Slashdot Mirror


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."

14 of 117 comments (clear)

  1. At last by monsul · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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....

    --
    Make It Secret Protect your privacy
    1. Re:At last by chasingsol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:At last by Smallpond · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  2. It's not a violation........ by budword · · Score: 5, Insightful

    if breaking the law is never punished.

  3. 200,000? by KwKSilver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
    1. Re:200,000? by m.ducharme · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    2. Re:200,000? by m.ducharme · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
  4. Classic Corruption of Power by bigtallmofo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
    1. Re:Classic Corruption of Power by schon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  5. Re:Only 97%? by chasingsol · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Nice seeing a little resistance to corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re:Not unconstitutional on their face by chasingsol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Surprise!!! by strabes · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    Its = possessive. It's = "it is"
  9. Re:Not unconstitutional on their face by Felix+Da+Rat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?