ISP Owner Who Fought FBI Spying Freed From Gag Order

Tootech writes "So you wonder what happens when an ISP recieves a a so-called 'national security letter' from the FBI? Well, read this about an ISP owner's fight to not have to turn over everything and the sink to the FBI: 'The owner of an internet service provider who mounted a high-profile court challenge to a secret FBI records demand has finally been partially released from a 6-year-old gag order that forced him to keep his role in the case a secret from even his closest friends and family. He can now identify himself and discuss the case, although he still can't reveal what information the FBI sought. Nicholas Merrill, 37, was president of New York-based Calyx Internet Access when he received a so-called "national security letter" from the FBI in February 2004 demanding records of one of his customers and filed a lawsuit to challenge it.'"

Comments

Troubling

[mcgrew]

Despite the fact that the FBI later dropped its demand for the records, Merrill was prohibited from telling his fiancée, friends or family members that he had received the letter or that he was embroiled in a lawsuit challenging its legitimacy. He occasionally showed up for court hearings about the case, but sat silently in the audience with other court observers. In 2007, he was prevented from publicly accepting an award for his courage from the American Civil Liberties Union, because he was not allowed to identify himself as the plaintiff in the case.

So much for the first amendment. I'd have posted it all to slashdot, written letters to editors, harrassed my congresscritters, and gone to jail.

Free country, my ass. You no longer have freedom of speech.

Re:Troubling

[Shakrai]

So much for the first amendment. I'd have posted it all to slashdot, written letters to editors, harrassed my congresscritters, and gone to jail.

Or you could be a little bit smarter about it and send it to a news outlet and/or wikileaks.....

Re:Troubling

[Pojut]

Free country, my ass. You no longer have freedom of speech.

And yet, you have the freedom to say what I just quoted without being thrown in some secret prison.

Still, I know what you're getting at. I'll leave it with a Bill Hicks quote:

"Go back to bed, America! You are free to do what we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!"

Re:Troubling

[spun]

Freedom of speech has always taken a backseat to the notion of national security, even when it is a false notion. This isn't new, but the amount of security we are told we need seems to have increased dramatically.

"Liberty, Security, Empire: pick any two," we used to have liberty and security, now we have security and empire, but our empire sure doesn't seem to be doing anything for the average citizen.

Re:Troubling

[Hatta]

What good is it to be able to say "fuck the government" if you can't say "fuck these agents, from this branch of the government, for this specific action"?

Re:Troubling

[Monkeedude1212]

Which would have gotten you sent to jail? He basically said what you said, telling it on slashdot and writing letters to editors is kind of like sending it to a news outlet.

Wikileaks couldn't really have helped because as soon as they provide any information his anonymity is gone because the FBI will have known it was he who leaked the info.

Re:Troubling

[Shakrai]

We don't have an "empire" and free speech has always been something that can be curtailed for an ongoing criminal investigation. National Security really doesn't have anything to do with it. When I was in the ISP business I learned that it's illegal in New York State to tell one of your customers that he's the subject of a electronic surveillance warrant. Are you going to claim that's an infringement on free speech?

This law isn't troubling because the ISP owner can't tell the public about the NSL. It's troubling because he can't even tell his own lawyer. If the law is found to be unconstitutional that will be the reason why.

Re:Troubling

[SirGarlon]

"Liberty, Security, Empire: pick any two,"

If only we could have two! All we've got is the empire.

Re:Troubling

[Shakrai]

Wikileaks couldn't really have helped because as soon as they provide any information his anonymity is gone because the FBI will have known it was he who leaked the info.

No they wouldn't. They might suspect that but proving it in a Court of Law is an entirely different matter. It's a safe assumption that a fair number of people at the FBI would also have known about the NSL. Since you can't rule them out (it's hard to prove a negative after all) reasonable doubt would exist that the ISP owner leaked the documents.

Re:Troubling

[Lunix Nutcase]

Free country, my ass. You no longer have freedom of speech.

You're about 212 years behind the times.

Re:Troubling

[Lunix Nutcase]

And yes, those acts were repealed, but it just goes to show that the 1st Amendment has taken a backseat to government interest since pretty much the beginning.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget "compliance". If you can't tell anybody, parse that as everybody, including them. They ask about it, then you just claim ignorance in compliance with the order.

Re:Troubling

[schon]

They might suspect that but proving it in a Court of Law is an entirely different matter.

And as we all know, if it's impossible to prove in court, they won't ever arrest you and destroy your business.

Oh, wait...

Re:Troubling

[Hatta]

We don't have an "empire" and free speech has always been something that can be curtailed for an ongoing criminal investigation

I don't see an exception for criminal investigations in the First Amendment.

When I was in the ISP business I learned that it's illegal in New York State to tell one of your customers that he's the subject of a electronic surveillance warrant. Are you going to claim that's an infringement on free speech?

Yes.

Re:Troubling

[spun]

Yes, we do have an Empire. We have colonies and military bases all over the world. We have intervened in dozens of country's internal politics. We have waged wars of aggression and toppled democratically elected leaders like Salvador Allende.

A good place to start is the wiki article on American Imperialism, which is obviously horribly slanted if you think no such article should exist because no such thing exists, but you will find a lot of people all over the world strongly believe that not only does American imperialism exist, it has killed someone they know. Even if you don't think any such thing exists, it might be enlightening to you to research just what it is that all these people are calling 'American Imperialism."

Re: Troubling

[Black Parrot]

now we have security and empire, but our empire sure doesn't seem to be doing anything for the average citizen.

Did empires ever?

Re:Troubling

[mcgrew]

free speech has always been something that can be curtailed for an ongoing criminal investigation.

Yes, but there was always judicial oversight -- if a law enforcement agency wanted your records, they had to go to a judge and have a warrant issued. These letters need no warrant, despite the fact that the Constitution says "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."

TFA is, as I said, quite troubling. The fourth amendment has lost all meaning, as well as the first, which reads "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech".

When I was in the ISP business I learned that it's illegal in New York State to tell one of your customers that he's the subject of a electronic surveillance warrant. Are you going to claim that's an infringement on free speech?

No, because that looks like a judge has to issue a warrant. No judge's warrant is required for the FBI. From TFA:With an NSL, the FBI does not need to seek a court order to obtain such records, nor does it need to prove just cause. An FBI field agent simply needs to draft an NSL stating the information being sought is "relevant" to a national security investigation...

The gag orders raise the possibility for extensive abuse of NSLs, under the cover of secrecy. Indeed, in 2007, a Justice Department Inspector General audit found that the FBI, which issued almost 200,000 NSLs between 2003 and 2006, had abused its authority and misused NSLs.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Cowpat]

otoh, wikileaks might actually publish it first. A conventional newspaper will propably just shop him, and give the letter back to the FBI.

Re:Troubling

[BStroms]

So much for the first amendment. I'd have posted it all to slashdot, written letters to editors, harrassed my congresscritters, and gone to jail.

Free country, my ass. You no longer have freedom of speech.

I could be wrong, but somehow I suspect you wouldn't be as supportive of unlimited freedom of speech if the story were about an IRS agent claiming it as he made public all the personal information he had on everyone he'd audited. Freedom of speech should allow you to express whatever opinions you want. It should not give you a right to reveal information that can do real material damage to others without facing punishment.

Re:Troubling

[Monchanger]

I don't see an exception for criminal investigations in the First Amendment.

That's because you don't understand the law. Read any court case about the limitation of freedom of speech and you'll see where that comes from.

Neither do you have unrestricted access to 'arms' as the NRA narrowly thinks the Second states.

Re:Troubling

[RAMMS EIN]

Personally, I haven't really believed there is freedom of speech in the United States ever since I heard about free speech zones.

I first heard about free speech zones in an article about how protesters against G.W. Bush were directed to free speech zones that were far enough away from where Bush would be passing that he, his supporters, and other onlookers would not be able to hear them. Apparently, free speech zones predate G.W. Bush's government, though.

I'm not sure how useful free speech is if you can only exercise it where nobody who doesn't already agree with you will hear it.

Re:Troubling

[spun]

Despite what you may have learned in junior high, "Put the bong down and step away slowly," is not a cogent counter argument.

Re:Troubling

[commodore64_love]

>>>We don't have an "empire"

We have an empire in the same sense that the British once had an empire. Sure Britain was democratic, but it still had an empire that reached around the world. So too does the US with bases straddling the globe.

Well... at least until we go bankrupt.

Re:Troubling

[Intron]

Freedom of speech has always taken a backseat to the notion of national security, even when it is a false notion. This isn't new, but the amount of security we are told we need seems to have increased dramatically.

"Liberty, Security, Empire: pick any two," we used to have liberty and security, now we have security and empire, but our empire sure doesn't seem to be doing anything for the average citizen.

In what sense have NSLs and the Patriot Act increased security? If I were a terrorist I would get a job with the government, since I can get any information I need and not have to worry about any oversight.The fed is up to 2.15 M employees, you think they are all thoroughly screened? If we were really concerned with security, we would be making the government more open.

Re:Troubling

[Comrade Ogilvy]

This law isn't troubling because the ISP owner can't tell the public about the NSL. It's troubling because he can't even tell his own lawyer. If the law is found to be unconstitutional that will be the reason why.

On the nose.

This NSL is so manifestly loathsome it would be so tempting to simply publish the letter. It puts a citizen in a position where he may be breaking the law no matter what, without the Constitutionally protected advice of an attorney.

What happens if the FBI were to demand from you actions for which you could be civilly or even criminally libel? Would "just following orders" in defiance of your own common sense be a defense you want to rely on?

Re:Troubling

[Hatta]

The first amendment is pretty clear. Any ruling that contradicts the clear and obvious meaning of the first amendment is wrong.

Re:Troubling

[Red Flayer]

Freedom of speech has always taken a backseat to the notion of national security, even when it is a false notion. This isn't new, but the amount of security we are told we need seems to have increased dramatically.

It was getting better until recently... the history of the limitation of free speech in the US has showed, over two centuries, a gradual trend of easing of restrictions during times of conflict/war.

This trend is in danger of changing, with inroads against it made under GWB and not being reversed as yet under BHO.

Geoffrey Stone's Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from The Sedition Act of 1798 to The War on Terrorism is a very approachable and enlightening read on the topic.

Re: Troubling

[spun]

now we have security and empire, but our empire sure doesn't seem to be doing anything for the average citizen.

Did empires ever?

Oddly enough, they have not. You'd think the average citizen would have learned that by now, but having a winning empire is a bit like having a winning sports team: even if you're a big fat loser who never played any sport, you can take pride in the fact that someone you identify with is kicking the ass of someone you've decided not to like.

Re:Troubling

[Shakrai]

Yes.

That's absurd. Leftists are so fond of making the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy when it suits them (typically in conversations about infringements on the 2nd amendment) but now you claim the 1st amendment is absolute? It's not illegal to shout "fire!" -- it's illegal to do so in a manner that endangers public safety (see reckless endangerment laws). Likewise, it's not illegal to publish a letter that you received from law enforcement -- but it is illegal to interfere with an ongoing investigation (see obstruction of justice laws)

I really don't see the 1st amendment issue here. The NSL law is troubling for other reasons (prohibition on seeking legal advice) but not because you can't disclose the letter while the investigation is still ongoing.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure you would have. *rolls eyes*

Re:Troubling

[commodore64_love]

>>>When I was in the ISP business I learned that it's illegal in New York State to tell one of your customers that he's the subject of a electronic surveillance warrant.

That law is null and void according to the Higher Law of the NY Constitution: "Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press."

Re:Troubling

[RAMMS EIN]

Forgot to add:

On the other hand, I am pleasantly surprised about how much vocal criticism there is in the USA. Living in the Netherlands, I hear and see more criticism and discussion of American policy than of Dutch policy. You're doing something right over there that we're doing wrong over here. Criticism and discussion are good, because only through them can you arrive at better decisions.

Re:Troubling

[commodore64_love]

>>>the FBI will have known it was he who leaked the info.

And people wonder why I fear Government more than GM, microsoft, RCA or other corporations. It should be obvious.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

Put the bong down and step away slowly.

If you will not smoke the bong, you must bow down and worship Aqua Buddha!

Re:Troubling

[badboy_tw2002]

And the fact they don't even need a court order to issue one. And as with any power granted without oversite, it will be abused. Trust them to do their job, but don't trust them.

Re:Troubling

[spun]

It's amusing to watch liberals fall all over themselves justifying the fact that BHO has not reversed Bush's policies on this issue. Well, not so much amusing as terribly, terribly depressing.

Re:Troubling

[spun]

Freedom of speech has always taken a backseat to the notion of national security, even when it is a false notion. This isn't new, but the amount of security we are told we need seems to have increased dramatically.

"Liberty, Security, Empire: pick any two," we used to have liberty and security, now we have security and empire, but our empire sure doesn't seem to be doing anything for the average citizen.

In what sense have NSLs and the Patriot Act increased security?

In what sense did I say they did increase security?

Re: Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

the roman empire netted common soldiers a nice plot of land in Gaul, the poor in Rome cheap Egyptian wheat, and the empire as a whole several hundred miles of buffer between itself and possible invaders

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

you don't seem to anything better to do

Re:Troubling

[commodore64_love]

Read the article:

"In Merrill's case, although the letter's gag order "was totally clear that they were saying that I couldn't speak to a lawyer" about it, he immediately contacted his personal attorney, and together they went to the ACLU in New York, which agreed to represent him. "My gut feeling is I'm an American," Merrill said, in an interview with Threat Level on Tuesday. "I always have a right to an attorney. There's no such thing as you can't talk to your attorney."

This guy wasn't allowed to defend himself with a professional lawyer.
Clearly that is NULL according to both US and NY Constitutions.
And Supreme Court ruling (see the movie Gideon's Trumpet).

Re:Troubling

[Shakrai]

As I said, the law is troubling, just not from a 1st amendment perspective. I'm not defending the NSL law. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of claiming a 1st amendment issue exists because you can't reveal the fact that wiretap exists and/or documents were requested during an ongoing criminal investigation.

Re:Troubling

[spun]

The bases are not all there at the behest of current local governments, we have ongoing treaties dating back to WWII that they can not break without serious repercussions. As for colonies, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Marianna Islands, the US virgin Islands, American Samoa, are all official colonies, but I consider Iraq to be a colony, too, in that we have extracted billions of dollars in natural resources that remain unaccounted for.

Re:Troubling

[nj_peeps]

I really don't see the 1st amendment issue here. The NSL law is troubling for other reasons (prohibition on seeking legal advice) but not because you can't disclose the letter while the investigation is still ongoing.

Last I checked you always have the right to an attorney (which he did contact) no matter what, but this is only part of the problem with NSL's. It's more the infringement of the 4th amendment that concerns me. This is just as bad as the warrantless wire tapping that was going on (and most likely still it). It's an abuse of power if you don't have one branch of government checking on the other. Now if the NSL came with a warrent, signed by a judge to obtain the information/items that where being asked for in the NSL (with just the NSL having the gag order to "protect the ongoing investigation") that would be IMHO would not be an abuse of power.

Re:Troubling

[duppyconqueror]

Let's not forget Mosaddegh "Mohammad Mosaddegh...was the democratically elected[1][2][3][4] Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953 when he was overthrown in a coup d'état backed by the United States Central Intelligence Agency."

Re:Troubling

[Hatta]

Those obstruction of justice laws also violate the First Amendment. Any judge that rules otherwise is failing in their duty to uphold the Constitution.

The 2nd amendment also codifies an absolute, personal, right of Americans to own any arms (but not munitions).

Re:Troubling

[Shakrai]

Yes, the NSL law is loathsome. I've never disputed that. I even responded to mcgrew earlier and suggested that I might be inclined to leak the letter to Wikileaks if I received one.

All I'm saying is that there isn't a 1st amendment issue when you prohibit a service provider from telling their customer that he's under surveillance. Interfering with an ongoing criminal investigation is obstruction of justice. That's been illegal since the Common Law (i.e: it predates the United States of America) and has never been ruled to be unconstitutional.

There is a 5th amendment issue here when the service provider is denied the right to confer with his attorney. There is a 4th amendment issue here when the subject of the NSL is denied his right to have a warrant issued before having his communications intercepted. I'm just not seeing a 1st amendment issue though.

Re:Troubling

[scot4875]

Those people are just the liberal counterpart to the conservatives who still think that GWB was the best president ever.

There are idiots who root for the home team on both sides.

--Jeremy

Re:Troubling

[Monchanger]

American interference in other sovereignties is not equal to maintaining an empire over them. That's an exaggeration made by people who can't find a proper way to explain their grievances.

Nations have long sought to influence and interfere with their neighbors. Spying, inciting unrest, sabotage, assassination- none of these were invented by the USA.

Empires expand to tax and pillage. The US actually gives money to other nations to get them to do what we want. Maintaining military bases is objectionable, but still doesn't count, if for no other reason than different bases are maintained for different reasons requiring different definitions and arguments.

I'm as against American Exceptionalism as the next guy, but pulling the simplistic empire card as if we're equivalent to the British, the Ottomans and the Macedonians is intellectually dishonest.

Re:Troubling

[spun]

Thanks for the rhetoric, Mr. Ayers. It's a shame you didn't set off more bombs in your heyday, eh? We could have had the socialist utopia you crave without having to assume this faux image of respectability.

I'm continually surprised by what passes for argumentation among conservatives. Petty snark, affronted whining, thoughtless jingoism, blatant fearmongering: it's no wonder that the majority of citizens find your positions puerile.

We're trying to have a grown up conversation here, if you can't act like a grown up and present your thoughts in a rational manner, you should go back and sit at the kid's table.

Re:Troubling

[mean pun]

And yet, you have the freedom to say what I just quoted without being thrown in some secret prison.

No police state is ever absolute. Even in the former DDR (in my limited knowledge the freakiest control freaks yet) you were able to get away with some things.

The fact remains that for six years someone was threatened with prison (secret or not) for simply telling someone that he'd been asked questions by the FBI. Surely that is cause for worry? It makes it far too easy to abuse the system, and the US three-letter agencies do not exactly have a spotless record with respect to abuse of the system.

Of course you also have to wonder how many similar cases there are that are still under a gag order, and whether there are even worse ones.

Re:Troubling

[thoromyr]

I know of at least one US military base that is officially there "at the behest of the local government". The local government has different ideas, depending on which official you ask.

The truthful answer is a bit more complicated, going along the lines of: they don't want us to have a military base in their country, but they *do* want something else and we used that as leverage to force the military base on them.

Saying that base is there "at the behest of the local government" is plain inaccurate. Saying that the local government permitted it under duress would be closer.

Re:Troubling

[spun]

We give less per capita than any other first world nation, and only to countries where we have an economic interest. What did we do to protect East Timor from Suharto? You also forgot to mention the Empire we are most like: the Dutch Empire. Empires are not the same as they used to be in any case, they are primarily economic rather than military. We still use the military to protect our economic interests, but we no longer need to occupy a country in order to exploit it. We just overthrow any elected head of state who won't play ball with our business interests.

Re: Troubling

[spun]

the roman empire netted common soldiers a nice plot of land in Gaul, the poor in Rome cheap Egyptian wheat, and the empire as a whole several hundred miles of buffer between itself and possible invaders

Okay, but aside from the Gaulish land, the cheap wheat and the defensible borders, what has the Empire ever done for us?

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

In America we are nothing if not 300 million strong, highly critical, aggressive pricks who think we know better. Sometimes, but not always, we're right.

Re:Troubling

[spun]

You are an idiot. Plenty of countries have 'voluntarily' accepted the yoke of empire, but that doesn't mean it's any less of an empire.

Re:Troubling

[NeutronCowboy]

Yes, we do. Because there is nothing inherent in a corporation that is different from a government, except there is a chance that the corporation has to operate under rules that are written and enforced by a government. However, without those rules, a corporation is nothing but a hegemony. If we're lucky, a meritocratic hegemony, but a hegemony nonetheless.

Re:Troubling

[Monchanger]

What did we do to protect East Timor

East Timor? They're not worth anything to us. Why should we spend to get them to do anything? Did you bother to read what I wrote? I wasn't talking about being a moral non-empire.

. We still use the military to protect our economic interests, but we no longer need to occupy a country in order to exploit it. We just overthrow any elected head of state who won't play ball with our business interests.

We haven't done this to China yet to stop the huge trade deficit and fix our economy. Why not? Oh right- because we don't do that the way you suggest.

Re:Troubling

[lymond01]

No one's saying you can't stand up to the government rules. But you need to recall that they are, at the time, rules and by breaking them you will likely have the punishment for doing so applied to your bad self. That's when you are actually allowed to do the most good by having a public trial, getting the media involved, and changing the public's mind. It's a big risk to be arrested by the federal government and most people balk at the opportunity it could present.

Re:Troubling

[Americano]

The reason for this is that your freedom of speech is not unlimited, and does not necessarily include with it the right to interfere with others' rights - their freedom of speech, and freedom to assemble are just as valuable under the law as your freedom to protest and speak your mind.

While I'd agree that the implementation of "free speech zones" can be a bit ridiculous, and probably not always compliant with the notion of "free speech,", it is important to recognize that "freedom of speech" does not give you unlimited rights to say whatever you want, wherever you want, in whatever manner you want, whenever you want. In the interests of public safety, and in the interests of preserving the rights of people to peaceably assemble (another right guaranteed by the First Amendment), these tradeoffs sometimes have to be made.

I think part of the issue with FSZ's has to do with the generally ineffective tone of modern protests. For instance, From the G20 convention in Toronto this past June:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fhGneV6rQg

This "protest" appears mostly to have devolved into a few college students chanting nonsensical but "funny" slogans at the police. Did they have a point? Who knows. Why are they there? Who knows. The kid practically giving a lap-dance to the officer no doubt is a facebook hero, but what the fuck is the point of this protest? I see no signs... I hear no discussion or criticism of G20 policies... I see a few kids making buffoons of themselves because "THE MAN" is out on the street to control a protest.

I've seen this sort of tone in other "protests," as well. People show up to "show their support" for something, and it devolves into a street carnival. I'm all for making a statement publicly against policies you feel are wrong-headed... but I don't think that the event organizers should be forced to deal with this sort of sophomoric nonsense either.

Re:Troubling

[Shakrai]

Those obstruction of justice laws also violate the First Amendment.

No, they really don't.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Shakrai, how many times have you been modded down replying to spun's lefty socialist posts over the years? How come you get modded down and he gets modded up? Is he friends with Malda or something?

Re:Troubling

[spun]

Don't you have a hit to take hippie?

What's your motivation for posting that? Are you trying to insult me? Win me over to your way of thinking? Convince others you are right? Whatever your motivations, you might want to look at your tactics. I don't think they are getting you what you want.

Re:Troubling

[Shakrai]

Civil disobedience is not a free activity. Sometimes it's worth paying the price for standing up for what you believe in. Rosa Parks was found guilty and assessed a fine. Does that mean she shouldn't have done what she did?

Re:Troubling

[Dishevel]

I'm continually surprised by what passes for argumentation among conservatives. Petty snark, affronted whining, thoughtless jingoism, blatant fearmongering: it's no wonder that the majority of citizens find your positions puerile.

Actually a minority of people are liberal and as of 2009 40% stated they are conservative in the US. Facts are a neat thing. But saying what you want is ever so convenient.

Re:Troubling

[spun]

I'm continually surprised by what passes for argumentation among liberals. Petty snark, affronted whining, thoughtless jingoism, blatant fearmongering: it's no wonder that the majority of citizens find your positions puerile.

I'm continually surprised by what passes for argumentation among moderates. Petty snark, affronted whining, thoughtless jingoism, blatant fearmongering: it's no wonder that the majority of citizens find your positions puerile.

"Petty snark, affronted whining, thoughtless jingoism, blatant fearmongering" people can exist in any social group. Please indicate yours and I'm sure we'll find plenty of "leaders" of your political party of choice who exact these same qualities.

Of course, you might convince some people you're smart by using such big words, but your post is as bad the parents in scope of ignorance. Sadly, you probably didn't even notice the hypocrisy.

Nope, I do not notice what does not exist. Calling someone out for being an asshole does not make one an assole.

Re:Troubling

[Shakrai]

Because there is nothing inherent in a corporation that is different from a government

Corporations don't have the power to send armed agents to kick in my door and slap handcuffs on me.....

Re:Troubling

[Shakrai]

No they wouldn't. The mainstream media has many flaws but they do tend to take source protection pretty seriously. Many reporters from mainstream outlets have gone to jail to protect their sources.

Re:Troubling

[Americano]

I think that, despite the doom & gloom you see evidenced here, as a country we are fairly respectful of free speech, in general. There are specific instances (such as this NSL gag order) where there is obvious and vicious potential for abuse. But people aren't generally being thrown in jail for criticizing the government and speaking freely. Look at the fire George Bush drew when he was president - that right there should show you that free speech is, generally, alive and well in the US. Look at the fire Barack Obama has drawn now that he's president - same thing. There are cases where some government policies abuse free speech, but as we see in this case, too - the system has self-corrected, at least to a degree.

I think it's natural that government agencies will attempt to abuse their powers - or at least, I *expect* that they will, being somewhat cynical. But I'm also glad to see that the system has partially corrected and that internal reviews are highlighting and restricting the use of these sorts of policies. That's the goal of the checks and balances, and I think that the real story here is that, by and large, they are working as designed. I expect new challenges will probably come as a result of this case, as well, and I think that's a good thing. As much as I think the ACLU goes a little overboard at times, on the whole, I'm glad they're there representing people in cases like this and focusing attention on these issues.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not absurd at all though. People (Criminals included) have a right to know when big brother is spying on them. If things have gone far enough to require spying on people, then they MUST have probable cause at that point, right? ... Apparently not.

This sort of thing makes me glad I live in a real free country.

Re:Troubling

[spun]

China? Why should we fix things that aren't broken? Anyway, did the existence of the Ottoman, French, Spanish and Dutch empires negate the existence of the British empire? Your argument is that, because we have not visibly exploited one of the most powerful and populous nations on Earth, we are not an empire. I don't think that argument is quite as persuasive as you think it is.

Re:Troubling

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

IANAL or constitutional scholar, but the FBI is I believe part of the executive branch, where the consitution and the first amendment in particular is aimed at the legislature: "Congress shall make no law"

It is the legislature's responsibility to reign in the executive (as well as the populace) by passing laws. it is not going to be stopped by laws that do not exist, and the First Amendment does not seem to be censuring, forbidding, or stipulating punishment for acts of the executive branch which amount to censorship.

Therefore, I believe, this isn't a constitutional matter unless the executive has been given guidelines in the form of laws that specifically allow it. If it is merely that it hasn't been restrained, it cannot possibly fall under the jurisdiction of that amendment. As you say, it is pretty clearly worded.

If you have a beef with particular laws that are dictating first amendment violations, mention them, and move to have them changed. THAT is what the judicial branch, and specifically the supreme court, is for.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

Until people start naming and targeting individuals from those agencies, nothing's going to change. Big entities are still made from little people who go home after each workday. Target those little people, not the faceless big entities.

Fuck the little useful(?) cogs, who make the big machine run, trying to hide themselves behind it.

Maybe someday 4chan or something like it is up to the task.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

As I said, the law is troubling, just not from a 1st amendment perspective.

The ISP's 1st amendment right to discuss the policy of NSL, in general terms and without revealing the specific investigation in question, is quashed. The first amendment also guarantees the right to 'petition the Government for a redress of grievances.' ie: if ISP receives an NSL, thinks it's invalid because there was no due process behind it (thus violating the customer's 4th amendment rights), the terms of the NSL prohibit any legal action. One might argue that the terms of the NSL violate the ISP's 5th amendment right to Assistance of Counsel, except that the ISP is not actually accused of anything, nor being compelled to witness against itself, nor otherwise the subject of criminal prosecution, although legal counsel is effectively required to petition the gov't for redress.

Re:Troubling

[richardellisjr]

The letter was sent to him, and specifically told him he couldn't share it's contents with anyone. So unless he could prove the letter was stolen or his lawyer posted it he'd be screwed. And if the lawyer posted it he'd probably be disbarred unless he said the client approved the posting in which case where back to him sharing the contents. No matter which way you cut it if it got out he's more than likely going to jail.

Re:Troubling

[Teun]

Of course you also have to wonder how many similar cases there are that are still under a gag order, and whether there are even worse ones.

I don't have to wonder.

And I'm sorry to say so.

Re:Troubling

[XanC]

We give less per capita

If by "we" you mean the Almighty Federal Government (as people with your particular worldview are wont to do), compared to the almighty governments of other countries, maybe.

If you mean "we" as in actual people, compared to actual people elsewhere, I think that's baloney.

Re:Troubling

[spun]

Do you suffer from dyslexia? I never said liberals were in the majority, I said the majority find Shakrai's style of petty snark, affronted whining, and fearmongering puerile.

Re:Troubling

[Captain Splendid]

Corporations don't have the power to send armed agents to kick in my door and slap handcuffs on me.....

Technically correct. But we're all still wondering where we can get these awesome drugs you're on.

Re:Troubling

[Red Flayer]

I agree fully -- and I'm a liberal :)

Of course, I've always seen Obama as a corporatist centrist, just like Clinton... I don't know why so many vocal liberals were under the delusion that Obama was exactly what they wanted him to be, instead of what he really is.

Re:Troubling

[Attila Dimedici]

>>>We don't have an "empire"

We have an empire in the same sense that the British once had an empire. Sure Britain was democratic, but it still had an empire that reached around the world. So too does the US with bases straddling the globe.

Well... at least until we go bankrupt.

Really, we are collecting taxes from Japan and Germany (to name jsut two of the places where we have some of those globe straddling bases)? For that matter, the militaries of the places that were part of the British Empire, were part of the British military.

Re:Troubling

[Hunter0000]

>>>When I was in the ISP business I learned that it's illegal in New York State to tell one of your customers that he's the subject of a electronic surveillance warrant.

That law is null and void according to the Higher Law of the NY Constitution: "Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press."

(emphasis mine)

In this case, the law has determined that informing a subject of electronic surveillance that he is under said surveillance is an abuse of your right - and thus you are responsible for the penalties under the law. Yes this is a terrible loophole.. but it's right there in the text you cited.

Re:Troubling

[ebuck]

Give the guy a break, he's reversed a ton of stuff. Bush was good at getting a lot of stuff passed. History seems to show that most of the stuff was undesirable. Perhaps he'll go down as the modern day Boss Tweed.

Take the loosing of oil drilling regulation and oversight; the Obama administration basically said it was surprised by the removal of regulation and reporting of compliance. They went on to state that basically they were so busy trying to push the financial reform, the healtcare reform, the weakening of the FDA, the X, the Y, and the Z that they didn't get around to looking at drilling regulation.

When you're talking about millions, if not billions of dollars on the line, you too might think that those in charge of that much money would take greater care in what they do. I guess we have all learned that even at the most expensive projects, greed and ham-handed management can trump risk reduction and proper practice.

Re:Troubling

[spun]

I saw Obama that way too, which is why I voted Hillary in the primaries. Now you have liberals defending Obama for the same reason Conservatives defended Bush: they do not want to admit how badly they were fooled.

Re:Troubling

[dbet]

I'm not criticizing judicial oversight, but think about what you're saying. The FBI trampling your freedom of speech is horrible and should be stopped, but the FBI plus one single judge doing it, and all of a sudden freedom and liberty have been fully and unquestionably restored. Never mind they can just find one activist judge who agrees with them and rubber stamps anything that comes through his office.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

You have the freedom to say what the government thinks is appropriate otherwise you will be thrown into prison.

The land of the FREE is no longer USA.

Re:Troubling

[spun]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries

You are exactly the opposite of correct! Can you make the sad trombone sound? "WAH Wah Waaaaaaah"

Re:Troubling

[Monchanger]

The first amendment is pretty clear. Any ruling that contradicts the clear and obvious meaning of the first amendment is wrong.

Only if you're a raging loon with no capacity for self-doubt and the mentality of an Iranian cleric.

It's certainly not clear, having required volumes of clarification. Of course, what's the point telling an extremist that strict literal reading is often stupid? Have you ever approved of a judge, or is even Justice Thomas too intellectual for you?

Re:Troubling

[Teun]

East Timor is valuable to ConocoPhillips, a very US oil company.

The fact that the Australians are representing the Empire is only a veil.

Have a look at a map on how the territorial waters between those two nations are divided, that doesn't look very cricket...

Re:Troubling

[nbauman]

Thanks for the rhetoric, Mr. Ayers. It's a shame you didn't set off more bombs in your heyday, eh?

I'm continually surprised by what passes for argumentation among conservatives. Petty snark, affronted whining, thoughtless jingoism, blatant fearmongering

It's not really argumentation, it's more like football hooligans trying to shout down the other team as a prelude to throwing beer bottles.

On the Wall Street Journal comments pages, there are right-wing wackos who spam the forum by repeating messages like "Obama=Nazi" and "government never works". They make no pretense of logical argument. They don't understand what a fact is. They think just because they believe it, it's true. And they make rational discussion impossible.

I really am nostalgic for the old days with conservatives like William Buckley, who would say things I disagreed with but would at least justify it with an intelligent argument.

Re:Troubling

[harl]

Claiming the States does not have an empire is delusional.

Re:Troubling

[Dishevel]

I am a conservative. I do not know anyone who thought GB was the greatest president ever. Most people I know think he was a well meaning guy who went in the wrong direction. Searcing for security by curtailing freedoms and spending money.

Re:Troubling

[harl]

That's right. Insult the poster because you can't address the points made in their post.

Re:Troubling

[spun]

I'm expressing my disdain for your flower child like ignorance. I could care less what you or others think.

You equated people who voted to establish Commonwealth status in Democratic elections to people living under the yoke of empire. That's utterly absurd and not deserving of a serious response.

This will be the last time I waste my energy reading or responding to your posts. Have a nice career tilting at windmills :)

Really now? If you could care less what I or others think, you wouldn't be wasting your time here. Please make your lies less transparent.

Re:Troubling

[mcgrew]

A line from a Who song comes to mind; corporations have guns that fire cops. The government has become big business' bitch, and government does what big business tells it to. I at least have a vote with the government, however meaningless that vote may be, but I have no control whatever over any corporation.

If the President of GM wants you in prison, you'll go to prison. Their hired thugs are called "policemen".

Re: Troubling

[xMilkmanDanx]

How about the aqueducts?

Seriously though, short term empires end up pushing an excess of resources into their borders resulting in a higher standard of living all around, though most of the wealth remains at the top. All this at the expense of people outside the empire.

The longer term effects of this, inflation, outsourced work, etc. tend to be the cause for the eventual downfall.

Re:Troubling

[spun]

Bill Buckley was a saint compared to Republicans of today. Heck, these guys make me nostalgic for Nixon.

Re:Troubling

[Monchanger]

China has caused a drop in US wages and employment and collapse of what was left of US industry. Its currency manipulation doesn't help Americans either. It's not China that's broken (except for the leaders we don't like, yet haven't toppled, which was your argument), it's the "empire" which is suffering without taking advantage of its "empire" status. That makes us one really cowardly "empire".

Your second question is a self-contradicted strawman and your opinion is both baseless and uninteresting

Re:Troubling

[XanC]

The data you've linked to considers "Official Development Assistance". That page describes it: "Thus, by definition, ODA does not include private donations."

It would probably be best for you to actually read things before assuming they support you.

Re:Troubling

[oldhack]

You know, I could go either way on WikiLeaks and that Assange guy, but each time such a story pops up, it throws the scale over to WikiLeak.

And, even though those that do pop up to media attention are likely a very small fraction, they still pop up pretty damn regularly.

Like it or not, we need WikiLeaks.

Re:Troubling

[nbauman]

I'm continually surprised by what passes for argumentation among liberals.

I'm continually surprised by what passes for argumentation among moderates.

"Petty snark, affronted whining, thoughtless jingoism, blatant fearmongering" people can exist in any social group. Please indicate yours and I'm sure we'll find plenty of "leaders" of your political party of choice who exact these same qualities.

False equivalence. There really is something wrong with conservatives/Republicans today. There were several articles and editorials in Science magazine, about the Bush Administration policies on science. They were really worried, and unusually outspoken. They said they had problems with previous administrations before, Democratic and Republican, but nothing like this.

When the Republican Party tries to force science teachers to teach creationism on a par with Darwin, even Republican scientists started to worry.

If you want the details, Google "Chris Mooney".

Re:Troubling

[Shakrai]

If the President of GM wants you in prison, you'll go to prison.

Citation needed.

Re: Troubling

[Monchanger]

Indeed: CIVISROMANUSSUM

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a f-ing clue and stop spewing liberal nonsense. If our country is so bad then get the f*ck out, go live in a country where you really don't have freedoms. Go live under the Taliban and then come back. Go live in China or North Korea. We, like all other countries have a military to protect our interests. That's right, not just our land, our interests and that includes foreign oil. When you don't drive a car, ride a bus or use any product that consumes or was manufactured, processed or delivered by using oil then you can open your mouth. Until then, shut the f*ck up because you give people like me a headache.

Re:Troubling

[NeutronCowboy]

And why don't they? Because the government hasn't abrogated its monopoly on power. Again, there's nothing structurally inherent in a corporation that prevents the sending of armed guards to kick in your door. It's merely a convention of society codified into law by the legislative branch of the government.

And if we really want to nitpick, corporations have armed guards. They just can't send them into your property. But they can handcuff you on their property.

Re:Troubling

[interval1066]

You no longer have freedom of speech.

Stop being melodramatic. Yes, you do have freedom of speech. When a judge issues blanket gag orders for entire classes of people without due process and are then enforced by cops with truncheons, get back to me.

Re:Troubling

[nbauman]

Actually a minority of people are liberal and as of 2009 40% stated they are conservative in the US.

Depends on what you mean by "conservative."

Conservatives are the guys who say, "Keep the government's hands off my Medicare."

If you were to look at the polls on the issues, you'd find that majorities of Americans consistently say that they want Medicare for all, for example.

Re:Troubling

[spun]

You have not explained how my second question is self contradictory. I am saying, the world can have multiple empires at one time, and just becasue an empire is not all powerful does not mean it is any less an empire. How can one Empire take advantage of another? China is not part of our Empire, just as Central America was not part of the British empire.

Re:Troubling

[chaboud]

I am not a lawyer, but, from the looks of it, neither are you...

While I agree that certain types of surveillance and warrants cannot be effectively served without some sort of forced secrecy (rendering an ISP or telecom provider an accomplice for informing the subject of a wiretap warrant that they are one), the notion that the lack of a law restraining the executive branch in a specific manner leaves the executive free to behave in violation of the constitution is laughable.

First off, 4th amendment.

Secondly, the elastic clause:
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

This, along with the enormous body of legislative and case law between the founding of our country and the present, affords specific powers to the FBI and somewhat clear restrictions on their actions.

Thirdly, use your brain:
What good would a constitution be if it served as a subtractive set of only the things that the executive couldn't do? It's clearly, on the face of it, idiotic. The powers and duties of the executive branch are specifically enumerated. You should read Article II, Section 3, Clause 4. This clause regards the caring for the faithful execution of the law, and there's no part in there that says "when not oppressing people." The duties and restrictions of the executive are one and the same. This is something that members of the executive have been willfully neglecting for quite some time.

Any action by the executive that violates the constitutional rights of individuals is a civil rights violation and subject to investigation by... oh.. the FBI... Crap.

Re:Troubling

[MaWeiTao]

Although I think the argument is quite a stretch I'll still argue, so what? If the US were to abandon it's position someone would quickly move in to fill the vacuum. At this point that would most likely be China.

For all the legitimate problems anyone might have towards the US I'd still much prefer it be the US being imperialistic than pretty much any other nation out there. How many "empires" can claim that the nations they've occupied have benefited so greatly as those under American "dominion". Japan, Germany and South Korea all have thriving economies and are generally free nations. Hell, at this point you could argue they're better off than the US is. If it hadn't been for public opinion forcing the US to withdraw from Vietnam it's possible that nation might have fared well. Iraq and Afghanistan are a bit of a different situation because we're dealing with very different ideologies and a very different political climate.

The fact is that many nations, including all of Europe are extremely reliant on America's economic, political and military might. If our government decreed that they were going to abandon their military and take isolationist policies there would be massive uproar from the rest of the world. A lot of nations can enjoy tiny defense spending because they know they've got the US to back them up if push came to shove.

The simple reality is that we're still not living in a global one-nation utopia. We've still got very competitive nations fighting for the top spot. Chinese are far more ambitious and nationalistic than most Americans and as other nations rise in influence they're going to be aiming for that spot as well. So why is it unreasonable for Americans to want to maintain their position in the world? It's better for us and one advantage the US still has is their general altruism. It's far from perfect, but it's still better than the competition. I'm not suggesting we should be focused on conflict and getting into every little war we can fight. We should be dealing with everyone openly and peacefully as much as possible. But it's also reasonable to ensure our supremacy on the global stage, at least until such time as it becomes irrelevant or abusive.

Re:Troubling

[JustNilt]

Did you really just cite a movie as a reference?! It's not that hard to cite the actual case, after all. That being said, this case dealt with a criminal case, not so much a civil matter such as this. While I agree that you should always be allowed to consult an attorney, I don't think Gideon v Wainwright actually applied in this case.

Re:Troubling

[Shompol]

“ [America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benign' sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.[3] ”

—John Quincy Adams, US House, 7/4/1821

me thinks this is no longer relevant, unfortunately.

Re:Troubling

[Pollardito]

No police state is ever absolute. Even in the former DDR (in my limited knowledge the freakiest control freaks yet) you were able to get away with some things.

It's true, the DDR was quite secretive and tyrannical. After all, wasn't it their motto that "The Dance Dance Revolution will not be televised"?

Re:Troubling

[dkleinsc]

Most warrants are a matter of public record (the exception to that are FISA warrants, which I'll get to in a minute). "National Security Letters" are specifically not. FISA warrants are (in theory at least) directed at foreign intelligence agents in the US, not at most US citizens.

Re:Troubling

[NeutronCowboy]

How far do you want to take that obstruction of justice argument? It wasn't that he just wasn't allowed to tell his customer that the customer is under surveillance. He was prevented from mentioning to anybody that this NSL even existed. Anybody. His CFO, his CIO, his family... anybody. It wouldn't surprise me if he wasn't allowed to talk to the FBI about having received a NSL from them.

While I do agree that the NSLs are a flagrant breach of the 4th and 5th amendments, they also do breach the 1st amendment by preventing any sort of reasonable communication around this matter that would not impact the investigation.

Re:Troubling

[RAMMS EIN]

``While I'd agree that the implementation of "free speech zones" can be a bit ridiculous, and probably not always compliant with the notion of "free speech,", it is important to recognize that "freedom of speech" does not give you unlimited rights to say whatever you want, wherever you want, in whatever manner you want, whenever you want.''

I absolutely agree. There have been many discussions about free speech in the Netherlands where people were arguing about whether or not people should have the right to say hurtful things. Personally, I feel that the reason you want people to be allowed to speak their minds is that they might contribute something valuable and thus improve things for everyone, or at least on aggregate. Simply insulting people, setting people up against each other, or misleading people by saying things you know to be untrue, in my eyes, actually only makes things worse, so I see why you would want to limit those things. Leave the insults and hate speech at home, and bring us your brilliant insights and suggestions for improvement.

On the subject of free speech zones, though, the way I've heard about them being used doesn't suggest to me a benevolent desire to get valuable insights heard or to curb aggression, violence, or even drowning out other voices. If you're forcing dissenting voices to be where the rest of the population can't hear them, that's not keeping things civil, that's censorship. Doing that and calling such areas "free speech zones" is a farce. It's doublespeak at its finest.

Your points about it often being hard to figure out what people are actually campaigning for is well taken. I've wondered this with many protests, and also with more repulsive acts like wars and terrorist attacks. Sometimes I can't help but think that, if only people were clearer about what they wanted, we would all be happier. That actually works in many relationships, too.

Re:Troubling

[Fastolfe]

What you actually have is a conspiracy theory. The judicial branch wouldn't have "failed" if the executive branch hadn't done the deed in the first place. And since this type of thing has been happening for decades, and the legislative branch hasn't felt the need to do anything to fix it, they're in on it as well. In short, you have all three branches of the US government in agreement about this. Have you really not considered the possibility that it's you that might have it wrong?

In any event, the obvious course of action is for you to contact your legislature and get them to fix this.

Re:Troubling

[Shakrai]

But they can handcuff you on their property.

So what? I can place you under a citizens arrest in most American jurisdictions if you are trespassing on my property. Ditto for if I catch you stealing my property.

It's not generally a good idea because it exposes you to all sorts of civil liability but it is legal in most American jurisdictions.

Re:Troubling

[Khisanth Magus]

A fine is different from 5 years in jail when you have a family to support.

Re:Troubling

[gfreeman]

When a judge issues blanket gag orders for entire classes of people without due process and are then enforced by cops with truncheons, get back to me.

Does expressing your love for your same sex partner by getting married count?

Re:Troubling

[rongage]

I think the first amendment part of this stems from the "you shall not tell anyone about this" issue. It's from the perspective of the recipient of the letter. She is commanded to "tell no one about this" under pain of incarceration. This is all backed up with the power of law. Since you have an abridgment of the right to free speech and that abridgment is codified in law (a federal law - wrote by Congress no less), that is a pretty on-it's-face contravention of the First Amendment.

Now as others have wrote, this may fall into the "obstructing an investigation" trap and that may prove a valid issue, not being to even talk with a lawyer about this makes this pretty simply a First Amendment issue.

Re:Troubling

[jahudabudy]

The 2nd amendment also codifies an absolute, personal, right of Americans to own any arms (but not munitions).

I realize this is completely off-topic, but you seem like a good person to ask. Where does the idea that the 2nd amendment codifies the right to bear any arms come from? It seems a perfectly valid interpretation to say it merely prevents the banning of all arms; as long as citizens are permitted some arms, the amendment seems to me to be satisfied.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

Spun missed his chance to "put the bong away" long, along ago. All that's left in his head now is paranoia and bong resin. It's sad, really.

Re:Troubling

[Shakrai]

I'm sorry but I just don't see it. There's already a precedent for gag orders in criminal investigations. Have you ever served on a Grand Jury? You are sworn to secrecy and it's enforced by law in most states:

215.70 Unlawful grand jury disclosure.
A person is guilty of unlawful grand jury disclosure when, being a grand juror, a public prosecutor, a grand jury stenographer, a grand jury interpreter, a police officer or a peace officer guarding a witness in a grand jury proceeding, or a clerk, attendant, warden or other public servant having official duties in or about a grand jury room or proceeding, or a public officer or public employee, he intentionally discloses to another the nature or substance of any grand jury testimony, or any decision, result or other matter attending a grand jury proceeding which is required by law to be kept secret, except in the proper discharge of his official duties or upon written order of the court. Nothing contained herein shall prohibit a witness from disclosing his own testimony.
Unlawful grand jury disclosure is a class E felony.

Here's New York's law on wiretapping disclosures:

250.20 Divulging an eavesdropping warrant.
A person is guilty of divulging an eavesdropping warrant when, possessing information concerning the existence or content of an eavesdropping warrant issued pursuant to article seven hundred of the criminal procedure law, or concerning any circumstances attending an application for such a warrant, he discloses such information to another person; except that such disclosure is not criminal or unlawful when permitted by section 700.65 of the criminal procedure law or when made to a state or federal agency specifically authorized by law to receive reports concerning eavesdropping warrants, or when made in a legal proceeding, or to a law enforcement officer or agency connected with the application for such warrant, or to a legislative committee or temporary state commission, or to the telephone or telegraph corporation whose facilities are involved, or to any entity operating an electronic communications service whose facilities are involved.
Divulging an eavesdropping warrant is a class A misdemeanor.

Now, it does seem a bit excessive that the person would be prohibited from telling his boss -- I would not have had the ability to install a wiretap when I worked for an ISP without my boss finding out -- but the precedent for gag orders is already well established in the case and statutory law.

Re:Troubling

[jahudabudy]

I am pretty liberal; a good friend of mine is rather conservative. During the Bush years, we had....interesting discussions. He on more than one occasion made the statement that "Bush is the best President since Reagan!". He is now appropriately embarrassed by that.

Re:Troubling

[osgeek]

Exactly. The government terribly insidious. Every time we think it's okay for the government to take on a new role in our lives (protect us from terrorists overseas, "fix" the economy, "create" jobs, gift us with health care) they gain a little more power, charge us taxes to pay for that power, then abuse the shit out of it.

Re:Troubling

[nbauman]

Heck, these guys make me nostalgic for Nixon.

Nixon appointed Daniel Patrick Moynihan as his secretary of Health and Human Services, and he let Moynihan promote some very progressive policies, like the guaranteed annual income, and a health policy that was better than Obama's.

Ralph Nader said that on domestic policy, Nixon was better than the Clinton Administration.

Re:Troubling

[fishexe]

Did you really just cite a movie as a reference?! It's not that hard to cite the actual case, after all.

We're Americans (mostly). We won't look up the case, but we might watch the movie. So which is a better way to get the point across, cite something we'll look up or something we won't?

Re:Troubling

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Sorry, I was unclear. I did not intend to disagree and do not disagree with any of your points here.

The most absurdly over the top loathsome aspect is, as you correctly pointed out, the 5th Amendment issue.

Without advice of an attorney, it is not even possible to have a civilized discussion about how to appropriately comply with the law. It boils down to do what they say, or dare them to arrest me under laws I cannot understand and cannot get assistance in understanding.

If I actually received such a letter, I would inclined to refuse to comply until I received a revised letter that explicitly allowed me to seek advice of an attorney. "I am sorry but I do not understand the contents of this letter. I have both legal and ethical obligations to my clients. I need advice of an attorney, or I cannot help you without risk of breaking the law."

But, of course, talk is cheap, but it would not cost anything to try it twice. Nicholas Merrill did the wise thing, really.

Re:Troubling

[lgw]

How many "empires" can claim that the nations they've occupied have benefited so greatly as those under American "dominion".

REG: Yeah. All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?!
XERXES: The aqueduct?
REG: What?
XERXES: The aqueduct.
REG: Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah.
COMMANDO #3: And the sanitation.
LORETTA: Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like?
REG: Yeah. All right. I'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done.
MATTHIAS: And the roads.
REG: Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads--
COMMANDO: Irrigation.
XERXES: Medicine.
COMMANDOS: Huh? Heh? Huh...
COMMANDO #2: Education.
COMMANDOS: Ohh...
REG: Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.
COMMANDO #1: And the wine.
COMMANDOS: Oh, yes. Yeah...
FRANCIS: Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss, Reg, if the Romans left. Huh.
COMMANDO: Public baths.
LORETTA: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.
FRANCIS: Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this.
COMMANDOS: Hehh, heh. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh.
REG: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
XERXES: Brought peace.
REG: Oh. Peace? Shut up!

Re:Troubling

[fishexe]

We don't have an "empire" and free speech has always been something that can be curtailed for an ongoing criminal investigation. National Security really doesn't have anything to do with it.

Except that this wasn't a criminal investigation warrant, it was a national security letter. If you're saying national security doesn't have anything to do with that, then I think you've made GP's point even better than GP could have.

Re:Troubling

[Lunix Nutcase]

Corporations don't have the power to send armed agents to kick in my door and slap handcuffs on me.....

The easy to find FBI raids on behalf of software, record and movie companies speaks to the contrary. They very much do have the political power to get armed agents to kick in your door and arrest you.

Re:Troubling

[spun]

I'm sorry. I was just teasing, I din't think you were really dyslexic, but it's obvious you are.

Let me expand that sentence so you can more clearly see the structure.

I said, "The majority find Shakrai's style of petty snark, Shakrai's affronted whining, and Shakrai's fearmongering to be puerile."

There should not be a comma between "Shakrai's style of" and "petty snark" because we are discussing a certain style of petty snark, namely, Shakrai's style of petty snark. We are also discussing Shakrai's style of affronted whining and fearmongering, and conclude that his style is puerile.

Hope that helps, I'm always glad to make accommodations such as dumbing down my writing to a third grade level for those who truly need it.

Re:Troubling

[fishexe]

The supreme court has repeatedly held that the 14th amendment extended the prohibitions of the 1st amendment to all branches of government and to the states.

Re:Troubling

[lgw]

So that's the link you want to give in defense of your statement that we give less than any other first world nation? Really? Where is says the US is first in terms of Official Development Assistance? Where we're 9th in charitable donations per-capita? What point were you trying to make here?

Re:Troubling

[Shakrai]

Actually I screwed up -- it's the 6th amendment that codifies the right to counsel. I shall now smack myself upon the head with my pocket copy of the United States Constitution :)

Agree with the rest of your post, just wanted to correct my own mistake.

Re:Troubling

[Mr. Slippery]

We don't have an "empire"

We most certainly do, and have since we first took control over extra-national territory.

and free speech has always been something that can be curtailed for an ongoing criminal investigation.

No, free speech has always been something that governments interfered with in the name of ongoing criminal investigations, among other excuses.

When I was in the ISP business I learned that it's illegal in New York State to tell one of your customers that he's the subject of a electronic surveillance warrant. Are you going to claim that's an infringement on free speech?

Yes, I will tell you that when the state threatens you with violence if you discuss certain of its acts -- such as placing a person under surveillance -- that is a violation of free speech. There is no other way to describe it.

Re:Troubling

[fishexe]

Yes.

That's absurd.

So are you, my friend. So are you.

Re:Troubling

[morari]

When did we ever have freedom of speech? The illusion is just fading faster nowadays, that's all.

Re:Troubling

[spun]

Exactly. Nixon produced some very progressive policy. Too bad he was such a paranoid asshole in other respects.

Re:Troubling

[Red Flayer]

I don't see a practical difference between Hillary and Obama... I voted Obama in the primaries because I felt he was more likely to be able to beat whoever the Repubs would put up (none of their candidates seemed like good options to me).

Now you have liberals defending Obama for the same reason Conservatives defended Bush: they do not want to admit how badly they were fooled.

Sure. But for some Conservatives, Bush gave them exactly what they wanted. One thing I'll give Bush credit for... he (and his administration) was very good at convincing people to want what they were selling.

Re:Troubling

[Lucidus]

Seriously? The sentence scans perfectly well - puerile refers to style, and the three nouns offered as instances are snark, whining, and fearmongering. It should be easily understood by anyone with a high school education.

Re:Troubling

[spun]

I'm in the business of giving you headaches, sport. Conservative brain pains are my bread and butter, you just paid me in my favorite coin.

Re:Troubling

[spun]

Maybe this was meant as a reply to someone else? I'm just saying because I really want whoever this was meant for to actually see it, it's a good post.

Re: Troubling

[lgw]

It worked out pretty well in ancient Athens. Tribute was equal to about 10x their GDP, IIRC. Athens had social-program spending that exceeded their GDP, thanks to their empire. That worked out pretty well for the common citizen.

I've long advocated we should do the same. Why should I pay taxes when so many countries don't have nuclear weapons? Seems like a lack of initiative, if you ask me. But sadly, we don't actually have an empire, so I do have to pay taxes.

Re:Troubling

[spun]

Oh my goodness. Look to the right side of your browser window. Do you see the thing with the 3D looking bar and the two arrows? That's called a scroll bar. Now, go back to that page and scroll down.

Ever watch the "Debbie Downer" skits on SNL? As the skits go on, the sad trombone sound gets longer and sadder. "WWWWAAAAAAAAHHHHH Wah waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!"

Re:Troubling

[CannonballHead]

Please give at least one example of this behavior.

Please make sure said example is actually of a completely innocent person going to prison, not someone who did something that someone else thinks SHOULD be legal but isn't. :)

Re:Troubling

[GooberToo]

So much for the first amendment.

WTF is wrong with people on slashdot these days?!?! Seriously!?

The means the court system worked. The first amendment worked. But, just because the FBI gave up is not reason to destroy an investigation. The COURT didn't allowing him to destroy an ongoing investigation, and in the mean time his first amendment rights were not harmed in any way.

Gag orders are very important tools. To be universally against gag orders is to be pro-crime. The first amendment is not in place to facilitate criminal activity. Its there to provide equal protection. Every way I look at this, it looks like it worked perfectly.

Re:Troubling

[lgw]

One thing I'll give Bush credit for... he (and his administration) was very good at convincing people to want what they were selling.

Odd - I like Bush, but I think that was his greatest weakness. He never explained the compelling American interest in Iraq. He totally failed to sell the transition to private accounts for Social Security (which we will inevitably change to, as soon as people forget that it was Bush who proposed it). If there was any good reason for the prescrition drug benefit plan, I never heard it.

Re:Troubling

[numbski]

The whole point of the second ammendment is that the individual citizen is allowed to arm themselves against a government that has gone bad. Any law prohibiting armaments within one's home violates that principle.

Granted, I would prefer my neighbor not have nukes. If he has guns, so long as I and everyone else can have them too, there should be no issue. That's where I scratch my head on concealed carry laws. You're not allowed to carry concealed weapons in some jurisdictions. In some cases, even open carry is an issue if the weapon is loaded.

You tell me - if someone is out to perpetrate a crime, are they going to care? They're going to conceal that weapon until they need it, then pull it out. If open carry were legal, and most people *did* open carry, one might think a bad guy might think twice before doing whatever stupid thing they were going to do.

Now the flip side is crimes of passion. If I'm not allowed to carry a gun, and am a law abiding person, won't carry. If you somehow get me angry enough to do something stupid, I might punch your lights out. If I've got a gun, I might do something a whole lot more stupid...

Two sides to every story.

Re:Troubling

[Jawnn]

>>>the FBI will have known it was he who leaked the info.

And people wonder why I fear Government more than GM, microsoft, RCA or other corporations. It should be obvious.

I don't wonder. You're obviously one of the many who have forgotten, or quite possibly never even learned, that "We The People are our government. Yes, I will readily stipulate that We have been more than a bit derelict in our duties as citizens and allowed GM, Microsoft, RCA, et al to gain status equal to our own and with that in hand, influence all out of proportion, but if We were to wake the hell up and and toss out the corporate lackeys we've "elected" and elect representatives who will promise to represent the interests of the citizens and to make the changes (Supreme Court and/or Constitutional Amendment) that would guarantee that, we could regain control of our government and have it serve us once again.

Yes, it occurs to me how much that sounds like the rant of a Tea Bagger. The difference is that for all their bluster about wanting their country back, they have, for the most part, aligned themselves with a group that is most likely to betray them in favor of GM, Microsoft, BP, et al, pissing all over The Constitution in the process.

So whether it be through ignorance or apathy not much is likely to change, but if you don't like what's happening, if you truly "fear" your government, you have only yourself and your fellow citizens to blame for allowing such a thing to come to pass.

Re:Troubling

[spun]

Hmm, what point WAS I traying to make? We give less than other first world nations, per capita. Now, what are the categories on that page? Total Offical Development Assistance, Official Development Assistance by country as a percentage of GNI, Humanitarian donation in absolute terms, Humanitarian donation by country as a percentage of GNI, and Most Generous Countries in 2008 as donation per citizen.

Now, we can't count the first two because of this:

To qualify as official development assistance (ODA), a contribution must contain three elements: 1.) be undertaken by the official sector (that is, a government or government agency); 2.) with promotion of economic development and welfare as the main objective; and 3.) at concessional financial terms (that is, with favorable loan terms.)

You see, the first two categories on that page do not cover giving, but lending at reasonable terms.

So, we are really talking about the last three categories, where we do not even rank in the top ten in the first one, seventh in the next and ninth in the last. Okay, you got me. There may be one or two first world countries who are as stingy as us. Mea culpa.

Re:Troubling

[kris_lang]

Why not start an automated scanning system and always, always, ALWAYS scan and upload all incoming mail to it where it is automagically scanned and OCR'ed (gocr) and saved again and faxed/efaxed/emailed to you. Make it a part of your business plan, and thus doing it will be requisite for your business remaining ISO-9000 compliant. Of course, it means making all of your correspondence public, allowing poetry such as at the end of this message to be widely known and embarassingly disseminated. But then you won't have knowingly and willfully mis-complied with the request of the letter, if your business process also makes it public knowledge that you are the recipient of an NSL letter.

``It is a matter of policy that all incoming mail is scanned and published.'' See if that holds water.

{begin embarassing poem}

What makes your heart beat pitter-patter? Is it something in someone else's soul or is it in their matter? Is your heart full of love and round, or have it been squashed flatter? Is it in your body or mind; where is the love you will find?

{end embarassing poem}

k314q159z028675309

Re:Troubling

[CannonballHead]

I'm continually surprised by what passes for argumentation among conservatives.

Likewise. Except I would not limit it to conservatives, I would say "humans." I've heard some pretty ridiculous arguments made by liberals, too... but we tend to be more forgiving towards those that agree ideologically with us. Or we just automatically fill in the gaps with what we know, etc.

it's no wonder that the majority of citizens find your positions puerile.

I don't think that is true... but it depends on what [conservative] positions you are referring to. However, your assertion (unless you're just joking?) that (1) most conservatives talk/think like another conservative that you have met and therefore (2) most Americans consider conservative positions to be silly ... is ... unfounded. In fact, while I realize it's a 2009 (but hey, that was post-Obama-election) poll, Gallup has reported that self-described conservatives are at ~40%, moderate at ~35-38%, and liberal at ~20%.

So either there are a bunch of self-described American moderates and conservatives that think their own positions are silly (or at least moderately silly), or I would contend that your assertion is false.

Re:Troubling

[interval1066]

Same-sex partners are being truncheoned for speaking out? Interesting. Last I head they were winning in court. Surely the gay judge in California who found in favor of gay marriage isn't using a truncheon to make his pro-gay marriage point...?

Re: Troubling

[spun]

You get cheap oil subsidized by our military adventures around the globe. Look at any other non-oil-producing country and see if they have gas as cheap as we do.

But you are making a very basic mistake. You are somehow operating under the illusion that any so called American Empire must operate to benefit the average citizen. You do not see the benefit, therefore, by your argument, there must not be an empire.

This Empire is not for you. This is not your Empire. It exists to benefit people who would never even give you the time of day. You are as much a victim of the Empire as any Dickensian factory worker of Victorian ere England.

Re:Troubling

[tsm_sf]

Why are you in such a hurry to leave ze DDR?

Re:Troubling

[XanC]

hmm, I can only assume that you're talking about the GHA numbers on there, which are meaningless because: "These figures do not include humanitarian aid from within the donor country itself".

Let's assume you believe these numbers are worthwhile, which they're not. Your assertion was "we give less than any first world nation". For that to be true, your list of first world nations must be exactly:

Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Ireland, UK, US.

There's a word for that, I believe it's "wrong". Do you have a spelled-out sound effect for that one, or does that only apply to other people?

Again, these numbers are NOT worthwhile, because there is plenty of giving going on right here at home which is being discounted entirely. The demographics of the US are quite a bit different from Luxembourg.

Re:Troubling

[spun]

No, no, I'm even more surprised by the argumentation of liberals because I expect more from them. Perhaps most disappointing is their emotion laden appeals for other liberals to stop picking on poor president Obama for not doing what he promised to do, he's just a man not a miracle worker, how can you expect him to do everything he promised in just two years? You know what I say to those "LEeeaaave Brittany Alone!" liberals? I say, fuck that corporate toady Obama, fuck him right in the ear.

Re:Troubling

[nbauman]

Exactly. Nixon produced some very progressive policy. Too bad he was such a paranoid asshole in other respects.

Nobody's perfect. Not even Ralph Nader.

Re:Troubling

[troll -1]

I'd have posted it all to slashdot....

But how would you have felt if your actions had resulted in a failed attempt to capture terrorists who then went on to perform another attack, say, on a par with 911 and thousands of people were killed.

You'd kinda look like a douche.

Re:Troubling

[NeutronCowboy]

Did you miss the rest of my post? The point of that example was to illustrate how similar corporations and governments already are, and that there is nothing inherently better about corporations. Whether i think that corps with armed guards is a good thing is irrelevant.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir, are either a shill, or extremely naive when it comes to matters such as these, the USA has had an Empire since way before you were born, you're just so conditioned/brainwashed that you can't believe it.

You Poor Sucker.

Re:Troubling

[The Spoonman]

Well, that of course excludes Coca-Cola who assassinated union leaders in Columbia, or Chevron who hired a private militia in Nigeria to fire on protesters outside their plant or DeBeers who fund private armies to protect their diamond monopolies, or...yeah, who am I kidding, facts never change the mind of a zealot...

Re:Troubling

[barkingcorndog]

The Who quote you're looking for is actually, "When a man is running from his boss Who holds a gun that fires cost"

Re:Troubling

[tqk]

If the President of GM wants you in prison, you'll go to prison.

Citation needed.

Would you accept a parallel example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit

Not that I consider GM equiv. to UF (I like Chevy's), but the potential's always there.

Re:Troubling

[10101001 10101001]

All I'm saying is that there isn't a 1st amendment issue when you prohibit a service provider from telling their customer that he's under surveillance. Interfering with an ongoing criminal investigation is obstruction of justice. That's been illegal since the Common Law (i.e: it predates the United States of America) and has never been ruled to be unconstitutional.

It is a 1st amendment issue when you can't tell your family and friends, though, even when it's merely that you were a served a NSL without telling for whom it covered or for what was requested (like, say, if Earthlink were to report how many NSLs they receive a year). Quite simply, Common Law might allow abridging freedom of speech and to the point that a NSL tells you of an investigation and could lead one to knowing obstruct justice there could be charges, but all direct stipulations of the NSL law to gag speech are an act of Congress and unconstitutional against the 1st amendment.

In short, you're focusing too much on the results of Common Law that people are willing to accept and not focusing enough on why people actually dislike NSLs when it comes to free speech. If it was all an issue of Common Law and obstruction of justice, why would the NSL law even try to specify specific things to gag since they'd already be illegal? Clearly, it was a power grab to censor speech even if it wouldn't last.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

FBI Has visited my house on several occasions for posts I've made on slashdot...they tried to intimidate me. They can fuck off as far as I'm concerned.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends on the country you live in. Even in the US, they can buy out your employer and have you fired. Or they can arrange for embarrassing and incriminating evidence and have friends in the the media establishment release it to embarrass you. In some countries with weak governments (the kind you appear to like) they can buy off a few officials to look the other way and send armed agents to your house in the middle of the night to kill you. Government abuse needs to be restrained, but corporate abuse needs it even more so.

At least governments are theoretically supposed to serve their citizens. Corporations theoretically only serve their financial interests shareholders and, as the last few years show, that's if the shareholders are lucky. It's actually clear that while many executives do take their responsibilities seriously, many also place their own personal interests of their responsibilities to all other stakeholders. So as the GP said, governments and corporations have similar fundamental flaws because they are founded upon flawed people, but when the people at the top of the government get too flawed, in a democracy or republic you can at least vote them out. If the system (such as the one in the US) is rigged to limit power to two parties that are controlled by a small number of people that exploit the system for personal gain, then it's not much of a democracy (or even much of a republic).

Re:Troubling

[harl]

What the fuck are you talking about? Who invited the States in to Iraq and Afganistan? The local governments invited them in? What about the Okinawans that want them to leave?

Re:Troubling

[NeutronCowboy]

I'm glad you brought up those examples, because they have explicit provisions for when it's ok to talk about both. Generally, it's either the proper court officials, government officials that deal with that matter, or people necessary to conduct the wiretapping. There's no blanket "you can't talk to anybody about it ever" provision in any of the two examples you provided.

Now, if you want to argue that the first amendment only comes into play for political or public speech: sure, the 1st amendment doesn't apply to NSLs. But I find that to be a dangerous narrowing of its scope. Besides, you can tell anyone you want that you're in a grand jury, and you can even talk about dealing with wiretaps - you just can't talk about specific wiretapping requests (admittedly, I'm a bit less sure about that one). But NSLs - you can't even say that you got one to anyone. And to me, that's free speech territory.

Re: Troubling

[lgw]

All countries get oil at the same price - differences in gas prices are about taxation. You might instead argue that all countries bebefit from the US military's efforts to stabilze oil prices, but "all countries benefit" is an odd argument for empire.

I know I must own some Haliburton stock somewhere, how is this empire not for me? Or are you suggesting some secret empire that only benefits the Illuminati - but now I've said too much.

Re:Troubling

[BobMcD]

Nope, I do not notice what does not exist. Calling someone out for being an asshole does not make one an assole.

You're better than that, spun. You and I both know you can locate examples of anti-intellectualism amongst each and every group of humans.

Maybe you're just on a roll, but to assert that you cannot locate asinine liberal behavior on, say, HuffPo is just intellectually dishonest.

Re:Troubling

[StikyPad]

So don't tell him; just route all his traffic through a machine named "Warrant[ed/less]-Surveillance", slow down his traffic, and when he calls to complain, direct him to run a traceroute.

Re:Troubling

[BobMcD]

You're biased from your point of view (that religion should always take a back seat to science.) There's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't exactly represent a 'problem' with that other group, outside of them believing in a religion.

You could take as an opposing example the insistence from certain liberal camps that abortion not be barred Federal funding. Despite your personal belief on the matter, can we not all agree that since a huge portion of the taxes collected come from people opposed to this behavior that we might not want to allow it?

Liberals garner a great deal of support from those who would otherwise be unable to afford the procedures, though, so their politics leads them down irrational paths as well.

That's just one example - there are more, on both sides of the aisle.

Re:Troubling

[gfreeman]

Meh. Google search for "US police brutality gay" produces about 437,000 results but if you want to deny it happens that's your choice.

Last I head they were winning in court.

Winning? Still banned in 2/3 of states by the look of it.

Re:Troubling

[NeutronCowboy]

On second thought: the first amendment infringement seems to be a second order effect. In other words, it's not that NSLs in and of themselves infringe on the first amendment. But what they are designed to do is to make it impossible to even have a public discussion about NSLs.

With wiretaps, you can go to historical cases where the court records have been unsealed and discuss their appropriateness in public. I believe this holds true even for grand juries. In other words, it is possible to have a public discussion about whether a specific wiretap or grand jury development was appropriate at some later point in time. With NSLs, that's impossible, if you believe what they say. Public discourse about NSLs is basically impossible at that point, unless you disobey the instructions in them and the laws associated with them. And that's a first amendment issue.

Re:Troubling

[Dishevel]

Well. The addition of breaking down the sentence dose help. Of course the help is not all the commentary added by you in an attempt to be nothing but helpful. :) Though the addition of the words "to be" dose seem to help in the sentence structure. I do have to wonder though how it is you make the sentence work without adding those words.

Re:Troubling

[Dishevel]

I agreed that he should be embarrassed by his statement. Though claiming best president since Reagan is much different than claiming best president ever. BTW. Bush the little was the second worst president since Reagan. Both Daddy Bush and even cum stain Clinton did better. Obama is going to fail big time though.

Re:Troubling

[Dishevel]

Medicare is not only a major problem all on its own but is actually a major reason for the increased health care costs born by all.

Re:Troubling

[moortak]

Really? He had to break the law to speak to his attorney. That doesn't sound like a law that worked.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, nobody asks the corporations to take responsibility for fucking up Columbia.

Closer to home but longer ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre

I don't suppose the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency ever faced charges for the people they shot. And of course, the Guardsmen were just following orders.

Re:Troubling

[spun]

I was just on a roll. I do that sometimes. If you read further down a bit, you'll find where I write, and I quote, "Fuck Obama, fuck him right in the ear." And I believe I also mock liberals who defend him from the criticism of other liberals, when the man has said, "If you want it, make me do it. Hold my feet to the fire."

It's just that, right now, petty, affronted snarky, whining fearmongering is all I see from conservatives, not even an attempt at rational discourse. They've doubled down on the crazy. I don't even know what Republican policy positions are besides "If Obama wants it, we won't do it." They certainly loudly denounce what they don't like, but I have not heard what their alternatives are.

Re:Troubling

[Tetsujin]

Despite what you may have learned in junior high, "Put the bong down and step away slowly," is not a cogent counter argument.

Dang... If only I'd known that earlier, I would still have my bong!

Re:Troubling

[canadian_right]

There is a BIG difference between a corporation and a government. A government has a monopoly on using force over the territory it controls while corporations have no right to use force at all.

Corporations have to co-opt governments, or break the law, to do much of their naughty stuff.

Re:Troubling

[metrometro]

People forget that Rosa Parks was hand picked by organizers as a sympathy provoking test case, a role she played brilliantly for decades. Compare that to online freedoms, which are usually tested on child abusers.

Re:Troubling

[canadian_right]

The part where a court order isn't required is also greatly troubling.

Re:Troubling

[NeutronCowboy]

Thought experiment: what if the Government removes its monopoly on force, either in the name of deregulation or because the government wants to outsource that part of its work?

Re:Troubling

[coldfarnorth]

That quip about freedom not being free . . . This is what they are talking about. If it's worth having, it's worth making a sacrifice for.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

is that the individual citizen is allowed to arm themselves for the security of a free state.

The second amendment is about more than refreshing the tree of liberty yadda yadda. It is about being given the ability to secure yourself, your neighbors, and so on up to your country.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

The executive cannot do anything that the legislative has not instructed it to do. Therefore, in order to censor, it has to be established by the legislative, which cannot do so, given the constitution

Re:Troubling

[CannonballHead]

Well at least you are consistent. I have a feeling I likely disagree with just about everything else ;) but consistency (or intellectual honesty, or integrity, or honesty, or whatever you really want to call it... I realize you can be consistently dishonest, but that's not quite what I mean, hehe) is what seems to primarily be lacking with both voters and politicians....

Re:Troubling

[darnkitten]

As a librarian, I would like to think that I would go the civil disobedience route, but there is no way of knowing if I would have the courage until it happens. The odds aren't good--how many thousands of NSLs are issued compared to only two people fighting them (that I am aware of). I do think defying of the gag order and accepting prison time is the only way to effectively fight this, but I can't claim with certainty what I would have the guts to do.

Going against the probable legal advice of the Town Attorney and exposing my Board, my Town and possibly my staff to the effects of my action would take careful consideration.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

I just want to say, DUN DUN DUN, DUNAHHHHHH

Wake up America this shit really is happening.

Re:Troubling

[budgenator]

How about the 13th amendment:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Seems like the Government is compelling persons and organizations to act as its agent without consent or valuable consideration here. Ever try to get a court transcript, they are expensive as hell, you pay per page; not to mention compensation for searching for the data to print, that has to be worth $150.00-450.00 per hour. From 2003 to 2006 the bureau issued 192,499 national security letter requests., I doubt we paid the going rate for all of this data!

Re:Troubling

[HereIAmJH]

Like it or not, we need WikiLeaks.

I don't know that we need WikiLeaks. What we need is unbiased investigative reporting, something that is sorely lacking these days because it is hard work. WikiLeaks, aka Julian Assange, has a definite anti-war and possibly an anti-US agenda. Which is his right, I'm not one of those people that thinks 'inalienable rights' requires citizenship.

OTOH, his military source violated US laws and was well aware of what s/he was doing and should be prosecuted. Civil disobedience is not without it's risks. If we were in a real war this information leak would have resulted in a date with a firing squad.

As far as the case at hand, the gag orders as implemented are a complete violation. As long as the FISA court is working, and no one is implying that it isn't, there is no justification for national security letters. But publishing a few on WikiLeaks isn't going to have any real effect on their use. WikiLeaks would have about as much credibility with the average American as Al Jazeera.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

"in that we have extracted billions of dollars in natural resources that remain unaccounted for."

citation please. no criticism i am just curious what you refer to?

Re:Troubling

[future assassin]

>A fine is different from 5 years in jail when you have a family to support.

My mom and all her friends did that in Poland in the early 1980's. She was eventually kidnapped from in front of our house, interrogated, beaten black and blue and sent to a special prison in Goldap Poland http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Goldap+Poland+prison&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Actually my aunt, my moms sister who was also arrested around the same time got the worst of the beatings with full fists of heir missing from her head.

My mom also took me to this riot http://www.lubin82.pl/index_eng.html

She did what she had to do to stop tyranny and oppression.

Eventually the gov realized it would be much easier to just let all political activists emigrate where ever they wanted to. We came to Canada while her other friends ended up in the places like the USA and South Africa.

Re:Troubling

[darnkitten]

From what I remember, the end result of the Connecticut Librarians case was that the gag order does not apply to contact with your (or your organization's) attorney.

Re:Troubling

[JustNilt]

Did you really just cite a movie as a reference?! It's not that hard to cite the actual case, after all.

We're Americans (mostly). We won't look up the case, but we might watch the movie. So which is a better way to get the point across, cite something we'll look up or something we won't?

The best way to odo so would be to cite the movie and/b> the case, I feel. Citing just a movie as though it's an authoritative source is just a bad idea in general. This is especially true when one is posting on /. and it's trivial to Google the movie and find a synopsis that references the case.

Re:Troubling

[JustNilt]

Gah, clicked post instead of continue editing to close that tag. :-\

Re:Troubling

[Runaway1956]

More than merely troubling, I would say. From TFA:

In Merrill's case, although the letter's gag order "was totally clear that they were saying that I couldn't speak to a lawyer" about it, he immediately contacted his personal attorney, and together they went to the ACLU in New York, which agreed to represent him.

"My gut feeling is I'm an American," Merrill said, in an interview with Threat Level on Tuesday. "I always have a right to an attorney. There's no such thing as you can't talk to your attorney.

Re:Troubling

[Archangel Michael]

You have a vote, it just doesn't count.

Just ask California how it can vote several times regarding an issue, only to have one guy in a black robe overturn it each and every time, no matter what. While you may not agree with the voters or while you may agree that it needs to be over turned, Prop 8 (marriage defined as one man, one woman) is par for the course in proving that votes don't matter.

All one needs for their way, is one guy(or gal) with enough "power" (Judicial) to tell everyone what must be. That is, by definition, tyranny.

(please don't turn this into a debate on the merits of Prop 8, that is not my point here). Point is, both LEFT and RIGHT people like votes being over turned when it suits their agenda. All I'm saying is that is a very dangerous trend in US politics.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

But since you're working for the Justice Dept. you can always tell WikiLeaks, if you're really sorry.

(Unless you just meant you don't like your job, of course.)

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem here is that the FBI needs to get its authority from somewhere. The FBI does not have the authority to make laws and thus it cannot be illegal to disclose the contents of an NSL unless Congress has specifically codified that authority into law. At that point, the Congress has in fact made a law restricting freedom of speech and hence is in violation of the 1st amendment. Alternatively, if the FBI has not been granted that authority by Congress, then it cannot be illegal to disclose the contents. Of course, being illegal and being something that could get you brought in for "questioning" are two different things...

Re:Troubling

[pugugly]

That sounds suspiciously like it validates to "If it's worth my having it's worth him making a sacrifice for.".

Pug

Re:Troubling

[Hatta]

You are very, very wrong. The Executive's job is to enforce the law as passed by Congress. The Executive has no power to do anything not authorized by Congress or the Constitution. Since the Constitution forbids Congress from making any law infringing our freedom of speech, the Executive has no legitimate authority to infringe our freedom of speech.

Re:Troubling

[Archangel Michael]

That is because "WE" have let a small group (Judges) define Corporations (Creations of the State) as having the same "Rights" as Persons.

Hear me very carefully. WE the PEOPLE need to get together and tell the government (by CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT) that non-citizen entities (Corporations) are not afforded ANY rights as "persons". NONE. They are granted PRIVILEGES only, including their own existence, and violation of those privileges will result in increasing penalties, including the "corporate death penalty", whereby their corporate charter is revoked and stock holders lose everything.

Re:Troubling

[dissy]

And yet, you have the freedom to say what I just quoted without being thrown in some secret prison.

The man in the article proves otherwise.

Prove that NO ONE went to a secret prison for saying what you quoted. Yes I realize you can't prove a negative, and that is my point.

At least one person would have, and you are totally unable to prove anyone hasn't.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

Without a law, the executive branch has no right to perform any searches or to receive any logs. Of course WHO CAN AFFORD TO go to court to defend themselves? There is a large problem right there, if one has to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend his/her basic rights, they are as good as non existent.

Re:Troubling

[dissy]

We don't have an "empire" and free speech has always been something that can be curtailed for an ongoing criminal investigation

You put that in bold as if there was some sort of ongoing criminal investigation going on here.

Our constitution disagrees with you. For there to be a criminal investigation, you must be accused, charged with a crime, able to face your accuser, and be able to speak with representation.

NONE of those things happened (See, I can use bold too)

Thus, there was no criminal trial, or any trial of any sort going on.

This is pure illegal criminal harassment from the FBI, and every last person involved belongs in prison for undermining our countries highest laws.

Re:Troubling

[tqk]

Thought experiment: what if the Government removes its monopoly on force, either in the name of deregulation or because the government wants to outsource that part of its work?

Feudalism, in theory. But, (is it fourth amendment?), if everyone's packin' heat, ...

Re:Troubling

[pugugly]

Ah - Prop 8 is proof that, having voted to extend certain rights equally among all citizens and legal residents of the United States, we don't get to vote that we only meant that for people we liked.

That being, y'know, the whole reason for the 14th amendment and all. Which our duly appointed representatives made part of the supreme law of the land.

And Glenn Beck now wants to repeal.

Pug

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

Spun's getting modded up because today is the day slashdot gives modpoints to liberals.

Shakrai is getting modded down because he went and got himself backed into a corner and ended up stuck arguing that involuntary membership is a necessary condition of an empire. By his definition, the British Empire didn't exist until the US colonies revolted, and ceased to exist when the IRA gave up its regularly scheduled bombings.

It would have been easier to simply point out that most of our military bases abroad are there to protect our allies and that the US doesn't enforce rule of law over the areas they're in.

Re:Troubling

[Vegeta99]

Nah. Something rings a bell with me about not giving up freedom for security, that if you do, you deserve neither?

You know, stuff the country was founded upon? I wouldn't feel like a douche at all, and I wouldn't give a flying fuck what the court of public opinion felt. If the FBI really wanted to catch a terrorist, they would give me a well-formed search warrant.

Re:Troubling

[Vegeta99]

... and I'd have less of a problem responding to a National Security Letter if they told me WHO IT WAS FOR, and that someone was not a US citizen. Non-citizens have rights, but I don't necessarily believe that privacy is one of them.

Re:Troubling

[commodore64_love]

>>>Did you really just cite a movie as a reference?

Yes I did. :-) I did look-up the wikpedia article - that's how I found the title of the TV movie. Gideon's Trumpet stars movie master Henry Fonda and I HIGHLY recommend you download it & watch it. It's better than any sterile article, because it brings the story to life.
.

>>>this case dealt with a criminal case, not so much a civil matter such as this.

The Government demanding you gag yourself, while they investigate you, your business, and customers? Sounds like a criminal case to me.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't bother. Spun is a right-wing troll who shouts "ditto!" when he hears Rush Limbaugh on the radio.
Obviously, he's not, but just reading this might give him an aneurysm and make him shut up.

Re:Troubling

[nbauman]

Yes, I have a bias in favor of the scientific method and scientific evidence. I admit it.

Carl Sagan said that we live in a society in which it's vital for our survival to understand science and engineering, yet we have a population that doesn't understand science and technology.

Since Sagan died, it's gotten even worse. The Republicans are displaying open contempt for science and scientists.

So for example Bush took us to war in Iraq on the basis of claims about weapons of mass destruction that scientists like Hans Blik said were not supported by the evidence. Result: 4,000 American soldiers died so far.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

...it's illegal in New York State to tell one of your customers that he's the subject of a electronic surveillance warrant. Are you going to claim that's an infringement on free speech?

Sounds like it, yeah. Similarly, if the police question someone's neighbours, they shouldn't be able to threaten those neighbours with jailtime if they inform the subject of the questions.

Re:Troubling

[nbauman]

Medicare is not only a major problem all on its own but is actually a major reason for the increased health care costs born by all.

An excellent example of the subject under discussion: "I'm continually surprised by what passes for argumentation among conservatives."

You just make things up, without regard to facts or logic.

If I asked you to support that claim with evidence, you wouldn't know what to do.

Re:Troubling

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

I did SAY I was not a lawyer. You don't have to get on my case about THAT.

the notion that the lack of a law restraining the executive branch in a specific manner leaves the executive free to behave in violation of the constitution is laughable.

If people will believe it, whether or not it's the truth, it's serious, not laughable. And, I don't find it stupid. Laws are not merely a list of what's illegal, but also include a much wider set of guidelines, and it is those guidelines, along with any internal ones, which executive offices answer to. The constitution was meant to put absolute guidelines on the legislature with the idea that the legislature would then keep the executive on track.

First off, 4th amendment.

Doesn't mention congress specifically, where the 1st does, and that was the point I was making.

Secondly, the elastic clause:
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

It's hard to understand what that's saying without knowing the context, as the syntax isn't standard, and seems to reference nouns or context outside of that quote. And again, unfortunately, I'm not a constitutional scholar.

This, along with the enormous body of legislative and case law between the founding of our country and the present, affords specific powers to the FBI and somewhat clear restrictions on their actions.

Yes, I mentioned that there were applicable laws, I just don't know what they are. In particular, I said, if there are particular laws or examples of case law that are at issue, bring those up instead of the 1st amendment.

Thirdly, use your brain:
What good would a constitution be if it served as a subtractive set of only the things that the executive couldn't do?

Well I don't know the history of government, but in general, if I were starting an executive branch of government, I would charge them to do a job, then give them discretion to do that job--whichever job it is--within the limits of the law and with a few other caveats. Not knowing myself what would be necessary for all the different agencies, I would think that telling them too specifically what to do and what not to do would hamper them wherever I was wrong, or hamper my own authority if I'm wrong too often. Having done that, once the government is functioning, this list can be added to or subtracted from as we see what works and doesn't work, by the legislative branch--as a check on the power of the executive.

You should read Article II, Section 3, Clause 4. This clause regards the caring for the faithful execution of the law, and there's no part in there that says "when not oppressing people." The duties and restrictions of the executive are one and the same.

I don't believe I argued that they should't be bound by the law. I said that in particular in that case, the 1st amendment is not a law which applies to them, although your sibling's post suggests that the 14th amendment changes that. I didn't know that, although having heard that, it does change the situation somewhat.

Re:Troubling

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

I did not know that, and that does change the situation somewhat, thank you.

Re:Troubling

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

The problem here is that the FBI needs to get its authority from somewhere.

The FBI, being an executive agency, will do things. If they do something illegal, they will 1)not have the judicial branch to back them up (warrants, prisons, etc) and 2) they will (probably) face legal action themselves.

If they do something that does not need others' authority and does not invoke legal ramifications, for example holding someone in FBI-operated facilities temporarily (as opposed to jail cells), they may get away with it even if they shouldn't.

The FBI does not have the authority to make laws and thus it cannot be illegal to disclose the contents of an NSL unless Congress has specifically codified that authority into law. At that point, the Congress has in fact made a law restricting freedom of speech and hence is in violation of the 1st amendment.

True, very good point. Like I said, if you figure out which law that is, bring it up so that we can raise a fuss.

Alternatively, if the FBI has not been granted that authority by Congress, then it cannot be illegal to disclose the contents. Of course, being illegal and being something that could get you brought in for "questioning" are two different things...

...which is my point above about "whatever doesn't get them in trouble and doesn't involve someone who would ask questions e.g. the police"

Re:Troubling

[russotto]

If the President of GM wants you in prison, you'll go to prison. Their hired thugs are called "policemen".

But the President of GM is Obama's bitch, so GM is really better considered part of the government than a corporation in its own right.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

No, because that looks like a judge has to issue a warrant.

A judge-issued warrant should permit electronic surveillance (as per the 4th amendment) - but it should not prevent anyone from informing the subject that they are under surveillance (as per the 1st amendment). If that makes the surveillance useless, that's too bad.

Re:Troubling

[russotto]

No one's saying you can't stand up to the government rules. But you need to recall that they are, at the time, rules and by breaking them you will likely have the punishment for doing so applied to your bad self. That's when you are actually allowed to do the most good by having a public trial, getting the media involved, and changing the public's mind. It's a big risk to be arrested by the federal government and most people balk at the opportunity it could present.

You won't get all of that. Civil disobedience is a tactic which governments have adapted to and thus no longer works. Now if you break a bad law, the consequences aren't a showy public trial and a few months in jail. No, instead, they'll arrest you, freeze all your assets (so you can't defend yourself), harass your family, and delay resolution of the case until any media interest has subsided. THEN they'll have the trial and throw you in PMITA prison for a few years. Perhaps you'll get out; you'll be a convicted felon, having worth only as an bad example for others.

Re:Troubling

[russotto]

The truthful answer is a bit more complicated, going along the lines of: they don't want us to have a military base in their country, but they *do* want something else and we used that as leverage to force the military base on them.

Saying that base is there "at the behest of the local government" is plain inaccurate. Saying that the local government permitted it under duress would be closer.

Sounds like "the local government permitted it as part of a quid-pro-quo" would be even closer.

Unless you're referring to South Korea, in which case they could hardly get what they want from the US _without_ a military base.

Re:Troubling

[sjames]

The key reason for the 1st amendment is so that citizens may speak out against their government, such as when it violates the Constitution. If the government can just gag you whenever it behaves badly, the entire point is defeated.

If a judge, having reviewed the evidence to date determines that the search is lawful and that secrecy is justifiable, he may restrain free speech for a limited time. It's not preferred, but may be necessary. In contrast, these NSLs are reviewed by nobody and act as prior restraint on speech with no limitation on time.

It's practically custom made for abuse.

Re:Troubling

[commodore64_love]

A lot of ye seem to forget that corporations only exist because government CREATED them (via the incorporation license).

So if you consider corporations "evil", then you should stop and remember who made that evil - the Congress. Otherwise companies would be private with full liability for the owner (upto and including jailtime). Per usual the corporate abuse is merely a symptom of the disease - the root cause goes back to the government.

As for saying the People are the Government - that simply isn't true. These are separate entities, with the Constitution (supreme law) standing in between like a shield to protect the People from the Government.

Re:Troubling

[interval1066]

Google "Soviet police brutality gay" or "PRK police brutality gay" or "British police brutality gay" or "Iranian police brutality gay" and you'll see more than that. But of course you'll blame all those policies on the US, insane as that would be, Its tough to be gay, apparently? Only you can tell me that.

Re:Troubling

[Shakrai]

It is a 1st amendment issue when you can't tell your family and friends, though, even when it's merely that you were a served a NSL without telling for whom it covered or for what was requested

No it's not. You can't (legally) talk to your family and friends about a trial if you are sitting on the jury. You can't talk to them about Grand Jury proceedings. I'm a poll worker every election year -- I can't legally tell you how a voter who requests assistance marking his or her ballot voted.

None of those are 1st amendment infringements. Neither is a prohibition about discussing your involvement in a criminal investigation.

Re:Troubling

[Nyder]

Civil disobedience is not a free activity. Sometimes it's worth paying the price for standing up for what you believe in. Rosa Parks was found guilty and assessed a fine. Does that mean she shouldn't have done what she did?

And what did she gain? As far as I can tell, by my experience, black people still sit in the back of the bus.

Yes, of course, they don't have to sit there, but most of them seem to.

Re:Troubling

[oldhack]

I don't know that we need WikiLeaks. What we need is unbiased investigative reporting, something that is sorely lacking these days because it is hard work."

Given that we are not getting that, and even less likely to get it in the future the way the media industry is moving, only thing of the sort we do have is WikiLeaks. If it's WikiLeaks vs. no leak, I am leaning to WikiLeaks.

As far as the case at hand, the gag orders as implemented are a complete violation.

Don't mean squat since there is no repercussion to FBI and the administration. The laws have become a mere legalism.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

"You no longer have freedom of speech."

Speak for yourself.

Anyone who wants to shut me up had better be ready to die.

Re:Troubling

[dcam]

We don't have an "empire"...

Don't be ridiculous. The US has military bases in most of the civilised world and a lot of the less civilised world. The US feels free to intervene (using military and other means) throughout central and south America whenever they don't like the results of an election.

The US is probably the only power in the world that you could say has an empire.

Re:Troubling

[commodore64_love]

(emphasis mine)

"...NO LAW shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech..." - In other words you have the right to speak to your customer without restraint. Or to a reporter without restraint. The consequence of that act is you may be charged for aiding a criminal to escape prosecution, but you still have the right to speak. That can NEVER be revoked.

Also anyone who truly believes that the People are ABOVE the government, should be willing to spend time in jail fighting for their rights. As Henry David Thoreau when he refused to reveal the location of runaway slaves, in direct opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm as against American Exceptionalism as the next guy, but pulling the simplistic empire card as if we're equivalent to the British, the Ottomans and the Macedonians is intellectually dishonest."

NO, actually it's not. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Accordingly, you ought to shut your fucking mouth. Before someone
shuts it for you.

Re:Troubling

[operagost]

I'm not a conservative, and your scolding adds nothing to the discussion. Go away.

Re:Troubling

[ashkar]

We're Americans

You might as well say "We're people." I get sick of this rampant subconscious undercurrent that Americans are unquestionably more ignorant than the rest of the world and our place of birth requires an apology.

Please try to avoid such bigotry in the future.

Re:Troubling

[hazem]

How many people in New Orleans were shot by Blackwater employees during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina?

Re:Troubling

[JWSmythe]

    Sitting on the back of a city bus has a strategic advantage.

    If the bus has two doors, you have very quick access to the rear door.

    You can observe everyone boarding the bus, and their activities while on the bus, without changing your direction of view.

    In the event something "bad" happens, you have the opportunity to duck behind the seat in front of you. If some nutjob, or someone after you, comes on with a gun, you have time to take cover before you are seen. With a little luck, there will be a lot of resistance before they get to you. If not, they are at least distracted by checking every seat, when you can hear them walking up the aisle.

    While they are walking row to row, seeing if you are hiding, there's a good chance the driver will make moves to stop the action. A bus doesn't stop like a sports car, but he can sure stop fast enough to send someone who isn't holding on, flying forward and ending up on the floor. He also has the opportunity to call for police assistance.

    Sitting by the front door, you can be one of the first in view, which is less than advantageous. If they board at the rear door, you may not see them until they are already on board and searching.

    Sitting in the middle of the bus does give you two escape routes, but again it does limit your visibility of a potential attacker.

    While most people don't think too much about tactical advantage, sometimes it will save your life. If it's a bad neighborhood, it's a prudent choice to have an advantage. If you're in a good area, the chances of crime are lower, but they can still happen.

    I don't ride buses much, but when I do, I weigh my options. The best choice is usually the back. If I'm coming up to my stop, I frequently walk forward, but I can then see out all the side windows and the windshield to evaluate the outside situation before the bus stops.

    If you've never had a violent encounter, congratulations. No matter where you are, it could always happen sometime, and you don't want the first time it happens to be the time you become the victim.

Re:Troubling

[dbIII]

East Timor? They're not worth anything to us.

On the contrary, it was worth a large donation to the Republican Party from the Indonesian President on the day of the invasion. Ford was in Jakarata that day to collect it himself. Time passes, so a major scandal from 35 years ago is forgotten.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

Fully public tax records would be a good thing. It's not unprecedented, Norway has them online.

The labor market can be more efficient with greater information.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations don't have the power to send armed agents to kick in my door and slap handcuffs on me.....

except that corporations do send armed agents to kick in your door, right here in america... apple and the missing iphone4? raw milk producers getting swat team raids? open your eyes.

Re:Troubling

[APL bigot]

OTOH, his military source violated US laws and was well aware of what s/he was doing and should be prosecuted. Civil disobedience is not without it's risks. If we were in a real war this information leak would have resulted in a date with a firing squad.

Not if you're part of the right wing war machine. Remember Valerie Plame? Releasing the name of an undercover agent during a time of war is treason. Punishable by death. There wasn't even a tap on the shoulder for Dick Cheney.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/23/report-cheney-admits-cruc_n_153157.html

Re:Troubling

[L4t3r4lu5]

Or s/he meant something else, which conclusion I came to by this person certainly not confirming or denying the presence of any FBI gag order on him or herself.

Those lines you're reading... Try the space in between once in a while.

Re:Troubling

[L4t3r4lu5]

I find that the correct response in this situation is "Ad hominem; Your arguments are rejected. Come back when you have something salient to say regarding the discussion, not the people engaged in it."

Re: Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

What did the Romans ever do for us?

Re:Troubling

[TheRaven64]

Corporations don't have the power to send armed agents to kick in my door and slap handcuffs on me.....

Ever wondered what organisation decided and enforced the decision that they don't have that power?

Re:Troubling

[gfreeman]

We're not talking about other countries though, are we? If you're measuring your freedoms against PRK or the Soviet Union, then I suggest you have real troubles with your freedoms.

Why would *I* be the only one who can tell you it's tough to be gay? Do you not know any gay people? In all probability, you do - it's an extremely high probability you know plenty of people who are gay, yet *I'm* the only one who can tell you what it's like to be gay? This tells me your gay friends have trouble trouble talking to you about their gayness. I wonder why.

PS. I'm not gay.

Re:Troubling

[Tim C]

He makes one assertion that is demonstrably incorrect and suddenly he's a zealot?

Re:Troubling

[Tim C]

>Spying, inciting unrest, sabotage, assassination- none of these were invented by the USA.

While that's true, it doesn't really seem to make it any better that your country seems to do it so much, and with such gusto.

Disclaimer: I'm a Brit, but I'm nowhere near old enough to be blamed for our imperial days.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, wanting to suck another dude's poop-covered dick is pretty worthy of a beating...

Re:Troubling

[omni123]

In the interest of fairness it is probably worth noting that in the Chevron Niger Delta incident the activists took hostages inside the facility. Chevron was later cleared of all charges by a unanimous jury verdict that took under an hour to deliberate.

Re:Troubling

[JoeMerchant]

Not belittling Rosa Parks, Desmond Tutu, or any of the other civil disobedients who did make great sacrifice to make their point - but how many thousands have sacrificed more for no visible result beyond their own punishment? If you've got little to lose (like a certain Jet Blue flight attendant) then it's easier to let it go and roll the dice on making a bold statement. My take on life in the USA is that you're rolling about a half dozen 20 sided dice and expecting them to all come up 7 if you expect a civil disobedience protest to do anything positive for your own life, or the life of anyone you know.

Re:Troubling

[Shakrai]

Glenn Beck is an idiot but I haven't heard him come out against the equal protection requirement. He and others have come out against jus soli, which is actually a discussion worth having, IMHO.

Re:Troubling

[JoeMerchant]

I have a friend whose mother walked out of Poland to far western Germany for fear of similar things happening, 40 years earlier. So much for progress. Think they'll be any better by 2020?

Re:Troubling

[Shakrai]

Don't waste your time trying to change the mind of a zealot.

Re:Troubling

[JoeMerchant]

Civil disobedience is not a free activity. Sometimes it's worth paying the price for standing up for what you believe in. Rosa Parks was found guilty and assessed a fine. Does that mean she shouldn't have done what she did?

And what did she gain? As far as I can tell, by my experience, black people still sit in the back of the bus.

Yes, of course, they don't have to sit there, but most of them seem to.

You, not having these kinds of rules enforced on you, may not appreciate the difference. The difference is huge when you do if by choice instead of lack of choice.

Re:Troubling

[Shakrai]

Based on the fact that no civil suits have been filed in spite of this being the United States of America I'm going to have to go with zero.

Re:Troubling

[GooberToo]

Bullshit. It was fought in court. You can't even hire an attorney to represent you on the basis of, "I have a thing but I can't discuss it with you." It is unconstitutional for a gag order to deny constitutional privileges. Not only that, but no such thing took place.

Re:Troubling

[Shakrai]

How about a modern day citation? Citing United Fruit or the East India Company is not exactly relevant in 2010.....

Re:Troubling

[mcgrew]

You didn't RTFA, did you? No judge is involved; just the FBI, who writes the gag order all by themselves and ARE the cops with truncheons enforcing their own gag order.

Why in the hell do you think I found it so troubling? READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE.

Re:Troubling

[Muad'Dave]

Please read about Executive Orders and Signing Statements. There is no explicit authorization for them in the Constitution, nor do they have congressional oversight.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

Spying, inciting unrest, sabotage, assassination- none of these were invented by the USA.

Maybe they didn't invent it but it has been the US tactics since the first white man landed here. American Imperialism has been alive and well for over 500 years. They called it "Manifest Destiny" at one time.

Same shit different day different place different Tribe under the guns of Amerika.

Welcome to Nazi Amerika.

Re:Troubling

[The Spoonman]

Hmmmm...well, I hadn't followed the case that closely, so was unaware it had even gone to court in the US. In reviewing some of the criticisms of the case, though, it looks like the appeal is well needed. In the case of Chevron, I suppose I can reserve judgment until I do some further research.

Re:Troubling

[Muad'Dave]

If the 2nd amendment read "The right of the people to own cars shall not be infringed", would you consider it an infringement if the government decided that you could only own cars that cost over $100,000, or had to be red, or had to be made by GM, or could only run on rainbow dust and faerie farts?

I would.

It doesn't say "the right to bear AN arm", it says armS, without any restrictions.

If you're a Java jockey, the 2nd Amendment allows us to bear anything that extends the abstract class Arm, not a particular instance of an implementing class such as PoliticallyExpedientArm or NonThreateningLookingArm as codified by the assault weapons ban put in place by Clinton (if it looks evil enough, it's an assault weapon).

Re:Troubling

[The Spoonman]

Such an adorable zealot you are.

Re:Troubling

[The Spoonman]

He made one demonstrably incorrect statement in this thread. I've dealt with him before.

Re:Troubling

[Shakrai]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Just what kind of zealot do you think I am exactly? A right-wing one? I've never voted Republican for any office higher than County Sheriff. A left-wing one? Not likely I suppose.

Re:Troubling

[hesaigo999ca]

>You no longer have freedom of speech.
We no longer have freedom of speech....there fixed that for you!

Re:Troubling

[spun]

My scolding demonstrates that infantile ad hominems are not acceptable in adult discourse. And why should I go away?

Re:Troubling

[spun]

Here, let me google that for you: http://www.google.com/search?q=iraq+funds+missing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Re:Troubling

[V for Vendetta]

Corporations don't have the power to send armed agents to kick in my door and slap handcuffs on me.....

You're sure about that?

Re:Troubling

[spun]

Everything else? I like a balanced budget. And I support states' rights: if it isn't in the constitution, it should be up to the states, and the commerce clause is not a trump card. So I'm guessing we have that in common, too. Of course, I want states' rights so all us hippies can take over California and turn it into a pot-smoking socialist worker's paradise, but let's not quibble over details.

Re:Troubling

[CannonballHead]

Well, I'll go with those two things, too. As for hippies, I'm not much of a tie-die fan, so if you do succeed in your pot-smoking socialist worker's California paradise plan, please leave at least a few areas unpainted. ;)

Re:Troubling

[Red Flayer]

He never explained the compelling American interest in Iraq.

And yet he was still able to gain a crapload of public support for it among the rank-and-file American public. It's a mystery to me how he was able to accomplish that, aside from the general level of hysteria post-9/11.

If there was any good reason for the prescrition drug benefit plan, I never heard it.

I've got a good reason for you: vote-pandering.

Re:Troubling

[jp10558]

Well, you can have the same amount of control over a Corporation by buying stock. Actually, you can get more control by buying a LOT of stock, if you can afford it. I think it's similar indeed to campaign contributions - more money means more influence.

Re:Troubling

[jp10558]

We haven't done this to China yet to stop the huge trade deficit and fix our economy. Why not?
Well, and also probably because we don't have an overwhelmingly superior force with which to invade. So we might lose - we might also lose because the Chinese make most of our consumer goods and electronics, and for all I know, might make enough of the military stuff to make it hard to fight them.

Re:Troubling

[Archangel Michael]

Define Marriage 100 years ago. 500 years ago. 1000 years ago. 3000 years ago.

WHEN redefining "marriage" to include a definition that is less that 50 years old, how can you say that it is about 'equal protection'? Equal protection from what?

Can I define Marriage anyway I want? Why is YOUR definition the one that counts? How do you feel about polygamy? How about marriage between brother and sister? Brother and Brother? Father/daughter, father/son, mother/son, mother/daughter?

The problem with those who want marriage to extend to "Gay" people, and non of the others, is one of POLITICS not "equal protection", because most of the people who are supportive of gay marriage rights aren't in favor of all these other variations, so "equal protection" of defining marriage between ANY two consenting adults is NOT the reason. Either that or they are hypocritical.

The fact that most also aren't in favor of Polygamy, which as WAY more historical support is just as hypocritical in also is indicative of the skewed political reality.

Personally, I would much rather the state abandon certifying marriages, as they have NO SUCH INTEREST in a "sacred" (historically) institution.

The whole reason Gay Marriage is an issues is one of political power and not of "rights" such as "equal protection". Marriage has never been "equal" and there is no way to make it so, unless you completely invalidate all previous restrictions on who can marry who. Which even MOST gay people don't want.

I know, because My brother is gay, I've had that conversation with him. Pretending it is about "equal protection" is just a red-herring.

Re:Troubling

[jp10558]

I used to think the judiciary as set up in the USA was a good thing. Now I'm a little worried about the supremacy of the Judiciary that we have - what Britain used to have with some members of Parliment as the highest court may have been a better idea... I'm really not sure.

I think of course, that most people hope there aren't judges who rubber stamp anything the government wants to do.

Re:Troubling

[AK Marc]

I'm amused by the conservatives whose biggest complaint is "see, he's not fixing Bush's mistakes fast enough."

Re:Troubling

[AK Marc]

Private accounts can't work in the manners I've seen proposed. The point of SS isn't to provide a retirement fund. That's what the private one would so. Instead, SS provides a safety net. This includes default payments to old people, but also pays disability and such. I've not see an private proposal that explains how I go about putting my money in my account owned by me and pay that out to the disabled guy down the street.

Perhaps that's the issue. "Private accounts" isn't about private accounts, but a complete restructuring of the core idea of SS, and it's the dishonesty of hiding one in the other that makes all the anti-SS people come off looking evil.

Oh, and you must be 18, because I've heard privatization tossed around before Bush Sr. was in office, let alone Jr.

Re:Troubling

[lgw]

Defined benefit pension plans are simply a scam, and should be outlawed wholesale. There's some reasonable public interest in compelling people to save for their own retirement, but as soon as you back that with any sort of "if it's not enough, the taxpayers will pitch in" it becomes just another "51% vote to take money from 49%" problem with democracy.

Disability insurance is so cheap it's hardly worth talking about, and certainly isn't the reason SS has financial worries, but that's distinct in puropose from the retirement aspect of SS.

Sure, "privatization" has been discussed forever, but it won't be politically teneble to even discuss until people forget that Teh Evil Bush proposed it too. Sigh.

Re:Troubling

[spun]

Yeah, or the phony outrage over "Obama's Katrina," as if they give a rat's ass about the environment any other time. Or the deficit, we have to fix it except we have to maintain Bush's tax cuts to the rich, so the only way to do it is to gut social security and slash unemployment insurance.

See, they can't say what's really bothering them, so they have to make stuff up and it doesn't really matter what because they all know that when one of them says,"Obama isn't fixing Bush's mistakes fast enough," what they really mean is, "Obama is black. How is he in the White House? He's black! I want my country back. Someone stole my country and gave it to a black man, and I want it back, it's for me, it's my country and I want it baaaaaaaaaaack!"

The average non-filthy-rich Republican does not really want to slash social programs. He just doesn't want those people benefiting from them.

Re:Troubling

[commodore64_love]

>>>but the FBI is I believe part of the executive branch, where the consitution and the first amendment in particular is aimed at the legislature: "Congress shall make no law"

In which case the 10th Amendment applies - The Executive of the US shall exercise no power (like muzzling citizens) that it was never granted by the constitution. If such a power exists, it is reserved to the Member States' Governments or the Individuals.

Re:Troubling

[NoOneInParticular]

What do taxation have to do with being an empire? The only thing that needs to be done is that the countries taken over by the empire are not sovereign. Germany is constitutionally restrained from attempting a war of aggression and has signed a treaty that they will not attempt to create nuclear weapons. Until very recently, Japan was not allowed to have a standing army, and also they are not allowed to have nukes. Oh sorry, they decided themselves that they neither wanted a standing army or nukes. Right.

Re:Troubling

[NoOneInParticular]

Can you at least tell that you're a poll worker?

Re: Troubling

[NoOneInParticular]

In what currency is oil traded? Right, USD. Since the US became bankrupt (this happened early seventies), the printing press has run non-stop, giving the US almost free oil. No other country but the US can print dollars, that is where being the empire pays off.

Re:Troubling

[Attila Dimedici]

Please give an example of an Empire other than your purported U.S. Empire that did not tax subject lands.
Also, since you claim the U.S. has an Empire, please give me an idea what "countries" are part of it (I used quotation marks since if they are part of the U.S. Empire, they aren't really countries as we normally use the word)? The list doesn't have to be comprehensive because obviously some areas will be less clear than others, but try to be thorough. For example, you seem to imply that Germany is part of the American Empire, how does that work with Germany being part of the E.U?

Re:Troubling

[NoOneInParticular]

Very good, that's why in most western European countries we have codified it as "Freedom of expressing one's opinion' instead of 'freedom of speech'. Saves quite a bit of pointless discussion. What a few words can do...

Re:Troubling

[NoOneInParticular]

The US empire doesn't tax, they buy resources in their own currency (of which they are the only ones free to print copies of). That's close to how the Dutch empire worked. Everything in the name of trade.

Who belongs to the American Empire? Everyone involved in Pax Americana. That means the entirety of the Nato, so that's the EU, all countries wanting to be part of the Nato, that's Europe except Belarus and Russia itself, Canada, Japan, South Korea, and Australia.

You would probably call this a network of allies, yet in history it will be known as the American empire, as it was the 'leader of the free world', elected only by American citizens, that set policy.

Re: Troubling

[lgw]

It wouldn't matter if oil was traded in Brasilian Thongs, currency exchange markets make it all moot. With the ability to hedge future changes in exchange rates, the currency oil is priced in doesn't even matter for future delivery. The idea that the currency that oil is priced in matters to the US is just some sort of wierd paranoid conspiracy thing.

Re:Troubling

[Attila Dimedici]

So, your post seems to contradict itself. It says that all countries which sell resources for U.S. dollars are members of the American Empire, yet you say that Russia and Belarus are not.
So, according to you, the American Empire consists of Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia and all of Europe. except Russia and Belarus? What about Saudi Arabia? Israel? The various countries of Africa? India? China? They all sell resources to U.S. (and most non-U.S.) companies for U.S. dollars. Are they part of the American Empire?
Your list fails to give me a method to determine if a particular country is in the American Empire or not, unless you are saying that it encompasses the entire world (everyone who sells resources for U.S. dollars).

Re:Troubling

[NoOneInParticular]

Yes, you are right. The American empire (called Pax Americana) does span the entire world, and only recently countries such as Russia, China, Brazil, but not India, are trying to get out of the yoke. In the case of China, it is succeeding.

Iraq tried to sell oil in Euros in 2000. Iran is selling oil in non-US currencies since Feb 2008. You might want to correlate the US war rhetoric against these dates.

Re:Troubling

[Attila Dimedici]

When was China "in the yoke"? Russia? Give dates, when did they become part of the American Empire? If they are no longer in the American Empire, when did they gain their independence?

Re:Troubling

[mcgrew]

You have that backwards; Obama is GM's bitch. The government is owned by the corporations, and all the legislators are beholden to them. The US Government is big business' bitch.

Re:Troubling

[mcgrew]

I agree, government shoule have nothing to do with marriage, and they should end the discrimination against single people. Why should someone with two incomes sharing the rent and utility bills get a tax break when I'm paying my way by myself? I can see tax breaks for guardians of minor children, but why should I pay more in taxes than a married couple whose kids are grown and out of the house?

Re:Troubling

[thoromyr]

Quid pro quo implies agreement on the terms and some sort of semblance of balance/parity/equity. Whenever you are talking about large organizations (such as governments) it is important to remember that they are made up of numerous individuals. While some members of the government likely feel the deal is worth it, others very much do not.

Try a thought experiment. Say we were concerned about illegal immigrants crossing our long Northern border with Canada and another country, France perhaps, has some technology that will allow us to rapidly identify and permanently detain them. We wish to install this wonderful technology. The thing is, France won't *sell* us the technology, but they will provide it to us if it is completely run by them and they get to run their own security force to protect the installations. Of course, by security force, they mean they want to have airborne units. And just maybe they have top level meetings with the powers that be in our government (closed door, of course) to show them how they have proof that the threat from Canada is even worse than we thought, and how effective their illegal immigrant detention system is.

Even if the top officials in the US think it is a fair trade to have French army units operating in our country just so we can keep the pesky Cannucks at bay I hope you can see how others would not view this as a fair, equitable or even desirable agreement. And there are likely to be many of those holding government positions -- not in a place to change the state of things, but nonetheless unhappy about it.

thoromyr

Re:Troubling

[bluie-]

My view is that marriage is a religious entity, and the church alone should be able to decide who it wants to marry. However, the state (being separate from any religion), should be able to give the same legal rights that they now give for marriage to almost any two people who want to be married. Call it a legal union, or whatever else you want, but the rights should be there and be independent of any church.

The state shouldn't recognize polygamy and incestuous relations. Excessive polygamy shouldn't be condoned because then there won't be enough of a particular sex to go around, and incest shouldn't be allowed because it leads to biological problems. Basically, for logical and scientific reasons.

You may then wonder why allow gays to marry, since it could also lead to population imbalances (if for example more men are gay than women). The reason for this is because they can't help being gay (believing otherwise is idiotic), and no matter what the law is they are going to pair off this way anyway. Polygamists may marry under their church anyway despite the law, but this is different in my mind, because nobody has a condition where they are attracted to ONLY multiple other people.

You may then further wonder if I would support unions that don't lead to population imbalances and genetic problems, for example four bisexuals (two male two female) in a union... well I personally wouldn't have a problem with it, but we'd want to make sure they wouldn't have an unfair advantage over others under the law, I would think.

In summary, provide legal opportunities for couples that make sense, and let churches perform whatever ceremonies they want to please their respective gods.

Re:Troubling

[bluie-]

I think the idea behind it is that tax is a way to encourage certain behavior and discourage other, and they want people to pair and reproduce future working americans. I'm not sure of the practicalities behind this however, and I think no matter what the tax situation people that want to have kids will have them, so I agree that this shouldn't be the law.

Re:Troubling

[fishexe]

Please try to avoid such bigotry in the future.

It's not bigotry, it's +5 Funny.

Re:Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

That point only applies if he's in Colombia or Nigera, you fucking dumbass.

Yeah.

[TrisexualPuppy]

An old buddy of mine works at the FBI. He says that these demanding letters come in all shapes and forms, are frequently quite illegitimate, and are becoming more and more widely spread.

Basically, the FBI is doing what the MAFIAA do--they know that they're the big boys with power and money and will go against you whether you're right or wrong because nearly no one will fight.

Re:Yeah.

[mcgrew]

An old buddy of mine works at the FBI. He says that these demanding letters come in all shapes and forms, are frequently quite illegitimate, and are becoming more and more widely spread.

TFA says the same thing, so your post serves to back up what TFA said.

Re:Yeah.

[Ironhandx]

Ah, I wish I still had mod points.

It reminds me of a story about a Canadian who refused to cooperate with the FBI and had the FBI officer argue with him until he was blue in the face that the man had to cooperate with them and it was illegal to do otherwise.

To be fair though the FBI can just put a request through proper channels and the RCMP can go get whatever they needed. It is illegal to be uncooperative with the RCMP in Canada. Its funny how often the FBI thinks they can just do whatever they want and bypass all of the regs though.

Re:Yeah.

[epiphani]

they know that they're the big boys with power and money and will go against you whether you're right or wrong because nearly no one will fight.

Bolded the important part. This is one guy with a small ISP. Every other business, ISP, content provider, etc, bends over immediately. There is no more expectation of privacy, and the forth amendment is long dead.

Re:Yeah.

[cdrudge]

So your buddy is allowed to talk about them with people outside of the bureau (presuming you don't work for them too), but those that receive them aren't?

Re:Yeah.

[swb]

(1) Size up opponent in terms of political clout, potential exposure and wealth.
(2) Weakness on any front? Issue National Security Letter
(3) Profit!!!

Re:Yeah.

[TrisexualPuppy]

So your buddy is allowed to talk about them with people outside of the bureau (presuming you don't work for them too), but those that receive them aren't?

Yes, we were discussing policy. He can talk about policy all day long but by no means is he allowed to talk to me about specific cases.

Re:Yeah.

[Anonymous Coward]

they know that they're the big boys with power and money and will go against you whether you're right or wrong because nearly no one will fight
 
To what ends? Why would they have their own agenda?

Re:Yeah.

[elrous0]

Unregulated power *always* invites abuse. If an FBI agent knows he can just use one of these letters without needing to prove anything to court and that he will never have to answer for it, why *wouldn't* he use it for everything? I would be surprised if they even bothered with warrants at all anymore (except in high-profile cases that might invite media scrutiny).

Re:Yeah.

[TheGratefulNet]

no accountability for the FBI, it seems?

ie, if you or I do something wrong and cause harm, we are accountable.

but if the FBI ruins a life or causes harm (in secret, no less!) there is no down side to them.

therefore, until this changes, don't expect fairness or justice. american stasi, effectively. yes, I fully do mean 'secret police'; if they are allowed to do pretty much anything, unchecked, how is this NOT a secret police?

the very notion of a gag order is against all that I understood the US to stand for. total abuse of power, nothing else.

Re:Yeah.

[Nadaka]

An old buddy of mine works at the FBI. He says that these demanding letters come in all shapes and forms, are frequently quite illegitimate, and are becoming more and more widely spread.

Basically, the FBI is doing what the MAFIAA do--they know that they're the big boys with power and money and will go against you whether you're right or wrong because nearly no one will fight.

So, TrisexualPuppy... How is Hoover these days? Still in ladies undergarments?

Re:Yeah.

[magarity]

To what ends? Why would they have their own agenda?
 
Because the people who work at the FBI are ... people. They have bad customer service experiences, jilted/spurned lovers, see the red scare in every shadow, etc, and can just as easily give in to the temptation to take revenge or vigilante action as anyone else. Except being armed with these letters is a lot more dangerous than blogging a bitter grapes rant with pictures.

Re:Yeah.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, I wish I still had mod points.

It reminds me of a story about a Canadian who refused to cooperate with the FBI and had the FBI officer argue with him until he was blue in the face that the man had to cooperate with them and it was illegal to do otherwise.

To be fair though the FBI can just put a request through proper channels and the RCMP can go get whatever they needed. It is illegal to be uncooperative with the RCMP in Canada. Its funny how often the FBI thinks they can just do whatever they want and bypass all of the regs though.

I don't think thats just an FBI thing though, it's an American thing. Thinking the laws in your country apply to everyone on earth.

I can tell you.

[AnonymousClown]

The FBI wanted the entire customer list and all of their assigned IP address for as long as they were with the ISP.

IOW, they wanted everything.

Re:I can tell you.

[elrous0]

Don't worry, I'm sure they would never abuse the masses of information obtained on completely innocent customers not involved at all in this investigation. After all, they're the FBI. You can trust them. J. Edgar Hoover said so.

Re:I can tell you.

[Ironhandx]

I just wish this guy had another ISP opened. I would like to get my Internet connection from him, AKA someone with scruples.

Bet this guy was VERY exceptional

[elrous0]

For every ISP like this who stood up to the feds, I wonder how many just caved and put their own business interests ahead of the civil rights of their clients?

Re:Bet this guy was VERY exceptional

[ink]

Unfortunately, there's no way to know with these "gag orders" in place. Even if some piece of information is needed for national security reasons, it should be subject to speedy judicial review after the fact -- otherwise, there is no mechanism to identify abuse.

Re:Bet this guy was VERY exceptional

[commodore64_love]

>>>it should be subject to speedy judicial review after the fact -

BEFORE the fact. Warrants are supposed to be issued by judges, not police, and while under oath. These warrants the police are issuing without involving the courts are unconstitutional.

Re:Bet this guy was VERY exceptional

[misexistentialist]

All the rest of them.

Re:Bet this guy was VERY exceptional

[Dan667]

except for the patriot act that allows spying with no judge over sight. The patriot act not patriotic.

Re:Bet this guy was VERY exceptional

[Americano]

You're right - in this circumstance, a warrant should be issued before any search, and/or the entire process needs to be subjected to judicial review.

There are exigent circumstances where a warrant is not needed before police may enter and search a location - it usually involves cases where they believe that evidence may be destroyed if they don't act, someone is in immediate physical danger, or the suspect poses a flight risk and may escape if they do not enter that location. I could imagine some scenario where law enforcement would be able to justify seizing these records without a warrant if they believed the subject of the search to be a flight risk, or an immediate threat to national security;

However, the "no judicial review" part is monstrous, and should never have been allowed. In many (most? all?) cases where "exigent circumstances" are used to justify a warrantless search, there is still judicial oversight after the fact, where a warrant must be justified & issued to cover the search, and if the police fail to do that, the evidence they gathered during that search may be declared inadmissible as evidence in any legal action. In other words, the threat of totally botching their investigation and letting the suspect go free on a technicality keeps the police from declaring "exigent circumstances" whenever they feel like it.

Re:Bet this guy was VERY exceptional

[ink]

BEFORE the fact. Warrants are supposed to be issued by judges, not police, and while under oath. These warrants the police are issuing without involving the courts are unconstitutional.

While I agree with your sentiment, the supreme court has held the executive privileges in the constitution to supersede the 4th amendment protections when national security is at stake. Given that, we should still demand a review after the fact; or a FISA-like court system to expedite warrants. Our police force can only do what congress allows them to. The Patriot Act was a horrible piece of legislation.

Re:Bet this guy was VERY exceptional

[skids]

There aren't too many like Nick. Knew him when he was just starting up with a T1 in a decrepit old building in NYC. Very civic minded, and firm about it. Let a lot of NPOs hop on for free as a public service. Good guy.

Re:Bet this guy was VERY exceptional

[sjames]

Or just couldn't afford the time and money it takes to fight these things. Justice is expensive in the U.S.

Re:Bet this guy was VERY exceptional

[Anonymous Coward]

I think ISPs need to work on not automatically handing over customer data on receipt of a subpeona from a lawyer that has not even been signed by a judge. Once they've got that down they can graduate to challenging NSLs.

Many smaller ISPs are totally clueless often using engineers with no legal background to manage the entire response.

Power

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree 100%, but what this really is is yet another reminder that political power cannot be fought. Political power is the special right to employ physical force as a means to an end. Nobody holds that special right except for government. That one special right is, in fact, what defines government and seperates government from everybody else.

Why am I going on about this? Because that one special right is the most dangerous thing in the world, and for this reason it MUST be strictly limited. Think twice about cheering for more and more government along with the masses. Remember that we are already living under the most expensive, most powerful government this world has ever seen. If you advocate more government on certain matters, AT LEAST consider that the power you advocate should be re-allocated from other parts of government which are over-powered (and there are many), rather than created out of thin air. All too often I see people on slashdot cheering for yet even more government, without even giving consideration to the fact that they are already subject (if they live in the US) to the most powerful empire in history, with military bases in over 150 countries around the world.

They already have enough power. They already have enough revenue. In fact, they have way too much of both, and that is why the level of injustice is increasing, not decreasing, over time.

Re:Power

[fishexe]

If the government has enough revenue, why are we supposed to be so worried about the deficit?

Re:Power

[LordLucless]

Because they're spending their revenue on controlling the population, rather than paying the deficit?

Prez!

[natehoy]

Nicholas Merrill for President... of Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc!!!!

Who's with me?

FBI Liars

[AnonymousClown]

Ah, so the FBI are liars.

I wonder why I root for Al Capone in all those gangster movies.....

Re:FBI Liars

[operagost]

Because he didn't pay taxes?

Re:FBI Liars

[mcgrew]

Ah, so the FBI are liars.

I've always said it should be the Federal Investigations Bureau

Re:FBI Liars

[Zerth]

No, because he delivered alcohol.

be smarter still-The Santa Cruz method

[way2trivial]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/03/10/LIBRARIES.TMP
"In Santa Cruz, where library officials are trying to stir up patrons about the Patriot Act, chief librarian Anne Turner has found a more subtle way to sidestep the gag order, if she ever faces one.

"At each board meeting I tell them we have not been served by any (search warrants)," she said. "In any months that I don't tell them that, they'll know."

Re:be smarter still-The Santa Cruz method

[interkin3tic]

It does say that friends and family started to get suspicious and asked him whether he was the "John Doe." He said he had to lie or refuse to answer the question. Given that the letter told him he couldn't even speak to an attorney, I suspect that if he were to say "Hypothetically, if I were the one served an NSL, I couldn't answer that question. Unrelated note, I'm going to walk away right now," the FBI wouldn't be above trying to throw him in jail. I'm guessing they -did- make attempts to throw him in jail for talking to an attorney and the ACLU.

Maybe that's why they settled for partially dropping the gag order rather than continuing and trying to get the whole NSL practice declared horribly unconstitutional. I suspect we'll never know.

Re:be smarter still-The Santa Cruz method

[dkleinsc]

Another variation on this tactic that I saw in Vermont was a sign on the wall of the library that said "The FBI has not been here. Watch for the discrete removal of this sign."

Re:be smarter still-The Santa Cruz method

[fishexe]

That's a great plan, with just one minor drawback: you have to expect them to eventually serve you in order to be able to do it. Which makes it great from here on out, but useless for the man in question.

Re:be smarter still-The Santa Cruz method

[Muad'Dave]

Perhaps you meant the discreet removal of this sign? Discrete is "separate and distinct", discreet is "intentionally unobtrusive".

Re:be smarter still-The Santa Cruz method

[Golddess]

When you put it that way, perhaps discrete was what they meant? As in, "we have removed this sign for some separate and distinct reason other than the FBI having been here. No, really! >.>;".

Yeah! National security! For our own protection!

[Benfea]

It's for our own protection, comrade! If you disagree with this, that means you're with the capitalists and against Mother Russia! We know how to deal with uppity citizens who refuse to cooperate with the KGB!

No offense, but our government has such a track record of claiming "national security" when it is anything but that I am inclined to not believe them when I hear those words. Half the time, it turns out to be our freedoms being curtailed for purely political reasons (either to cover someone's @ss or to harass an enemy). And you know what? Every totalitarian government uses that claim (or something similar) when they run roughshod over the rights of their constituents.

The Soviets were protecting their people from capitalist spies, capitalist saboteurs, and other unsavory "anti-revolutionary" types. The Nazis were protecting their people from Jews, gypsies, communists, homosexuals, union members, etc., etc. For our government, the boogeyman changes from time to time (drug dealers, terrorists, immigrants, etc.), but the purpose is the same. Your problem is that you've obviously fallen from the boogeyman scare tactics and failed to see it for what it is, and your reaction is exactly what those peddling fear could have hoped for.

Anyone who is trying to sell you something using fear is up to no good, or they would not have to resort to such tactics. We have a certain tradition in this country, and letting the government do whatever the hell they want as long as they use the magic words "national security" or "for your own protection" is not part of that tradition.

Wikileaks Vets All Of My Mail

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything that looks even the slightest bit official goes straight to wikileaks before I read it. Note to my goverment: Anything sent to me that is secret is seen by wikileaks first. Sorry, that's just the way it is. And also, my profuse apologies to wikileaks for all those license renewal notices and utility bills and escrow analysis statements that I keep sending. Just ignore them.

A Solution?

[karcirate]

Here's what you do when you get one of these letters:

1) Deny that you have any of the records they are looking for.
2) Make sure that data (which you do have) is seriously protected.
3) They have no way to get the data from you now without either:
a. arresting you for not complying - in which case their secrecy is blown, so they won't do that
b. getting a court ordered warrant - in which case their secrecy is blown, so they won't do that
c. Getting all sneaky and stealing the data - see #2
d. Totally screwing you over and destroying your life - in which case their secrecy is blown because once your life is destroyed, you have nothing to lose by revealing the letter, so they won't do that
4) Dance

Re:A Solution?

[EmagGeek]

That would work, except that by the time you receive the letter, the FBI has already implemented 3.c and obtained the information they are seeking. They just need a paper trail to show that the information was obtained legally (even though NSLs violate the constitution in a number of ways).

Denying you have information the FBI has already obtained from you is a sure way to get yourself into some hot water.

Re:A Solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed 3e. The government can totally screw you over without doing it publicly or allowing you to continue having the option of revealing the letter. Or, they could show enough finesse to do 3d (Screw you over in secret) enough to ensure capitulation while still giving them the ability to screw you over more.

Re:A Solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Won't they hold you in contempt of court for not complying? Oh wait..

Re:A Solution?

[evilviper]

1) Deny that you have any of the records they are looking for.

Lying to the FBI is a crime.

If you don't mind going to jail, sure, you have LOTS of options. He could have just ignored the gag order and blabbed about it everywhere.

Re:A Solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who has been on the receiving end of this: no, they haven't. Otherwise, they would not have asked for data we didn't actually have. In some cases, the request is merely "Do you even *have* any data for this user?"

Re:A Solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory xkcd

http://xkcd.com/538/

Re:A Solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

No! Best solution is DO NOT store customer data at all especially browsing activity. Only store bytes in/out for billing.

Re:A Solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

d. Totally screwing you over and destroying your life - in which case their secrecy is blown because once your life is destroyed, you have nothing to lose by revealing the letter, so they won't do that

Assuming you're willing to get totally screwed over for the sake of liberty. You'd have to be an Internet Tough

Re:A Solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent's point is that, in order to send you to jail, they need to give up their secrecy. So they won't do it. (Probably.)

Re:A Solution?

[sabt-pestnu]

> (something) - in which case their secrecy is blown ... so they won't do that

The possibility of punishment has been shown not to be a deterrent to crime, as the criminals simply do not entertain the possibility that they may be caught.

How much less of a deterrent is it going to be to a government agency that has SHOWN it can get away with this sort of crap?

The Empire gives us subsidized oil prices

[lotzmana]

... we used to have liberty and security, now we have security and empire, but our empire sure doesn't seem to be doing anything for the average citizen.

The Empire gives the ordinary citizen subsidized oil prices. The funding of the army is not explicitly reflected in the gasoline prices. The result is a happy motoring nation. Every ordinary citizen benefits from it.

Is there any way I can subscribe?

[MasterOfMagic]

Is there any way that I can subscribe to his ISP, even if I'm not in the area? Someone like this should be rewarded for standing up for their principles.

Does he still run an ISP or did it go under?

[HungryHobo]

if this guy is still running a company that provides anything I use then I'd like to vote with my wallet and go with someone who gives a shit about his customers.

EVERY american has a right to attorney!

[TheGratefulNet]

you CANNOT undo that. sorry. no letter can undo that.

this quote was GOLD!

"My gut feeling is I'm an American," Merrill said, in an interview with Threat Level on Tuesday. "I always have a right to an attorney. There's no such thing as you can't talk to your attorney."

if there's a fund for this guy, I'd be happy to donate some cash to him. he seems like a GOOD GUY!

I honestly don't know what I'd do if I got one of these illegal letters (yes, I consider this illegal to DENY me my right to an attorney. YOU, mr. government, have all you want; I deserve at least ONE.

this is HUGE. people have created revolutions on less than this!

"sorry, but we have the right to lock you up and fuck you over and you can't even defend yourself".

BULLSHIT!

just push enough people and eventually one will 'flip out' and make the news. maybe then it will get some deserved attention.

this 'law' is SO WRONG on so many levels.

Re:EVERY american has a right to attorney!

[skids]

He is a consistently good guy, going on decades now. Just keep him in mind if you want to host anything -- might be a bit pricier/less featureful than other ISPs, but it comes with the peace of mind that the company is customer-first.

Re:EVERY american has a right to attorney!

[skids]

Gah I guess I should have stayed in touch -- looks like the ISP business must have folded. Bummer.

Other uses for this sidestep?

[traindirector]

"At each board meeting I tell them we have not been served by any (search warrants)," she said. "In any months that I don't tell them that, they'll know."

I wonder if this technique could be used in other ways.

An ISP could use automation to send its customers some sort of message once a day as long as the the customer is not under investigation in a message queue the customer doesn't need to check. If an NSL comes for a customer, the "not under investigation" flag could be disabled for that customer. The ISP could then set up an email alert / automated phone message if the message is not sent one day to make it very obvious to the customer that some unidentified investigation is going on.

Title 18, U.S.C. Section 2709(c) seems to only specifically prohibit disclosure "that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained access to information or records". Stopping sending notifications that there is no investigation doesn't necessarily seem to violate that prohibition.

Re:Other uses for this sidestep?

[Fastolfe]

I'm skeptical that this would fly. A court would likely see it for exactly what it is: a way to communicate something you're forbidden from communicating. It doesn't matter what the words say, or how the communication occurs. It just matters that you've set up a scheme to communicate something, and you used it.

Re:Other uses for this sidestep?

[DriedClexler]

And this is why the FBI needs to consult with *someone* who is familiar with information theory before giving dictates like this. They can start with the Noisy Channel Coding Theorem -- the transfer rate is what you're trying to minimize, guys.

Re:Other uses for this sidestep?

[darnkitten]

At our library conference, the legal folks said that removing the "we have not been served with a NSL" sign would count as a violation of the gag order.

Re:Other uses for this sidestep?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt

rsync.net has been doing that for quite a while now.

You get what you don't pay for

[Forrest Kyle]

Here's a reminder for all the Obama fanatics:

"the fight over NSLs is not over. The Obama administration has been seeking to expand the FBI’s power to demand internet activity records of customers without court approval or suspicion of wrongdoing. If granted, the data sought without a court order could expand to include web browser and search history, and Facebook friend requests."

It puts many of the anti-Bush wiretapping arguments in perspective. I was certainly not a supporter of George W. Bush, but my support of Ron Paul is looking more sparkling by the month.

Re:You get what you don't pay for

[Anonymous Coward]

it's amazing and terrifying how much the average American hates Ron Paul

Have you ever been to jail?

[Rene S. Hollan]

If not, I have to question your willingness to incur incarceration for your principles. Not that I think it would be wrong -- I'd applaud you. But, I'm not convinced you know what you'd be in for.

If you are incarcerated for more than a few days, you will probably lose your job, which will make mounting a legal defense more difficult unless you have plenty of cash (and it hasn't been seized or your assets otherwise frozen). I presume you will not accept a plea bargain, because it appears you would rather fight. Expect that to be expensive, and drawn out. Also expect bail to be set so high that you can't effectively participate with your legal team in your defense, particularly if you're a thorn in the government's side.

Looks like most people have...

[Anonymous Coward]

a limited understanding of the law regarding NSLs. A few important points worth mentioning:

1) NSLs can only be served pursuant to National Security investigations, not Criminal investigations. This means only Counter-terrorism or Counter-intelligence related matters. Therefore, almost all NSLs are served to obtain information on non-US persons to whom the Constitution offers little or no protection.

2) NSLs are very limited in the information that can be obtained. The only records that can be obtained with an NSL are subscriber and transactional records. This means that you can only find out what name and address corresponds to a given IP or email address, and a list of IP or email addresses that it has talked to over a given time period. You cannot obtain records of the contents or even header information, including email subject line, of any communications.

3) Although an NSL does not require judicial review, each NSL request submitted by an agent is scrutinized by a fleet of DOJ lawyers to make sure it does not violate any current statutes or case law.

4) Collection of anything beyond what is obtainable by an NSL does require judicial review through the FISA court which can issue a valid court order for production of the requested records (which is secret, so karcirate's little solution is null on point 3b).

5) The purpose of the NSL was to make it possible for investigators to gather time sensitive information (ISP and email provider info can have a sort shelf life) quickly, because obtaining a warrant can be a very time intensive procedure that does not lend itself well to ticking bomb scenarios.

Re:Looks like most people have...

[PPH]

a limited understanding of the law regarding NSLs. A few important points worth mentioning:

How are these letters delivered? We don't have a mailbox or any way for snail mail to be delivered

5) The purpose of the NSL was to make it possible for investigators to gather time sensitive information (ISP and email provider info can have a sort shelf life) quickly, because obtaining a warrant can be a very time intensive procedure that does not lend itself well to ticking bomb scenarios.elivered.

If the post office is holding any letters for us, they might have been sitting there for 15 years. Ever since our facility was built.

You can be forced to cooperate in silence.

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. government is EXTREMELY corrupt.

Disturbing

[Anonymous Coward]

SIX YEARS just to release his name, it shouldn't have taken SIX MONTHS to get that far for such obviously unconstitutional actions. Most of the courts decisions were correct, if mildly worded (these courts should be shouting "holy s*** this is unconstitutional, what were you people thinking?" not "..may likely be unconstitutional"), but sheesh. If I broke into a government office and was caught stealing documents I highly doubt I could expect to be free on bond for SIX YEARS just to get to the point were I was convicted of pocketing one of their ball point pens (sorry the closest citizen analogy I could think of).

If only I could switch...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nicholas Merrill, 37, was president of New York-based Calyx Internet Access

Wish I was in New York, I would so switch to this service.

No man should be forced to lie ...

[Alain Williams]

Merrill said he was forced to lie when asked about John Doe or simply refused to answer.

It is moraly corrupt to put someone into the position of having to lie. It does seem to be accepted however — that is why wikileaks is such a great idea.

MLAT: Yeah, Yeah, Yeah.

[psycho sparky]

Yes, The Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) was used to seize Indymedia servers in London.

The order was issued by US authorities against Rackspace US for logfiles on servers hosted by their UK registered subsidiary company over the posting of a picture which showed Italian Police murdering a demonstrator in Rome.

Rackspace US responded by delivering the entire servers to the US authorities.

Rackspace lack the spine that Calyx possesses.

http://www.eff.org/cases/indymedia-server-takedown

Court?

[Paracelcus]

you mean a show trial? How about "Special Administrative Measures" where you just disappear, never to be heard from again (except for some faint screaming from a Pakistani prison!

ISP Owner Freed From Gag Order

[StikyPad]

And has absolutely nothing to say, except that it sucked not being able to talk about it.

Thank God we got that resolved.

this is true

[zogger]

A lot of reporters have stood their ground on sources. An even larger number have sold out to the authorities and worked sub rosa for them, spreading disinfo or gathering intel, etc. It's a well mixed bag. http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/ARCHIVE/ciamedia.html

Re:this is true

[pugugly]

That's not entirely uninteresting, and I'd like to see the full article at some point, but after checking some of the main articles, the site itself is what you would get if the time cube and the free republic had a child.

Pug

Re:this is true

[zogger]

that site is OK. Google around, do your own research. Here, I found this just searching for that title in quotes:

http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/cia_press.html

Now think about modern day "embedded reporters". They won't be embedded very long if they don't pump out the official party line. That's just as corrupt, IMO. And if they aren't embedded, they just kill them, you must have seen that video of the apache video game gunner wasting those reporters and the civilians who stopped to help them. That's what militaries do to non tame reporters now, kill them if they feel like it. All belligerent/aggressive/totalitarian nations do it to reporters. You are on the payroll sub rosa or even above board, parrot the party line or disseminate the "big lie" disinformation, or you are a target they will get around to eventually if they feel like it, chose one.

Here ya go, another

http://en.rsf.org/

that requires they bring you in front of a judge

[Anonymous Coward]

Lying to the FBI is a crime.

So is lying during Congressional testimony after you've been sworn in ... ask the FBI how often the FBI's executives have been prosecuted after being caught lying during sworn Congressional testimony.

That's also why its so easy to claim that you had a different understanding of the question they asked than (after the data has, regrettably, been disposed of) what they claim they meant when it goes before a judge. As http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/21/newsid_2525000/2525339.stm more than one POTUS has also done.

A Hero

[Anonymous Coward]

Nicholas Merrill is an American hero

Warrant Canary (Re:Other uses for this sidestep?)

[japa]

"At each board meeting I tell them we have not been served by any (search warrants)," she said. "In any months that I don't tell them that, they'll know."

I wonder if this technique could be used in other ways.

An ISP could use automation to send its customers some sort of message once a day as long as

It's already been used for quite long time. Check out rsync.net http://www.rsync.net/philosophy.html "Warrant Canary". They've started this practice long ago. (Perhaps 2006 as stated in the page copyright..

What's with all the weaseling?

[dbIII]

It fits the dictionary definition as set by many that know more than you or I so there is no point trying to find a weasel excuse as to why it should not.
Your arguments are seriously as irrelevent as saying "it's not an empire if the leader doesn't wear purple".
I suggest you go back and read what Mark Twain wrote about proceedings in the Austrian-Hungarian Imperial Parliment and see how similar it was to Congress - the only "simplistic empire card" is in the head of those that have an extremely simplistic idea of what the word means.

Re:What's with all the weaseling?

[Monchanger]

I was working with what I was given- a very poor combination of mismatched issues and arguments. Your provided "definition" is just as useless, since a dictionary definition has no relation to the US, which is comprised of a single people and a very minor collection of territories.

And the relevance to congress and Twain is what? The makeup of the US is nothing like Austro-Hungaria, its sentiments and history are very different from Twain's time. Eve NRA nuts, corrupt as they are, are anywhere near crazed enough to storm congress, despite a few teabaggers voicing the notion.

If you have an argument- voice it. Don't just vaguely imply you know better and go hide behind long texts you think nobody will bother to read.

Re:What's with all the weaseling?

[dbIII]

He wrote an article describing among other things filibuster tactics that he witnessed and it could just as easily have been written about US congress back then or US congress now. Twain made the comparison very well back then and it is entertaining reading now and a short newspaper article that I just happened to read recently on the net, and I've already told you what was in it anyway. I'm just pointing out that another state governed in a very similar way can still be an empire since the obvious UK example is not enough for some reason.
I suppose my entire point is your definition of "empire" is much narrower than those you are criticising for using it. With such global influence the USA is most definitely an empire but some people attach irrelevant emotional baggage to the word related to what other empires have done - it looks like somebody like that has influenced you. Anyway, it's fucking annoying when you can't write about something without weasel definitions designed to make something look good or bad start creeping into the mix. That's probably mostly the fault of all the "down with the * empire" protests.

You can't dance without kneecaps

[dbIII]

e. hit you a lot and charge you with the lazy cop trifecta of resisting arrest, attempted assault on an officer and obscene language. It's their word against yours.
Once law enforcement starts going down the "might is right" route you have to be careful which fights you choose because the wonders of medicine can not fix all damage or remove all pain. Unless you are somebody that a lot of people care about or somebody sets you up as a "symbol" your hardship just becomes another statistic for a later historian.
Remember the good cops that play everything by the book are not likely to put you in this sort of situation anyway. It's the minority that are on their way somewhere at all costs and you don't really want to get in the way of their ambition. Unjust laws like this give them free reign without the usual time consuming details of due process.

Spoken like a True American(tm)

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm as against American Exceptionalism as the next guy, but pulling the simplistic empire card as if we're equivalent to the British, the Ottomans and the Macedonians is intellectually dishonest."

NO, actually it's not. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Accordingly, you ought to shut your fucking mouth. Before someone
shuts it for you.

Spoken like a true American. We aren't what again?

This is also the RSYNC.NET canary approach

[Terje Mathisen]

RSync.net, the online backup company, has been using a "warrant canary" for many years now:

Every week they update a special page with a PGP-signed dated article stating something like this:

http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt

The current message is here:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

2010-08-09

No warrants have ever been served to rsync.net, or rsync.net principals or employees.
No searches or seizures of any kind have ever been performed on rsync.net assets,
including:

ALL San Diego locations
ALL Denver locations
ALL Zurich locations
ALL Hong Kong locations

(from www.NewYorkTimes.com)

In Crackdown on Energy Use, China to Shut 2,000 Factories

By closing some steel mills, cement works and other energy-intensive factories, the government said it hoped to improve energy efficiency.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFMYFymBzwoLX1vgGwRAsgCAJ9HU6xDNuJot7PlS39/zGAfGEed+gCffWrJ
ltsbJAqoiTwyWbKFuP+UOt8=
=reux
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Terje

and they dropped the right to appeal

[sglines]

Shame on the ACLU for not taking this case all the way to the Supreme Court. It needs to be decided once and for all - are we a police state or are we ruled by law and due process?