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."

57 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. If they really want to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...they should send the FBI a National Security Letter asking why,

  2. Another paragraph worth quoting... by mrbluze · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why does the FBI think that list of possible records should be secret? Does that list contain items that are actually content -- for instance, URLs visited by a person? Having watched numerous films depicting FBI managers it will contain such things as "I wanna know who she slept with in kindergarten and what colour her t-shirt was on November 12 1948."
    --
    Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
  3. who is first? by electrosoccertux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:who is first? by erlehmann · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course, intimidating doesn't work when all work together - that's the stuff revolutions are made out of.

      But honestly, do you think that in a country that unlawfully spies on it's own citizens, tortures prisoners and holds hundreds of people for years while denying them a proper trial, anyone would risk that ? In the end, for those involved it's a simple risk calculation: I'd bet that almost no one is willing to risk jailtime for freedom of speech.

    2. Re:who is first? by ceroklis · · Score: 3, Funny
      This is the sort of thing where somebody has to be first.
      Hans was first.
  4. Obligatory Watchmen by oahazmatt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm all for having watchmen, but not when we don't get to watch THEM. Which is exactly what this 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.
    --
    Those who believe the Internet is private,
    find their privates are on the Internet.
    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:Obligatory Watchmen by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What about the watchmen? Their best friends are the people who fling wild and inane accusations at them until they look like victims.

      I'm not saying I believe it, I'm just saying that apathy is the price you pay for living by a catchphrase.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    5. Re:Obligatory Watchmen by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd like to know when such a supreme case of apathy and fear exactly overwhelmed our culture.

      I'd like to answer that, too.

      but in a half hour, if you don't mind. my favorite HD tv show is on right now.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  5. They would, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Alas, Congress doesn't seem to have that power.

    1. Re:They would, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Congress has any power they give themselves not explicitly denounced as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in review, and when they get a large enough consensus they can change even that. More explicitly, Congress controls the budget: All the other branches of government could piss and moan about it all they like, but a strong congress could turn everyone out into the streets until they backed down.

    2. Re:They would, but... by macslas'hole · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Congress has any power they give themselves not explicitly denounced as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in review Good Lord! Is that what they're teaching you kids in civics class these days? Cheer up emo kid, no branch of government has the ability to simply grant itself powers; all such self-granted powers would be, by definition, unconstitutional.
      --
      Life's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
    3. Re:They would, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Congress has any power they give themselves not explicitly denounced as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in review

      Good Lord! Is that what they're teaching you kids in civics class these days? Cheer up emo kid, no branch of government has the ability to simply grant itself powers; all such self-granted powers would be, by definition, unconstitutional.

      Yeah, but you're as far off base as emo kid!

      Good Lord! Is that what they taught you in civics class back then? Cheer up boomer dude, The Executive has the ability to simply grant itself powers; as long as the Department of Justice (which is part of the Executive Branch) chooses to Congressional requests for information (and when the requests are ignored, to also ignore Congressional subpoenae issued against other members of the Executive!), no charges are filed, no arrests are made, and the case (and its constitutional issues) never reaches the Judicial Branch, and in the absence of a judge's ruling, the Executive's actions can never, by defintion, be ruled unconstitutional.

      (I'm not the original AC, as you might guess. Google "inherent contempt", and "contempt of Congress". It may sound like I was going for +5, Funny, but it's actually been happening for real over the past 6-12 months. Long enough for everyone to forget what the original issue was, other than that it's useful for making the other side look bad in an election year.)

    4. Re:They would, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      All excellent points ... however, Executive Orders have been happening a lot longer than 6-12 months... but the plan for the Executive Branch to play hard-to-get with Congress over information "protected" by an EO has been going on for *years*. Look at some of the earlier EOs, from 2001-2005, which Congress is still struggling with.

    5. Re:They would, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:They would, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I've never seen so many AC's modded up in a single conversation thread. ... this must really have people scared sh!tless... when we can't use our semi-anonymous pseudonyms there's a real problem. Are we sure it's still the Land of the Free and Home of Brave ?

      (Posting AC just in case i'm the only one that missed the memo.)

    7. Re:They would, but... by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:They would, but... by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Informative

      As long as the department is there and part of the Executive (like the constitution says), the president can direct them to do anything that is legal even if the congress pulled their funding in protest. Congress can only stop the executive from using his powers over the organization is it exists by stopping it from existing. In order to completely de-fund the FBI, congress would have to disband it.

      This isn't a situation as simple as saying we will cut your funding so don't do this. As long as funds are there, the executive can direct it's use to any legal act under his power and congress is bound by the constitution to honor any debt incured. One might also argue that funding from other areas could be funneled over to support certain operations in the de-funded department. I have seen this happen first hand where HUD vouchers and First time home owners loan money has been diverted as loans for other projects (not related to HUD) leaving everyone in my county wanting to use those program up a creek. This was challenged and upheld in the courts.

      So they can't simply take funding away. They would have to disband or dissolve the department in the process and they could only do that if it wasn't in the constitution (most aren't). There is significantly more at stake when removing a department or office of the executive.

    9. Re:They would, but... by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Informative

      If your still confused, you could just read the constitution which sets the government up and provides their roles and responsibilities.

      Sure people attempt to stack appointive position in an attempt to retain power or further a goal. That's called politics. FDR was the first president to start us down the "unconstitutional is the norm path". A lot of his new deal policies were unconstitutional and ruled that way by courts and he basically said "so what, they aren't going away, so something about it". This is when the interstate commerce clause had become expanded and now almost anything in government can be justified by the interstate commerce clause. A lot of what is considered unconstitutional is done through some interpreted reading of the constitution.

    10. Re:They would, but... by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Informative
      Article 3 section two puts it pretty clear,

      The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states
      All cases can't really be argued with. You should read it again, it give the SCOTUS a pretty broad reach.
    11. Re:They would, but... by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ok, so then real slowly so I get it. They have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and fact. Doesn't that mean that in appeals, they can find facts? For what can't they find facts? For what can they? I'm not a lawyer, but I thought that it indicated that the "both as to law and fact" says they can, but choose not to. Appeals courts *do* find for facts. I know that because I've read decisions where they were sent back down to the appeals courts to find the facts. Also my understanding is that the appeals courts are essentially an extension of the Supreme Court, in both branch and function, created to off load and pre-screen what makes it to the Supreme Court.

      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 must just be that the "important" cases are split decisions, but I can't recall reading a decision by the Supreme Court that was unanimous. Perhaps that's a testament to the efficiency of the appeals courts, or maybe it's because the law in the US is so convoluted that even experts in the field can't agree on its meaning.

      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.

      The problem wouldn't exist if God would answer everyone so that everyone else would hear. Do we really need to worry about eating pork or fiber blends sending us to hell? Ask God and he'll clarify whether Jesus was his son, just a prophet, or Satan out to trick everyone. But he doesn't answer (well, Bush says God talks to him, but God has never answered my questions with a booming Yes/No answer in a glowing bearded image like in Star Trek). But Congress can answer. "Did you mean XXX or YYY?" The Supreme Court could repeal the laws until clarified.

      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

  6. remember! by crazybit · · Score: 5, Funny

    they do this to protect your freedom...

    --
    - Human knowledge belongs to the world
    1. Re:remember! by pha7boy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    2. Re:remember! by QuoteMstr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You forgot the rest of that sentence: "...except for all the others that have been tried."

      Slightly different sense, yes?

    3. Re:remember! by moxley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:remember! by moxley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  7. It's about time by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:It's about time by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
      It's a tricky situation. The second amendment is supposed to help "correct" democracy if it no longer becomes representative, and also help uphold the constitution. Unfortunately, this is no easy task. Are you a speaker for the people, attempting to rally them to bring down an oppressive government? Or are you a lone nut, acting as if your perspective is really that of the people? What if the constitution is being violated, but preventing that would be against the will of the people, and undermine democracy? Is the will of the founding fathers enough to trump the will of the people?

      Is violating the constitution enough to warrant a death sentence to all in power, or are there grey areas that warrant only throwing the government out of office next elections? If you do indeed decide to go on a shooting spree, who should die? Should everyone employed by the government be offed? How about everyone in executive positions, right down to transport ministers? Or everyone in the white house?

      The second amendment may have been relevant years ago, when the US was small and times were unstable, but now you have a lot more to lose. You have a huge economy, a wealthy lifestyle, sturdy future prospects, large population and infrastructure just to name a few. Violent coups must be thought through because they are devastatingly expensive. A civil war could ruin the US, so you had better to be bloody sure that you are doing the right thing. That's not even counting if you're a pacifist...
      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    2. Re:It's about time by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Insightful
      There simply is NOT enough terrorist activity or threat to warrant this kind of constitutional stomping authority.

      Agree and futhermore...

      <soapbox>
      It doesn't really matter how much, the ends don't justify the means - despite what the Bush administration would have us believe. The Constitution is there to protect us from our Government and from those citizens who want to limit the rights of other citizens. As far as the "War on Terror", if the US has to behave badly and/or contrary to our core principles to "win", then we lose and they win.
      </soapbox>

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:It's about time by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Insightful
      This is what I said:

      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. It neither called others to violent action, or intimated violent action on my part. My reference to the second ammendment (no, it is not out of date) is simply to frame the statement. The intent of the framers was not to create a fixed/rigid document to define government for all time, but to allow, nay, encourage citizens to change that government and document to suit all people in the pursuit of freedom and happiness etc.

      I'm absolutely sure that when the rest of the world mocks our 'land of the free' label, it is time to do something. Not tomorrow, not next month, but now. Yes, voting is a quick and comparatively painless way to implement change. The problem (as I see it) is that this does not highlight to the citizenry that the people they vote in may be in the same cabal of (on face value) patriots that would violate their rights.

      Sadly, in the land of the free, there are few who know their rights, and why they have them. I'm tempted to say that 'no child left behind' has ensured this, but won't. Despite the sig, I do not promote violent overthrow of the government, but I reserve the right to. There is no difference between one tyrant 3000 miles away and 30 tyrants 100 miles away... save for the fact that shooting the 30 is easier.

      My entire tirade (and it is one) is for one simple reason; I'm tired of having MY rights trampled in the name of something that simply does NOT exist. If you think me wrong, shut down all the anti-terrorism measures... ALL of them, prove to me empirically that there is a danger that warrants such invasion of my life and privacy. Go ahead, do it!

      I'm tired of people 'protecting me' from dangers that do not exist and trampling MY rights in the process. If you want to guard my house while I'm on vacation, fucking do it from the other side of the street. My security system is working fine, and I'm not paying you to waste your time and MY tax dollars to sit inside my house.

      This goes for terrorism, child-pornography, internet bullies, file sharers, and any manner of thought crime criminals.

      See my sig, I do not advocate violence, rather I suggest that the Internet changes everything. Information wants to be free, and information frees the rest of us. If the government is so honorable at protecting my rights, why do they have to do it in secret?

      Don't give me that bs about national security ... I have a TSEC, and I understand it, how it works, what it is for. There is no reason that NSL letters, DMCA, USPATRIOT act et al need to exist. We have plenty of laws to take care of these problems already. New laws are only implemented to empower people or limit the scope of power of others. period. study it a bit.

      I am BLOODY SURE that what I'm saying is right. I'm not a pacifist, but I am also not advocating a violent revolution. I like the Ron Paul revolution myself. The trouble is that if you do not smack people around a bit, they won't have the attention span to listen. Now is the time to listen to what is being said. Now is the time to take heart. Now is the time to put on the tin foil hats and load your home security devices. Now is the time to be skeptical. Now is the time to question EVERYTHING that the government is doing, or is asking for laws so they can do. Now is the time to listen carefully. Now is the time to start making up your mind about whether you would use a gun. Now is the time to decide how much your constitutionally guaranteed rights are worth to you. Now is the time to figure out what you would do when they come to take you from your home....

      Yes, sounds a bit paranoid but then when you compare the Bush administration to the German government prior to WWII, it's a scary piece of entertainment... try it for yourself.

      If you give an inch, they will take a mile so the saying goes. In this case that is not true... they will not stop with the mile.

      There is much that can be done before violence is needed, but it must be done now. Attention must be drawn to the wrongs that are happening in this country now, not next month, not in September, but NOW.
      --
      Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
    4. Re:It's about time by scooter.higher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The second amendment is supposed to help "correct" democracy if it no longer becomes representative, and also help uphold the constitution. And that is one of the problems we are facing. Our elected politicians are no longer concerned with representing their constituents. They are doing the bidding of special interest groups.

      Elections have become nothing more than pageants. Where did this term "unelectable" come from? The media decides to not cover a candidate because they are considered "unelectable?"

      There is a problem. People just don't care enough to do the research to find a solution.
      --
      Ramen
    5. Re:It's about time by macslas'hole · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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. unpatriotic? Since when is supporting the constitution unpatriotic! it's the definition of patriotic.
      war is peace
      slavery is freedom
      etc.

      Scary shit, I tell you.
      --
      Life's a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
    6. 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?
    7. Re:It's about time by moderatorrater · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The intent of the framers was not to create a fixed/rigid document to define government for all time, but to allow, nay, encourage citizens to change that government and document to suit all people in the pursuit of freedom and happiness etc. No, no, the intent of the framers was to tenderize meat more efficiently, and they knew that to produce meat tenderizer in the bulk that they wanted would require that government stay out of the way. Everything else was incidental to the framers' opinions.

      In reality, it was a large group of men who all had differing opinions of what government should be and who all are now dead, and therefore unable to tell us what they intended. That's why they left a document to base the government on, so that we wouldn't worry about their intent, but the one document they left us with legal force. Intention should only be considered far enough to determine the meaning of archaic words because anything else cannot be independently verified.
    8. Re:It's about time by jez9999 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Follow the law, do the right thing and you will have my respect. Don't and I will keep my gun very handy.

      Good luck against 100 armed police, and a plethora of news networks reporting how an evil madman was shot dead by the valiant defenders of law and order.

      --
      == Jez ==
      Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
    9. Re:It's about time by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Our elected politicians are no longer concerned with representing their constituents. That's half of the problem. The other half of the problem is that your elected politicians are concerned with representing their constituents, to the extent that they will do things that benefit their state, or a few key districts in their state, while harming America as a whole. Tragedy of the commons on a massive scale.
      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. Re:It's about time by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the constitution does not work anymore. its broken.

      or rather, americans have become USED to the fact that it regularly gets ignored.

      we have lost control over our own country and government. I believe the constituion TRIED to keep a balance of power (checks and balances) since the makers of the const. had first-hand experience with, shall we say, a government out of control?

      note: its not just the US; all countries (read the news, you'll see) are losing their privacy rights and freedom. the US is spearheading it but look at the UK and australia. they are actually BEATING the US in terms of wiping out checks/balances and personal freedom/privacy.

      this is way beyond 'the US constitution'. this is a human phenomenon and its catchy as hell. the 'put fear into your own people' shit is happening all over the world and its not showing any signs of slowing down.

      yes, the terrorists have already won. sad, isn't it?

      don't look for our laws to protect us. this NSL stuff was always against the law - but that never stopped the US from the chilling effects it seeks to install in its population.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    11. Re:It's about time by jamstar7 · · Score: 2, Informative

      They also left us other documents that go a long way to explaining where their heads were at. Federalist Papers anyone? More nifty stuff is available at the click of a mouse.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    12. Re:It's about time by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not really going to debate this with someone who goes by the name "sumdumass". Seriously, with a name like that, you probably work for Bush (or are Bush). :-)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    13. Re:It's about time by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      its 'legal' in the sense that our maf^H^H^Hcongressman have created an unjust law.

      I'm no lawyer, but it seems that to be accused of a crime but NOT to be allowed to even talk about it (not even to your wife, for example) is TOTALLY beyond the design of any constitutional concept.

      would our founding fathers (or even 100 years later, the 'middle fathers') have approved such a thing? that's the litmus test for.

      while there's no way to know how a dead person would answer, they PROBABLY would have rejected the very notion that the gov can totally ruin a person's life and without just cause, without being allowed to question or challenge it and not even really be able to DEFEND against it.

      really, if you get a NSL you are probably screwed and there is nothing that can help you. THAT very notion is completely against all that the US was built on. this is worse (far worse!) than 'taxation without representation'. if they threw a 'fit' about that, some 200+ yrs ago, what would they have done about THIS?

      throwing tea into the water would have been the last thing they would have done. I'm thinking pitchforks and heads on sticks would have been the peoples' reply to any government power-grab to THIS level.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  8. Ah, the fresh smell of paranoia by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Ah, the fresh smell of paranoia by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 2, Funny

      HE'S A WITCH!

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    2. Re:Ah, the fresh smell of paranoia by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course this is bad, but it's realistically just a matter of bureaucracy gone bad, with some potential for abuse.

      Stalinism was also just a bureaucracy gone bad.

  9. Warrant by Boronx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  10. What, me read? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  11. Penalties by Repton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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:

    1. Government organisation does something illegal.
    2. If someone notices:
      1. Senate / ombudsman / inspector says "Bad! Naughty government organisation!"
      2. [optional] Organisation says "Sorry!"
    3. GOTO 1.

    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.
    1. 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...

  12. bureaucratic shortcut by cats-paw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  13. Related interview by proxima · · Score: 5, Informative

    On the Media had an interview (transcript and mp3 download available) last week with Internet Archive co-founder Brewster Kahle. about his personal experience with the national security letter. Interesting stuff, but perhaps not much new if you've been keeping up with this.

    --
    "The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
  14. Re:MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.

    Ed Howdershelt

    If the internet is our soap box, then it is time to move on to the ballot box. And voting for either of the three people that are being pushed on us by the media will not change anything.

    Convince friends/family/strangers to do a little research on how many candidates are out there, and what their positions are, and write in someone's name if they have to, as long as they don't vote for the same crap that we've had for too long now.

    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...

  15. A good excuse for civil disobedience. by Cracked+Pottery · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The law is written to keep this method of inquiry as secret as possible. While there are occasional instances where this would be warranted, e.g. the hot pursuit of dangerous criminal, the volume of these requests is so large that these cases are most likely comparatively rare. The most common effect of this provision is therefore the concealment of abuse.

    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.

  16. This all feels so Unconstitutional by hyperz69 · · Score: 3, Funny

    So I asked for a copy of the Constitution under the Freedom of Information act. I received a Letter starting with "We The People" followed by a long continuos black line....

  17. Re:Obligatory Strawman (I'm being ironic here) by Darby · · Score: 3, Insightful


    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.

  18. Scathing Reports! by argent · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thank God, something is being done. As soon as Undersecretary Sternwheeler drafts a Sternly Worded Protest we'll get Magnan and that young fellow of his to deliver it to the FBI!

  19. Re:Obligatory Strawman (I'm being ironic here) by WindowlessView · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.