FBI ISP Letters May Have Violated Free Speech

Anti-Globalism sends in a Reuters account of an appeals court hearing in which an unnamed ISP is challenging the Patriot Act "National Security Letter" provision that allows the FBI to issue secret letters to ISPs and telecoms, demanding customer records. "A panel of federal appeals court judges pushed a US government lawyer on Wednesday to answer why FBI letters sent out to Internet service providers seeking information should remain secret. ... Between 2003 and 2006 nearly 200,000 national security letters were sent out. Of those about 97 percent received gag orders."

Comments

At last

[monsul]

Nice seeing someone in the ISP world is concerned about basic rights like freedom of speech. If only we could know which ISP it was....

Re:At last

[chasingsol]

Well, the judge ruled out Verizon and AT&T by using them as examples. Considering the relatively limited number of large ISP's in the USA, the chance is that it was directed at the largest of all... Comcast. I doubt a smaller ISP would dare go up against the federal government, lawuits such as these are notorious for taking years (decades?) to go anywhere. Unfortunately, it would seem likely that ultimately the lawsuit will be thrown out for "national security" reasons, as so many others have since the passing of the Patriot Act.

Re:At last

[Smallpond]

On the contrary, a big company like Comcast has too much to lose to rock the boat. A small, private ISP is less likely to be worried about shareholders since it may be employee-owned by people with strong convictions about freedom.

Re:At last

[Anonymous Coward]

On the contrary, a big company like Comcast has too much to lose to rock the boat. A small, private ISP is less likely to be worried about shareholders since it may be employee-owned by people with strong convictions about freedom.

Comcast without question is the ISP that the GOP prefers. This is an ISP that cares nothing about freedom of speech, marches in lock-step with the GOP, and like the current administration - should be disbanded and replaced by a company that respects our constitutional rights and the freedom(s) that once made The United States the envy of the free world.

Re:At last

[nurb432]

Oh, we will know soon enough. They will be the first ones the FCC shuts down.

Re:At last

[mi]

They will be the first ones the FCC shuts down.

Two questions:

1. Has FCC shut anybody down yet?
2. Do you still feel, requiring government license for very simple activities:
   • investigating (cough, MediaSentry, cough)
   • plumbing
   • serving liquor
   • driving

   is a good idea? The licenses for all these pursuits, which are considered a "privilege, not a right," can be taken away — by the Executive Government (such as FCC) — on a whim, without any court-decision. At best, you may be able to get a court-order of your own to get the license restored — but you will be the plaintiff with the "burden of proof" on your hands, and you will have to convince the court you are right, rather than simply poke a few holes in the other side's argument...

Re:At last

[nurb432]

Especially since they are pissing everyone off and are under investigation as it is.

Re:At last

[nurb432]

This is an ISP that cares nothing about freedom of speech

They don't hold a monopoly on that, most large corporations are like that.

Re:At last

[ivucica]

Requiring a government license for plumbing and serving liquor is silly. But I don't want everyone to investigate me, I don't want anyone to drive me.

Re:At last

[RockDoctor]

Well, the judge ruled out Verizon and AT&T by using them as examples. Considering the relatively limited number of large ISP's in the USA, the chance is that it was directed at the largest of all... Comcast.

Can you provide a pointer to a "rogues gallery" of Comcast's management. When I start seeing them in orange jumpsuits, I'll believe you.

Re:At last

[ScrewMaster]

If I had to make a guess (and I don't have to but I will anyway) I'd say maybe Qwest. As telecom providers go, they were the only ones that told the Feds to screw off at the start of the illegal wiretapping fiasco, and about the only major provider that didn't require immunity from prosecution.

It's not a violation........

[budword]

if breaking the law is never punished.

Re:It's not a violation........

[Sebilrazen]

if breaking the law is never punished.

Attorney General Mukasey, is that you?

Re:It's not a violation........

[nurb432]

I don't agree at all.

Non enforcement does not negate the law. It does sort of make it pointless to have on the books, but it doesn't remove it automatically.

200,000?

[KwKSilver]

The FBI thinks there are 200,000 terrorists here!!?? Arent we in Iraq to keep from having them here. If there were 200,000 terrorists here there would be bombings every day. A number like 200,000 suggests to me that there is something other than terrorism of interest ... like screwing political opponents of the Bush regime.

Re:200,000?

[Curunir_wolf]

It's not that there are 200,000 terrorists, it's just that they felt they needed that many letters while trying to track down the 5-10 terrorists they're looking for.

Kind of like sending 140,000 troops to Iraq to try to find 1 guy who is hiding somewhere on the Afghanistan Pakistan border. There's nothing so inefficient as government bureaucracy.

Re:200,000?

[SirLurksAlot]

The FBI thinks there are 200,000 terrorists here!!?? Arent we in Iraq to keep from having them here. If there were 200,000 terrorists here there would be bombings every day.

That number almost certainly does not represent how many terrorists the FBI believes to be here. It is far more likely that the NSLs were issued during the course of investigations to determine if the subject has any terrorist connections, and I would bet only a (extremely) tiny fraction of them actually did.

A number like 200,000 suggests to me that there is something other than terrorism of interest ... like screwing political opponents of the Bush regime.

No arguments here. Your statement would be less believable if it wasn't for the fact that there is evidence of wiretapping abuse for political purposes.

Re:200,000?

[theM_xl]

The list for flying is over a million names. At 200k to 1 million I'd say the terrorists should start their own country already so we can just nuke them :)

Re:200,000?

[m.ducharme]

Nice red herring there. Government bureaucracy has nothing to do with why you're in Iraq. In fact, Iraq is probably the most privatized war the USA has ever fought.

Government bureaucracy promotes inefficiency through civil servants using regulations to protect their jobs and their budgets, not through sending troops to far away lands (which is not to say they wouldn't be happy to let people die to protect budgets, and jobs). The US is in Iraq because George Bush, his advisors, and many corporations want the US to be in Iraq. Not because of government inefficiency.

Re:200,000?

[Kjella]

The FBI thinks there are 200,000 terrorists here!!??

No, it means that when you're looking for a needle in a haystack there's a helluva lot of straw. Probably some abuse too, but I think it mostly comes down to "We think there's some terrorists in the US, we haven't got a clue who or where they are, but it's your job to find them anyway." What do you do? You investigate any activity that might be in common with a terrorist, I'd be surprised if they could get a 1% hit rate on that, probably more like 0.1%-0.01% which would be 20-200. Now you can ask if it makes sense to investigate 199k+ others to find those, but the numbers as such aren't unrealistic.

Re:200,000?

[MrNaz]

That's assuming, of course, that the one million people who oppose the US government should be considered the "bad guys".

Re:200,000?

[meringuoid]

The FBI thinks there are 200,000 terrorists here!!?? Arent we in Iraq to keep from having them here.

No, we're in Iraq to remove the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction that could otherwise have been launched within 45 minutes. At least that's what they told me.

Re:200,000?

[Opportunist]

The FBI thinks there are 200,000 terrorists here!

I deem it unlikely. Even if counting all the local politicians and not only the airheads in D.C., you won't even get close to 200,000.

Re:200,000?

[Dionysus]

The US is in Iraq because George Bush, his advisors, and many corporations want the US to be in Iraq.

You forgot about the people who support and reelected Bush.

Re:200,000?

[DefenseEngineer]

*sigh* Who is to say that some of these were not background investigations into government employees or applicants? People with a security clearance basically sign away their privacy rights and the background investigations start. They would likely issue gag orders because they don't want the names of those employees and/or future employees to get out. Who says all 200,000 were "bad guys?" Some of them may likely be "good guys."

Re:200,000?

[m.ducharme]

Oh right, Diebold, Sequoia Systems, ESS, and almost half of the ordinary folks. You're correct.

Re:200,000?

[Anonymous Coward]

The FBI thinks there are 200,000 terrorists here!!??

well, they have a one million terrorist list, so why not? :)

Re:200,000?

[ColdWetDog]

A number like 200,000 suggests to me that there is something other than terrorism of interest ... like screwing political opponents of the Bush regime.

I doubt that. 200K is much too small a number for that particular scenario.

Re:200,000?

[crabboy.com]

The US is in Iraq because George Bush, his advisors, and many corporations want the US to be in Iraq.

You might be able to convince some folks that we were in Iraq for the first 60 days because of whatever theory you care to advance. But, if you take a look at the War Powers Resolution you may notice that in order to remain there required the approval of Congress. I submit to you, we're still there because Congress voted to approve the war against Iraq.

Re:200,000?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually a big part of what makes government inefficient IS the fact that various groups and individuals will always try to take advantage of existing political momentum by bending it to support their own agendas.

Bush and his cronies clearly wanted to go into Iraq before the World Trade Center towers came down, but they would not have been able to sell the Iraq war to the US people without that catalyst. From the point of view of US citizens who just want to live in a country where buildings don't get blown up, the results created by the private aims of the various politicians granted the power to do something to protect the country from terrorism can certainly be viewed as terrible inefficiency.

--9to1

Re:200,000?

[Artifakt]

Recently, actor Michael Caine was stopped and detained for special evaluation before being allowed to board a plane in the U. S.. He'd had to deal with a business matter, the delay caused him to be separated from his wife, who went ahead with the luggage, and he got a new ticket just to catch up to her. So, he was a solo traveler, foreign national, had no luggage, and had a 1 way ticket. Arguably, if Caine wasn't somebody well known, he would most likely have ended up on a permanent list. The no-fly lists and other special lists get full because the criteria are at least this broad, and the criteria for getting people off the list aren't.
      If we want to take 250,000 people off the lists in one swoop, take all the names of people reported by their spouses or the relevant lawyers, during a divorce battle, off (at least unless there is a restraining order that alleges violent intent exists for the person in question).

Re:200,000?

[Tenebrousedge]

I am perfectly willing to become a "bad guy" if my government continues to commit heinous crimes in the name of "the People" .

Re:200,000?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget about Obama and all the other Democrats who have essentially voted to continue the war and have done nothing to stop it - equally as guilty.

Re:200,000?

[bitingduck]

Who is to say that some of these were not background investigations into government employees or applicants? People with a security clearance basically sign away their privacy rights and the background investigations start. They would likely issue gag orders because they don't want the names of those employees and/or future employees to get out.

The gov't uses a non-secret mail out form to references and current and former employers for the initial investigation for everything from vanilla gov't employee up through top secret clearance. They send out interviewers for some levels of clearance (I think only TS and higher, based on what the clearances cost), and interviewees aren't given gag orders- I've been interviewed (though not in the time since the NSLs came out) and know people who have been interviewed in the recent past.

It's more likely that the NSLs are the least amount of effort for agents to get the information they want, so they use them. Got marginal justification for a warrent and don't feel like digging around? Send out an NSL. The basis for the request is marginal and wouldn't get you a warrant? Check the "gag order" box and nobody will ever know.

It's what workers everywhere do- expend the least amount of effort to get stuff done.

Re:200,000?

[tjstork]

So we should do what the Democrats want us to do with union elections and get rid of the secret ballot. That's a real reform.

Re:200,000?

[pxlmusic]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/clinton_vs_obama_on_iraq.html

Re:200,000?

[Dare nMc]

almost half of the ordinary folks.

well almost half of the 64% of those eligible to vote who actually voted. so really your down to less than 1/4 (maybe 60 million voted for W out of ~300 million in USA)

Re:200,000?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would agree with you, but things should never be easy for the government, or its workers, simply because it has so much power, and it seems it is incredibly easy to abuse that power (eg: telling everybody that these investigations are for national security, and therefore you don't have to reveal anything, when the investigation is against your political adversary so you can illegally dig into his/her private life).

As a concrete example, nowadays, Watergate would be labeled as an investigation with national security implications, and the public would be unaware of any wrongdoing.

Re:200,000?

[bitingduck]

I would agree with you, but things should never be easy for the government, or its workers, simply because it has so much power, and it seems it is incredibly easy to abuse that power (eg: telling everybody that these investigations are for national security, and therefore you don't have to reveal anything, when the investigation is against your political adversary so you can illegally dig into his/her private life).

I totally agree with you, and have been pretty active in working to limit the kinds of investigations the gov't can do of employees and contractors that are in the name of national security but appear largely to be just because they think they can.

I was just pointing out why I think there are so many, not that I think it's a good thing.

Re:200,000?

[m.ducharme]

Where in my post did I suggest this? Personally, I think this time around the Democrats have the fix in, and you may see irregularities in Republican districts come Election Day.

As for reforms, the system we use here in Canada seems to work well, namely paper and pencil ballots, polling stations manned by volunteers for all official parties, ballots counted by hand, with members of all official parties observing. It's a method open to attack, but is more secure to massive attacks on a national scale.

Re:200,000?

[m.ducharme]

Well, yeah, but I subscribe to the idea that if you don't vote (or at least spoil your ballot) then you don't count.

Re:200,000?

[Anonymous Coward]

I submit to you

Kinky.

Re:200,000?

[digitalchinky]

I would say this 200k is akin to how GSM (phone) associations can be made. Good old traffic analysis. Bad guy calls another bad guy, both of these are firm targets. Wife calls bad guy, she is a target. Friend of wife calls wife, she is also now a target. Friend of wife calls second cousin of second bad guy, second cousin is a target. And so on. It's a big spider web.

The vetting process to be issued a security clearance is, in the majority, done at a personal one on one level. (Mostly why it can take 6 months to 2 years) This means that the relevant security branch goes out and actually interviews your friends, friends of friends, teachers, family, etc.

As part of the application process you sign a ton of documents that authorize the government to go to your banks and financial institutions (or whatever) and extract your data wholesale. They don't check up on you 'in secret' and nor is ones job title a secret for most positions within secret 3 letter agencies.

Chasing down slashdot posts and wiki entries are not very high on the investigative list.

I would say that almost none of these were either good or bad guys, just innocents caught at some depth in an automated system. I would also hazard that there aren't enough monkeys to draft up 200k letters anyway. It was probably a little bash scripting with a bit of awk and sed on the side.

Re:200,000?

[Tuoqui]

Sounds about right, isnt that the amount of muslims in the US currently?

What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone on Slashdot has a TrueCrypted Operating System. Uses POP3S, SSH, OffTheRecord Messaging in Pidgin and HTTPS as much as possible.

I'm more astonished at why Terrorists are doing the same. Unless, by "Terrorists" the FBI mean people who download content over BitTorrent. Because that's all they'll find.

Only 97%?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone's focused on the total number of NSL's used, and the gag orders placed on them. I'm more worried about that 3% that were used, but not really deemed important enough to put a gag order on. Were they really using this tool to stop terrorism, or get info on 6,000 political opponents?

I feel the gag orders are necessary for actual investigations. You can't have the ISP's sending letters to subscribers all the time when they get NSL's, especially if it's an actual terrorist they're trying to stop. But at the same time, we need to have limits put in place to protect the abuse of the system, and gag orders placed where they shouldn't be.

Re:Only 97%?

[chasingsol]

The solution is to have some kind of oversight. FISA is less than ideal, since it's secret, but there are perfectly good national security reasons for keeping some things that way. With the issuing over 200,000 unvetted letters such as these which typically automatically contain a gag order, I also cannot fathom how this FBI power is being used responsibly and not abused. I am a firm believer in the need for a government to conduct certain actions in secret, but we risk a complete erosion of our constitutional rights when a government is given such a powerful tool with absolutely zero oversight, secret or otherwise.

Re:Only 97%?

[Urza9814]

Ah, but wouldn't it be more likely that the gag orders would be on the non-terrorism investigations - I mean, after all, you wouldn't want anyone to know you're investigating your political opponents, would you? But if you're investigating a real terrorist - well, who cares who knows about that. I mean, you're doing what you're supposed to be doing. And just because it doesn't have a gag order doesn't mean people will talk about it - if the ISP can tell that it's for a legit terrorism suspect, they're probably not gonna say anything that could harm the investigation.

So I think it's more like they investigated 6,000 terrorists and 194,000 political opponents.

Re:Only 97%?

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution is to have some kind of oversight.

There are too many toothless watchdogs now. Consider how many times the FISA courts have said no to the Bush administration. There is no reason for these secret proceedings and their entire purpose is to allow arbitrary exercise of government power while limiting the opportunity for public scrutiny.

The entire edifice of secret laws, secret warrants and secret trials should be shut down. Then it should be investigated thoroughly and anyone who had a hand in it should be banned from government employment for life.

Re:Only 97%?

[russotto]

I feel the gag orders are necessary for actual investigations. You can't have the ISP's sending letters to subscribers all the time when they get NSL's

If the cops come to my door without any sort warrant and start asking stuff about "Joey the Nose", who is a customer of mine, I can tell them I'm not talking to them. I can then go tell Joey that the cops came to my door asking about him. If I don't know about any crime Joey committed, I'm breaking no laws by doing so.

Why should it be any different "on the Internet"?

Re:Only 97%?

[mmwithpeanuts]

The 200,000 taps were all conducted with the help of all agencies, such as local police. Some are for the sake of protection in this time of "terrorism", as others are for other reasons, sometimes abused by certain ranking individuals, or groups of governmental teams. Conspiracies aside, based on importance of varying cases, sometimes without warrant, we can be spied on, although laws are, ideally, meant to protect and to serve. Also, ideally, we have the right to know who is spying on US. Problems arise when other governments send in spies to counter-intelligence US, causing deliberate gaps in communications, especially to citizens, who are often deemed, noninclusive because of certain many circumstances. Who knows who is working for whom, in other words, or best not to cause a stir which may compromise intelligence?

Classic Corruption of Power

[bigtallmofo]

If the FBI writes a letter to an ISP to investigate possible criminal activity done by one of their customers through that ISP, it makes sense that the ISP shouldn't be allowed to tell the target they're being investigated.

However... 200,000 letters in less than 4 years and 97% of them received gag orders? That's just plain ridiculous. It's a classic example of an organization receiving power and then abusing it.

So, it's time to take that power away from them.

Re:Classic Corruption of Power

[Opportunist]

Taking power away is not necessarily a good idea or even a solution. But every kind of power demands a controlling instance to prevent abuse. And the more potent the power (and limiting freedom of speech and invasion of personal space does count as "quite potent" in my books), the more control it requires.

That is the original idea between the separation of powers. When you split up creation of laws, execution of laws and judgement over laws, you should create a system that allows the three powers to control each other and keep each other from overstepping their boundaries. Unfortunately, this separation has been blurred to the point where the total power resides in the hands of the president again. He is the head executive power (which by itself is fine), but he also has a say in the creation of laws and appoints judges. And that is, IMO, no true separation of powers.

Re:Classic Corruption of Power

[schon]

If the FBI writes a letter to an ISP to investigate possible criminal activity done by one of their customers through that ISP, it makes sense that the ISP shouldn't be allowed to tell the target they're being investigated.

No it doesn't - not even a little bit.

Now, if the FBI obtained a court-ordered *warrant* for an ISP to turn over information in regards to possible criminal activity, *then* it would make sense that the ISP shouldn't be allowed to tell the target they're being investigated (and I'm sure there's some mechanism that allows this.)

The critical difference of course, is judicial oversight. The FBI doesn't want to have to deal with warrants and their pesky inconveniences.

Re:Classic Corruption of Power

[Anonymous Coward]

To amplify on that:

All a warrant does is force someone to state a reason to a judge. As long as the reason is not completely out-there, the judge will approve the warrant. Judges approve almost all warrants, because no one tries to get one without having a real reason. I think you can draw your own conclusions as to why someone would want to circumvent the warrant process.

Re:Classic Corruption of Power

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think we will be able to this power away from them, with even Slashdot crowded with HIRED HAND Bushiites? The Government is spending our tax money to have some of their PsyOps agents registering as users here in Slashdot and putting up this Fascist opinion red-white-and-blue show!
No normal person will support Bush, or that Nazi KKK lady, Mussolina PALIN!
All politicians want to step over our constitution, but Republicans do that with Iron boots...

Re:Classic Corruption of Power

[sjames]

If the FBI writes a letter to an ISP to investigate possible criminal activity done by one of their customers through that ISP, it makes sense that the ISP shouldn't be allowed to tell the target they're being investigated.

That much makes sense, but the gag order covers any mention that you have recieved such a letter at all. That is, you can become an instant felon just by going home and telling your spouse why you're late (even if you leave out all details about who they wanted data on).

More significantly, if they turn it into a fishing expedition by not narrowing the information down (we want the browsing history of every customer for the last 5 years), you become a felon if you tell the EFF.

While now corrected (only under threat of a constitutional challenge), the original form made you a felon if you told your LAWYER or a COURT about the order. While now corrected, the mere fact that such a provision ever existed tells us a lot about the intent of the act's supporters.

Interestingly, since I would think most everyone would voluntarily keep quiet if the FBI put its cards on the table and demonstrated in any way that talking might help a genuine terrorist, the primary purpose of the gag order is to act as a bludgeon to secure silence when the investigation is questionable in the first place. They got by just fine for decades relying on law abiding citizens to voluntarily not tip off criminals of all sorts.

Exactly this sort and magnitude of abuse was predicted before the act even passed. It wasn't exactly a surprise.

Re:Classic Corruption of Power

[sjames]

The critical difference of course, is judicial oversight. The FBI doesn't want to have to deal with warrants and their pesky inconveniences.

Especially the inconvenience of not having absolute power. If the FBI has even the tiniest shred of patriotism, it would abhor absolute power, even it's own. So I just have to ask:

Why do the DOJ and FBI hate America so much?

Re:Classic Corruption of Power

[plover]

Actually, taking the power away is the only historically effective solution. It will force the agencies impacted to re-evaluate their approach to surveillance, and to find a way to do it that complies with the law. That's what happened with wiretapping, and it ultimately led to the creation of the FISA court (the overseeing body you noted is missing from the current equation.)

However, the USA PATRIOT Act's current expansion of monitoring explicitly sidestepped the FISA mechanism for reasons that were never made clear. FISA was never a barrier to legitimate investigations as they approved over 99% of all interceptions, and the law was written to provide retroactive reporting to the court in the case of current activity. (Some agencies misinterpreted the clause to mean they couldn't communicate with each other, but this mistake was never tested in a courtroom -- they just hamstrung themselves under the misunderstanding.) While I'm not a fan of secret courts in a free country, I understand the need for secrecy in these cases, and FISA was a very Solomonic compromise.

Anyway, if we take it away and the FBI can't find a way to get the job done legally, then it simply was too much power in the first place.

Re:Classic Corruption of Power

[digitalchinky]

I worked in government for a lot of years and lived through quite a few investigations and audits by these 'oversight' groups.

I always found it amusing when I read the odd final report or two - in most cases their summaries state the investigations were wide reaching and involved consultation with staff from all levels of the workforce. Given that in some cases the very things I was personally working on were being investigated, and the very tiny scope of people involved, never once did anyone approach me and ask questions. Ever.

You might want to question FISA or whatever oversight mechanism exists in your neck of the world a little more closely too.

I do concur with you by the way, removal of power is often the most correct solution.

Re:Classic Corruption of Power

[ScrewMaster]

The other reason for having a warrant is that, should the individual under suspicion be formally accused of a crime, the lack of judicial oversight and abuse of process should get the charges thrown out. I doubt the FBI cares much about that in the current context, since they're casting a wide net, knowing full well that few, if any, of the people they are illegally investigating will ever be accused of anything. Furthermore, should they uncover actionable evidence of criminal activity (even crimes that they would never have found without illegal surveillance) they can just go get a warrant then. In the meantime, they can do what they want and not worry about warrants.

In an absolute sense, this is pretty incredible, but when you look at the history of the FBI it's just business as usual. They got reigned in after Hoover's abuses, but most of those restrictions got removed with the Patriot act. So know we're back in fuck-the-citizen mode, with Congress seemingly unwilling to do anything about it. Worse yet, the Feds have surveillance tools that Hoover's crowd could only dream about.

I know some people that used to be in the FBI, and they said they left because they didn't like the caliber of people that have been taking over since Bush began (ahem) "restructuring" law enforcement.

Even if it's ruled unconstitutional...

[Anik315]

Even if it's ruled unconstitutional, congress would find a way to circumvent the constitution as was done with the warrantless wiretaps.

Re:Even if it's ruled unconstitutional...

[Apple Acolyte]

I don't think you have done the wiretaps subject much justice with that post. The SCOTUS has affirmed the (Article II) right of the Executive branch to conduct warrant-less wiretaps on foreign targets, but it has stated that warrants are still required for domestic wiretaps. If you have evidence that Congress overrode the Court, I'd like to see it because such action by Congress would be unconstitutional. As for judicial oversight of NSLs, take a look at Wikipedia's coverage.

Re:Even if it's ruled unconstitutional...

[Anik315]

Yup, the Bush administration broke the law, and congress retroactively made a law making it legal.

Re:Even if it's ruled unconstitutional...

[Apple Acolyte]

Congress gave immunity to the complicit telecom companies, but that doesn't mean the authority was granted to carry out domestic warrant-less wiretaps in the future.

Re:Even if it's ruled unconstitutional...

[MooUK]

But it does suggest that they won't be punished for going along with it, which is almost the same for practical purposes.

Re:Even if it's ruled unconstitutional...

[Anik315]

Bush quietly seeks to make war powers permanent, by declaring indefinite state of war

Re:Even if it's ruled unconstitutional...

[chasisaac]

The sad part is neither party can be trusted.

Nice seeing a little resistance to corruption

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nice to see a little resistance to government corruption.

All of the U.S. government's many secret information-gathering departments and police departments believe that they can order executives of companies that do business in the U.S. to provide any help they want so that they can accomplish their purposes, whatever they are, and put the executives in prison if they reveal their activities.

Because of the surveillance, commerce in the U.S. is no longer safe. So international companies are taking their business elsewhere. That's one of the reasons for the economic downturn.

Taxpayers pay twice for the surveillance, once to have what are essentially activities of secret police, and another time as the economy is destroyed.

Often employees of U.S. government secret departments take jobs in commercial companies and pretend to be normal employees, while serving illegal purposes of the secret departments. So even companies in other countries cannot be trusted to be free of corrupt surveillance, paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

It is not a secret. There are plenty of books and articles about U.S. government surveillance. However, most people in the U.S. just don't want to believe the level of corruption is as great as it is. One purpose of having a huge amount of surveillance is to hide the surveillance that is really important to those who run things, whoever they are, the surveillance they use for profit.

Re:Nice seeing a little resistance to corruption

[Anonymous Coward]

I never considered some of the points you're making, such as the viewpoint of businesses (&, I don't blame them this, taking off from our shores internally, to avoid this type of persecution (& yes, it IS persecution)) - it's getting so a person can't feel as if "big brother is watching you", everywhere, & that makes myself @ least, fairly uncomfortable (not for bad reasons, but, for obvious ones - like feeling watched everywhere I am, when I have done no real wrongs). "Guilty till proven innocent" is the new mantra of the "Bush regime" apparently, subverting the constitution left and right. My history prof.'s told us in college back in the 1980's that the second little laws get passed, that keep affecting larger & larger bodies of the populace, that this is the first sign of a totalitarian state, & to look out for it... well, guess what? Here we are, approaching an Orwellian 1984-like society! They're taking away my faith in thia nation, such as it was anyhow.

Re:Nice seeing a little resistance to corruption

[ScrewMaster]

"Guilty till proven innocent" is the new mantra of the "Bush regime" apparently

Would even that much were true. I mean, that's how French law has always operated (Napoleonic Code and all): the burden of proof is on the accused. Granted, to an American they appear to have it exactly backwards.

The "Bush regime" has a mantra more along the lines of "you're guilty if we say you are, and you stay that way until we say you're not." Yes, Mr. Bush, the Constitution is only a piece of paper, but the significance of that paper to a quarter of a billion people seems to be completely lost on you. Or maybe it isn't, maybe you do know precisely what you're doing. In either case, your Oath of Office is broken.

So this is a lot worse then either "Innocent until proven guilty" or "Guilty until proven innocent", both of which are legal constructs used throughout the world. It hasn't affected many of us yet, but if something isn't done to derail this trend I fear that it will. Let's face it, nations do go bad, sometimes the rot spreads. Are we a totalitarian state yet? Are we a Communist Russia or a Red China? An East Germany? No, of course not, in spite of what you America-bashers would like to think.

That doesn't mean I like where we're going, or that as an American I can't perceive my government's missteps.

Not unconstitutional on their face

[MikeRT]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Secret warrants may be shady and sleazy, but they're perfectly in line with the 4th amendment. The 1st amendment also has security restrictions on it by court precedent, thus I think they'll have a hard time arguing that they have a first amendment right to tell their customers about a NSL.

Re:Not unconstitutional on their face

[Detritus]

I'd like to know what the legal basis is for the gag order. There is a huge difference between someone who voluntarily agreed to all this stuff when they applied for a security clearance and J. Random Citizen. There is no "national security" exception in the Constitution.

Re:Not unconstitutional on their face

[chasingsol]

Here's your problem. The 4th amendment is typically protected by a judge signing the search warrant, which provides oversight against abuses. Even the secret FISA court provides oversight. The problem here, there is NO oversight whatsoever. That's not conforming to the spirit of the 4th amendment at all.

Re:Not unconstitutional on their face

[Anonymous Coward]

Except NSL's are not warrants. They are not issued by a court upon showing of probable cause but simply by the FBI.

Re:Not unconstitutional on their face

[Opportunist]

At the very least I would demand that everyone that was wiretapped has the right to be informed about the wiretapping happening either after the prosecution ends or after a fixed period of time, whatever comes first (if you can't find anything incriminating about a person after a year of listening to his conversation, he probably does not do anything illegal).

This would keep those in power from frivulously using wiretapping against anyone without reason, just because someone had a hunch and he looked "suspicious", while still allowing the use of such powerful invasions into privacy as a tool of crime fighting.

I'm not per se against the use of wiretapping. It does have its place, but it is a huge invasion of private space that has to be reserved for the most serious crimes, threatening the lives and wellbeing of people would apply, and has to be subject to the most detailed review to prevent abuse.

The more potent a power, the more likely the abuse. It's an ancient law that can be traced through history. I'm not necessarily against handing power to the executive to prevent and fight crimes, but I do require them to be subject to tight control to ensure this power is not abused against the people it is supposed to protect.

Re:Not unconstitutional on their face

[Anonymous Coward]

another problem you may have with this argument is that they are using the first amendment not the 4th regarding the gag orders.

The first amendment as I posted elsewhere in this thread limits congress who are the ones that voted for and passed the patriot act (and all legislation really, the federal register stuff excluded).

So look at the first amendment and see if it allows congress to pass a gag order of any scale. They do with "prior restraint" (it covers largely national security issues, nuclear devices are one of the most commonly known under prior restraint). They also do it with anti-obscenity laws, truth in advertising laws, SEC investing statements, FDA medicine statements, and various other things. In reality if you use deceptive advertising they dont have to have a "speech law" to get you on, they have the fraud itself, so really these laws should not exist, nor do they need to - with obscenity being the odd man out, but that is a morality based thing and not much of anything else. I can understand a reason to say that it shouldnt be given to children, but even that I do not think is allowed. However I am so far to the right that I view the constitution much more strictly than anyone I know - especially the courts and politicians who claim to have studied it. And by "to the right" I mean "less government" not a political party - far right is not facism (that is far left actually), far right means less government more freedom. Anarchy is the only thing further to the right than me. Personally I would like to see only laws that preserve rights, anything that is just out of morality or to get votes I think should be repealed, leave laws simple, murder bad, rape bad, arson bad, as long as you dont infringe on the rights (not desires) of others you should be allowed to do it. That is what being on the "right" end of the political spectrum is supposed to mean.

Prior restraint is court upheld so it would be a hard battle the only way to show is that it doesnt apply to any "ongoing national security investigation" which appears to be the hook they are using at this time, and the judge indicated that he isnt buying it.

Judges are free from this restriction and may issue as many gag orders as they see fit.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Re:Not unconstitutional on their face

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to know what the legal basis is for the gag order.

Simple: Because they said so.

And if that is not enough its allso to defend you against enemy combattants, pedofiles and jaywalkers (don't forget that last group, they are nasty pleople).

If you do not think that is enough than we should maybe come to the obvious conclusion that you want to undermine the strength of the US of A, and you should be kept an eye on.

See ? Another perfectly good reason to have those secret warrents handly : to keep malversants as you under scruteny, and find out whom you are in contact with. All of them must be checked too.

Re:Not unconstitutional on their face

[Felix Da Rat]

Not being able to tell the subject of the investigation is one thing, but the gag order in the NSL mean that recipients can't even speak to anyone about the letters. The only people they can speak to are people necessary to enforce the letter, who then become bound by the gag, and lawyers, who are (I believe) exempt. It's one of the reasons why these are so hard to fight.

Unfortunately, these gag orders also make it difficult to get any sort of feel for how they are being abused. From internal investigations, it is known that many of these letters overstep the Law, as they lack any judicial approval in their requests for information. But as people can't speak out about them, determining the impact these have had is almost impossible.

Finally, I am not okay with the concept of our Law Enforcement Officers being 'shady and sleazy'; even if it's within the letter of the law. If instead of sending letters, the FBI were to pull people from the street, interrogate them, and then threaten with jail to and keep them from speaking about it, would that be okay?

Re:Not unconstitutional on their face

[ScrewMaster]

Unfortunately, these gag orders also make it difficult to get any sort of feel for how they are being abused.

Screw that. I don't want a "feel" for the orders ... as a citizen I want hard numbers detailing how they were used, who issued them, and why. Anything less than full disclosure is unacceptable, given the nature of these things. They want power, there's supposed to be accountability. That is in the spirit of the Constitution.

Re:Not unconstitutional on their face

[instarx]

Secret warrants may be shady and sleazy, but they're perfectly in line with the 4th amendment. The 1st amendment also has security restrictions on it by court precedent, thus I think they'll have a hard time arguing that they have a first amendment right to tell their customers about a NSL.

But these aren't warrants, secret or otherwise. They're simply 200,000 letters from the FBI demanding information. THAT'S the point, not that they are secret.

This could be interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

First I work for a phone company. Before you guys get sand in your vaginas, we were never served any subpoena, national security letter, or even asked if we would monitor anyone or anything. We have gotten subpoenas for simple fraud stuff that was going on through our network, and those all came with orders to remain silent (one FCC one related to fraud the rest were state issued). Its quite common that while an investigation is underway that gag orders are placed on the subpoenas or anything else to prevent those being monitored from knowing about it. This makes sense to a point, since revealing that its going on can mean nothing of value is said on the phone, and make the investigation somewhat more difficult. And before you guys get all upset, there are real criminals who commit real crimes over the phone.

So basically if it turns out that gag orders when issued from the government are not constitutional then a bunch will have to change. Subpoenas and the like issued to anyone may not be able to have the gag order, although usually that is done with judicial oversight so it would be a court order, which the constitution does allow.

Companies like the one I work for may or may not be obliged to honor the gag order after this case, and suspects can likely be tipped off (and for some employees they will look at this as an extra payday, to sell the people the information, or better to have them pay monthly fees to be notified immediately ... hmm maybe I am approaching this work thing all wrong)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If the patriot act has it, that was a congressional thing, so it would apply. But again Judges are not Congress, as a result they can issue gag orders under the first amendment, so the vast vast majority of wiretaps will probably still have gag orders on them, at least until the case is disposed.

Re:This could be interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I wanted to add, mostly because I forgot, that "prior restraint" does exist, it is court upheld and it does allow congress to infringe on free speech (as do the anti-obscenity laws, truth in advertising laws, FDA rules on medications, SEC rules on prospectuses, the list goes on).

You also arent allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater but you can yell "Is something burning? I smell smoke" and your friend can yell "so do I" and both of you can run screaming towards the exit.

My guess is that prior restraint is the hook for this, and the argument will be "ongoing national security investigations".

Surprise!!!

[strabes]

Tonight's top story: Government agencies headed by unelected bureaucrats violate citizens' constitutional rights. More at 11.

OT Canada/US?

[florescent_beige]

This is only peripherally related, but I've been wondering about this lately.

The CIA isn't allowed to spy domestically right? I think the same holds true of CSIS in Canada. But nothing stops the CIA from spying on Canadians in Canada and the same would be true of CSIS.

Since Canada and the US cooperate on intelligence, what's to stop CSIS and the CIA from spying on each others citizens and sharing the information? That wouldn't technically break any laws.

Probably the NSA could even help CSIS, I remember in 2006 NSA resources were used to help catch 17 people suspected of planning blowing up the Canadian parliament buildings.

Re:OT Canada/US?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly what they do. Google 'Echelon'.

Re:Domestic Terrorism and Organized Crime.

[DragonTHC]

you're forgetting that citizens of the USA have certain civil rights.

Domestic terrorism as you call it does not fall under the umbrella of "terrorism" legislation. It falls under regular law enforcement.

That's because they are US citizens. The article is about how the civil rights of citizens is being violated by the FBI, who know they aren't supposed to issue NSLs except under dire circumstances. The point is, the FBI has begun using NSLs in lieu of warrants because it just makes their job easier. It's illegal to do what they're doing.

Distinction between court orders and "letters"

[untree]

Like many of the people in this thread, you are failing to note there is a significant difference between a gag ordered attached to a court order or subpoena, and one attached to a letter from the FBI. I very much doubt this ruling would apply to gag orders attached to the former -- those orders have been at least minimally vetted by the judiciary.

I'm completely comfortable with a gag order being used where the enforcement agency has first received the approval of the judicial branch. It is this unilateral executive branch power that gives me the willies... maybe some judge out there will agree. Though I'm not holding my breath.

Re:Distinction between court orders and "letters"

[Anonymous Coward]

no I specifically mentioned that judges can do them but congress doesnt have the power to under the first amendment. I do not think making that explicit statement implies in any way that I failed to note a difference given that warrants are issued by a judge (subpoenas are not in the federal system one side just files it and bam its a subpoena, only if challenged does it see a judge) and the letters are issued under the patriot act.

So to contradict you, the FBI issues subpoenas as well as the national security letters. Well technically the AUSA will do the subpoena but it might as well be the FBI (or any other federal type that would issue a subpoena).

My distinction between who has the power to issue gag orders should mean that you agree with what I said, since I was quite clear that the constitution forbids congress, it does not in any way forbid the judicial branch. The executive doesnt count because they cant do anything not authorized by law, so if congress doesnt let em they cant issue the letters.

The wording is so clear that I fail to see how a judge could do this, other than under the previously established "prior restraint" doctrine. If its truely a national security threat it can be held under an executive branch issued gag order. Nuclear weapon plans are one such "known" item, why popular mechanics never did a story on this (I think some magazine wanted to and that is when it fell into that classification but I dont recall if that was a myth or not).

Because prior restraint is supreme court affirmed, only if you can get them to rehear the issue (which most likely they wont) can it be reversed, and they are not likely to do that given that they probably do see a valid need to keep national security information secret and infringe on a newspapers right. For example if battle plans leaked, should a reporter have a constitutional right to make that public? The courts have said no, publishing sensitive information can cost lives when it comes to some things.

The quote from the judge however seemed to be more of a "I dont believe that it is covered by prior restraint" when talking about naming just the telephone companies that were issued and how many to each.

"You can't tell me that any terrorist is going to make anything out of the fact you issued NSLs to AT&T and Verizon," said Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor, using a hypothetical example.

That just strikes me as him not believing that its a national security threat - what the government is claiming - and that is where he can rightly say open the records a bit. I personally do not believe that this information would be a threat, yeah there are some small phone companies if you live in a town of 30 people and that company was issued a letter you can probably guess it was about you. But that is likely to be rare as any real terrorist would want a big city to blend in/hide in, and towns of 30 people generally do not attract the attention of the government unless its over drug stuff, which very well may be the patriot act did a lot of things using "organized crime, terrorism and money laundering" and who has the government most associated with laundering? Organized crime and drug dealers.

So that may be why there were so many, and they do not want it to get out that rural somewhere with this guy who has a big pot farm they seeded the investigation with one of these letters, suppressed the information required under the Brady ruling and the other one both are considered 6th amendment due process rights. Got a warrant based on false testimony, their CI was the wiretap, etc. It would be a disaster if even 1% of those letters were for that type of stuff, and its probably that its at least that much.

As foretold by Lucas:

[Trevin]

Nute Gunray: Ah, my lord, is that... legal?

Darth Sidious: I will make it legal.

Re:As foretold by Lucas:

[witherstaff]

You know that makes sense!

When it's just Lucas writing, he can't do a script that doesn't make the audience twinge a few times. Just like Bush can't deliver a speech without making the audience twinge.

Re:As foretold by Lucas:

[ScrewMaster]

Twinge. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Try "cringe" instead.

Re:Domestic Terrorism and Organized Crime.

[cryptodan]

How is my comment flame bait? It is not flame bait.

Re:Domestic Terrorism and Organized Crime.

[Free the Cowards]

This post is frighteningly wrong-headed.

All terrorism falls under regular law enforcement. There is no legal basis for this mysterious separation of "terrorist" from "criminal" that we see today. They're all criminals. The only time you treat people differently is when you're fighting a war against their country. Despite the modern name of the "War on Terror", such a name has no legal standing.

And then these civil rights you talk about do not happen because the people in question are US citizens. The Constitution is quite explicit when it wants to discuss only citizens. In most places it just talks about people. To enjoy amendments 1 through 10 you do not need to be a citizen, merely be in the country where those amendments have the force of law.

To put it another way: some Saudi Arabian guy arrested in New York for trying to blow up the Empire State Building has exactly the same civil rights as Jane Soccer Mom who was born in Brooklyn. At least he's supposed to. Government seems to be ignoring this inconvenient legality these days.

Not what you may think.

[S-100]

This is not apparently what most people think. It presses a lot of people's hot buttons, and many here are presuming that these "letters" are wiretaps or requests for private information. They are not.

It says 97% of them are requests to take down information that is already public.

Is this censorship? No, as long as the government simply requests the takedown, with no legal force behind it. Every ISP has its own TOS, and it's completely within the law for them to make some arbitrary limitations on your "free speech". As a private entity, they have that right, and if the government (or any other entity) points out a TOS violation and the ISP pulls the offending material down, there's no violation of law or free speech rights.

Let's keep the fight for the right times.

Free Speech and Privacy vs Security and Secrecy

[houbou]

You know, all of these issues come down to the following:

Accountability

In this day and age of terrorist activities, computer virus, electronic theft, etc..., the government (FBI, CIA, etc...) they do need to do their jobs and our Free Speech and our Privacy are both going to have to bend when our security depends on it.

You can't have it all, and certainly for those out there who have NOTHING to hide, who don't perform any criminal ventures, I doubt they care if Big Brother is watching over them.

So, as long as these agencies are truly accountable for their actions, we must let them do their jobs, I think that's really what this is all about. We may not like it, but then again, it is what it is.

These agencies must not only deal with real time crisis, but must try and forecast crisis, so, mining the internet for information and clues is one of the ways to go.

Any disaster, crime that can be prevented, certainly we are all for that, no?

So, as long as they are responsible and accountable for their actions and can justify them if asked to, we must let them do their jobs.

Re:Free Speech and Privacy vs Security and Secrecy

[HiThere]

It's really too bad that there isn't a *UN*-insightful moderation.

I don't think this is a troll, or flamebait. Just stupid and un-foresightful...or possibly totally lacking in a knowledge of history, and how government actions creep, and leadership changes.

Were it possible to have an ideally honest and upright government, AND to rely on it staying that way, then this proposal would be reasonable. To believe in that at this point appears willful blindness.

Re:Free Speech and Privacy vs Security and Secrecy

[colinrichardday]

Accountability

And how do we hold government officials accountable?

In this day and age of terrorist activities, computer virus, electronic theft, etc..., the government (FBI, CIA, etc...) they do need to do their jobs and our Free Speech and our Privacy are both going to have to bend when our security depends on it.

Why? What if our liberties are more valuable than our security?

You can't have it all, and certainly for those out there who have NOTHING to hide, who don't perform any criminal ventures, I doubt they care if Big Brother is watching over them.

I would like something more substantial than your doubt that the government is confining its attention to actual criminals.

So, as long as these agencies are truly accountable for their actions, we must let them do their jobs, I think that's really what this is all about. We may not like it, but then again, it is what it is.

Again, given the secrecy involved, how do we hold agencies accountable? Also, what is this "it" in your "it is what it is"?

Any disaster, crime that can be prevented, certainly we are all for that, no?

Typical government disregard for costs. We do not have an infinite anti-terror budget, so the cost of preventing one terrorist act may be the foregone opportunity to have prevented twenty others.

Re:Free Speech and Privacy vs Security and Secrecy

[houbou]

It's funny, the ultimately, the responsibility of an honest and upright government lies in each and every one of us.

The problem is that today's political system only encourages people to participate when its convinient for the elected.

The truth is, if we all took time and paid attention to what is being done by our government, it would have to be honest and upright.

But most people like to just coast along and pass the buck, and that's why there is abuse in the first place. Because we, the people don't monitor the people we elect.

Re:Free Speech and Privacy vs Security and Secrecy

[Tuoqui]

What if you say have a webpage that uses a RED background... Then they spy your website and want to throw you in jail so they make a law banning the use of RED backgrounds on websites and come busting down your door tommorow?

A bit extreme but the fallacy of 'If you got nothing to hide...' relies on you always remaining within the law and that the laws are sane and easy to understand. None of which exist presently. The US legal system cant even tell you how many laws are on the books that can land you in jail but the number is something like 15,000+

I know exactly what I would do with a NSL.

[rawtatoor]

The full contents of the letter and all details would be on CNN within a week of these fascists trying to scare me. Consequences be damned, you throw around that Ben Franklin quote around enough, practice what you preach.

I want to know why there are 200,000 weak minded, pathetic scared sheep out there who are willing to bow down like this.

Further, you can't tell me there are no /. readers who have received one. Where are the anonymous stories? Are you ~all~ appeasers? History will not be kind to us I'm afraid.

Re:I know exactly what I would do with a NSL.

[the eric conspiracy]

See you in the water board room at Gitmo.

doesnt make sense

[Orig_Club_Soda]

"FBI ISP Letters May Have Violated Free Speech" How can the FBI order a gag order? And isn't this a Freedom of Information violation?

Re:doesnt make sense

[ScrewMaster]

They can do anything they want until they get caught and called to account. Now, see, that's the fundamental issue with any society. Do people act honorably towards their fellow citizens because, well, that's what good people do ... or do they just do whatever the hell they want so long as they don't get caught? Seriously, our government is taking a very Asian view of matters lately.

WRONG

[Jane Q. Public]

These were "requests for information" regarding CUSTOMERS of particular ISPs. The requests for information did not necessarily have ANYTHING to do with publicly available information or posts on the internet. I don't know where you got that idea that they did... these were not DMCA takedown notices!

There aren't.

[Jane Q. Public]

There are not 200,000 sheep out there. There are only a few (at most a few hundred) ISPs which acted like sheep, 200,000 times!

There is a difference. These NSLs were not to individuals, they went to ISPs.

Re:There aren't.

[Anonymous Coward]

It probably would not violate the gag order if they just post how many NSL's they have received and how many they complied with so we could make intelligent decisions about which ISP we want to use.

Re:Domestic Terrorism and Organized Crime.

[russotto]

All terrorism falls under regular law enforcement. There is no legal basis for this mysterious separation of "terrorist" from "criminal" that we see today. They're all criminals. The only time you treat people differently is when you're fighting a war against their country.

So what do you say about a terrorist act orchestrated by an organization person who has a position de-facto at least co-equal to that of the head of state of another country? Seems to me that one might be considered actual war, rather than crime. Then there's the grey areas like terrorist acts controlled by foreign organizations sponsored by and perhaps controlled by foreign states.

Re:Domestic Terrorism and Organized Crime.

[Free the Cowards]

Historically, the terrorists get treated like criminals, and the heads of state get treated like the heads of rogue states. See for example the prosecution of the Lockerbie bombing, wherein Libya was an international pariah for decades but the suspects got regular trials and the one found responsible went to regular jail.

I see no reason to change this approach, and every reason not to change it.

Cox

[ThorntonAZ]

I think it may be Cox that is going against the gov here. I suppose we may never know for sure but I think that is likely who it is.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Not bravery, just business

[roninamano]

From the amount of security letters the FBI is sending, all of which have to be handled by the legal department in a way similar to subpoenas and account liens, without the benefit of a payment (civil subpoenas usually come with a check to cover some costs), this is probably bringing the legal department to its knees with work. Hundreds of thousands of these letters whenever a fed gets in the mood for violating privacy is costing the ISP's a mint to comply with.

I suggest that this move is the company's way of saying "Enough Already!" and to start forcing the Govt to either pay for the searches or cut back drastically on the number of them. If searches are a service of Comcast, then hundreds of thousands of them for free are an unconstitutional taking of their service.

Sorry to spoil your thought that corporate concern over your rights was the cause of this action. Just good ole money! They'd be happy to violate your rights at anytime if it wasn't costing them profit!

Hardly secret....just a little unknown.

[mccabem]

COINTELPRO is possibly (but not definitely) the most egregious example known in the U.S.