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

[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

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And yes, those acts were repealed, but it just goes to show that the 1st Amendment has taken a backseat to government interest since pretty much the beginning.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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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.