Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Senate Asks for National Security Letter Explanation

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the monitoring-the-monitors-of-the-monitors dept.

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."

5 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Obligatory Watchmen by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd like to know when such a supreme case of apathy and fear exactly overwhelmed our culture.
    Yeah, but unfortunately, every other person who lives their lives by a simple quote also wants to know the same thing.

    e.g. Why won't you think of the children?! I'd like to know when such a supreme case of apathy and callousness overwhelmed our culture.
    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  2. Re:Obligatory Watchmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Words to live by. I talk to so many people on a daily basis who have completely become numb to the fact that the people should always dictate the actions of the government, not the other way around. I'd like to know when such a supreme case of apathy and fear exactly overwhelmed our culture.
    A long time ago and was deliberately accelerated in response to the anti-war movement during Vietnam. The public school system has been in many ways deliberately designed to promote the acceptance of authority, a move not only desirable to the government but to the corporations. Politicians promote the government being the cradle to grave guide for its citizens as it makes for nice fat pork barrels and accompanying "donations". A false sense of safety and reliance on the government is pushed for the very same reasons $$$$. This is the reason why that an immigrant is vastly more likely to go into business for themselves then someone born in America, because the immigrant often wishes to enjoy the freedoms of America they have heard so much about and do not trust the authority that Americans have been trained to accept and seek out. The extreme power shift around the time of the "Civil War" from states to the Federal Government enhanced these problems.

    The FBI itself was supposed to be a temporary agency within the government, but under J. Edgar Hoover leaped to astounding levels of power that were not cut back until his passing. It still exists and does anyone really thing that the FBI won't seek greater power and that such things as the misuse of NSLs won't enable such?

    "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
    Thomas Jefferson

  3. Re:Obligatory Watchmen by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It hit critical mass, IMO, after the Depression and FDR's New Deal.

    Nah, critical mass of fear was already there during the first Red Scare, when they passed the Sedition Act of 1918, locked up Eugene Debs, deported hundreds without due process, and destroyed the American left.

    It probably goes back to the Great Upheaval of 1877. You know those big old National Guard armories they have in a lot of cities? They weren't built in case of invasion. They were built in case the workers got uppity again.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  4. Re:It's about time by wellingj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A couple of things.
    1. The purpose of the constitution was to protect the rights of the individual from the tyranny of the majority.
    2. Violating the constitution is against the law. There should be a trial. But if some legislators were to come and deprive me of any of my rights, you damn right there will be violence. The government depriving anything from me is tantamount to forcing me to choose between doing what is right and violence done against me by the state.
    3. They started this, I wouldn't be pissed off if they had just left me alone to live freely. But they had to take the money that I work for, as if they owned 25% of my worth as a human being. Now they want to take my rights to do something about it.

    --
    Money is the root of all evil?
  5. Re:Penalties by Scrameustache · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If an organisation is breaking the law (which is what "illegal" means, right?), why do police never get involved?

    Do you remember the fuss about the politically-motivated firing of several US attorneys?
    Some got fired for investigating people belonging to THE party. (The one in power)

    Do you now understand what all the fuss was about?
    Why you can't allow the power to be above the law?
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...