Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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.
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"?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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...
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.
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).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
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."
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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
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.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
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".
Free Martian Whores!
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.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
A fine is different from 5 years in jail when you have a family to support.
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.
>>>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.
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.