when Ford pardoned Nixon, fear was on 9/11 (that one was obvious).
It really was much further back as some of the other posters have said.
"Ford's Folly" as I like to call it, did cause the death of the idea of Presidential accountability. Just look how bad that's gone since then. Had Nixon been punished no matter how mildly and we'd (not that I'd been born yet...) actually stood up for our right to be citizens and not subjects, do you really think Reagan ( or, well, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush Sr., and assorted other criminals we keep hearing from) would have dared to sell crack to buy weapons for terrorists in direct violation of Congressional orders? Created death squad training camps? Doctored intelligence to make the Soviets look like a much bigger threat than they were to justify massive welfare for government contractors and promote a culture of fear?
Then to pull this whole Iraq scam after getting away with all of that?
Not a chance.
So, Nixon needed a slap on the wrist. With what Ford did, he needed to be impeached.
As the crimes have gone up the stakes have too, so at this point to regain any possibility of accountability on the part of our government Bush, and most of the members of his administrations need to be tried, convicted, and executed for treason. If we don't, the next group of scumbags will *know* that they can get away with anything just like these scumbags did.
It's much worse than that even. Half the Supreme Court and most of Congress need at least long prison sentences for their complicity and that's never going to happen.
If I ever have an opportunity, I will piss on Ford's grave.
You're still wrong.
No part of government, not even the executive, can grant itself powers, not even the scheme you just described. What *can* (and, unfortunately, does) happen is that the executive uses powers it has not been granted. This is not a power grant, it's a power grab.
Think of it as the difference between being given something by someone, and taking it against the owner's will.
(Posting AC just in case i'm the only one that missed the memo.)
The scary (illegal) exception to the ability of Congress to cut off funding is the very high probability that the at least some of the "Black Ops" programs are being funded by illegal smuggling of stuff like drugs, arms, etc. Because those kinds of programs are externally funded, Congress would not be able to terminate them simply by withholding funding.
From a twisted amoral viewpoint, it's logical to fund those programs in that manner: not only can they conceal from ANYONE (including Congress) where and how much they are making & spending, but doing that sort of illegal activity probably also gives them all sorts of useful underground contacts.
to regain any possibility of accountability on the part of our government Bush, and most of the members of his administrations need to be tried, convicted, and executed for treason
With all the "debates" this past year, there are two conspicuous questions I would have emjoyed being raised:
(1) Candidate X, what in the first month of taking office will you do to roll back the executive branch's power grab of the last 8 years and restore civil liberties?
(2) As President, what will be your response if top officials of the Bush administration are arrested and imprisoned for war crimes when visiting a foreign country, say a European ally?
It's not that I would expect anything more than bluster from the Republicans and squirming from the Democrats but maybe they would at least understand that some people are concerned about more than flag pins.
Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
I think that if one is only looking at this on the surface, 'sumdumass,' then it may look as though this is post 9/11 politics as usual and that it's all either incompetence or "Aw shucks, it's sure a shame that we have to unconstitutionally violate the very liberties we're supposed to have sworn an oath to protect, but we'll do whatever we need to do in the name of safety."
Well, I think many of those who have researched our current situation and are familiar with the players and history would say that there is a much deeper level of politics at work, and from what I can tell it has nothing to do with protecting our way of life. If it did, things would be so different. It is actually destroying our way of life.
Another thing to remember is that there is no such thing as perfect safety in a free society; and in a controlled/repressed society (as we are becoming) you aren't safe from the controllers. Blanket safety does not exist, and anything can happen.
The way the corporate media in league with government goes on with bombarding the populace with fear relentlessly, both via "news," movies and TV shows and even commercials on one hand - then speak of safety via giving up liberties and undermining our Bill of Rights on the other hand - you'd think our constitution had been replaced with a simple guarantee of safety - but it hasn't; and if it had, who would protect the populace from the sociopaths charged with protecting us?
There is a reason the that oft quoted statement in our constitution says "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and not "Safety, life, and the pursuit of happiness" - our founding fathers were all too familiar with the political uses of fear and how the populace can be manipulated via that method.
So my point is that IMO there is a level of political manuvering going on that most people aren't aware of. As far as the courts and congress, unfortunately we have seen many courts become political tools and the majority of congress has basically all but abdicated their duties to the people and the constitution.
In the appellate, facts are in law and the application of the law or procedures, not in the case itself. A fact would be if the evidence was gathered legally and if it could be used or not, not if the evidence is true or accurate or that it proves or disproves anything. It is the same word but a different application. In the original case, a finding of fact may be that X evidence proves or disproved someone's whereabouts on a certain date at a certain time. In the appellate, it is if that evidence should have been introduced or not or whether not introducing it gave someone a fair trial or not. In essence, they find facts about facts instead of just considering the facts.
A generic term for appellate might be appeals. The case has already been decided, they determine if it was decided correctly or if some gross error cause a miscarriage of justice or the principles of rights held by the people.
It's more of a testament to the appeals courts. If everyone would agree unanimously, it is likely that it would be resolved way before it ever got to the supreme court. The supreme court is usually three or four appeals up the road from initial appeals. You start by appealing the obvious to the original judge, if that doesn't work, then the next highest court then a district court and perhaps another court before the Supreme Court get the opportunity for a crack at it. Of course there are some varying approaches to it like when time makes it necessary to skip a few of the other processes or if by nature of the charge/case it starts off at a higher level or perhaps even at a state level. But yes, the cases the supreme court gets a hold of are generally the toughest ones where they think not only is there a dispute, but the dispute has enough validity that it needs a closer look.
Well, I agree somewhat with your prognosis except the I believe God does answer people in his own ways and you have to be somewhat deserving enough to recognize the answer. It is sort of like the preacher who wanted to let everyone else evacuate first when a flood was coming because he knew God would take care of him. He stayed and soon the roads were blocked. Someone drove by saying we can use goto the top of this hill to escape the dangers but there won't be any food or water. He said that's ok, God will take care of me. Soon, the waters got so high that the hill was blocked too. A boat ca