Slashdot Mirror
National Security Letters Ruled Unconstitutional, Banned
A U.S. District Court Judge in California today ruled that so-called National Security Letters, used by government agencies to force business and organizations to turn over information on citizens, are unconstitutional. Judge Susan Illston ordered the government to stop using them, but gave the government a 90-day window to appeal the decision, during which the NSLs may still be sent out. The letters were challenged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on behalf of a telecom who was ordered to provide data. "The telecom took the extraordinary and rare step of challenging the underlying authority of the National Security Letter, as well as the legitimacy of the gag order that came with it. Both challenges are allowed under a federal law that governs NSLs, a power greatly expanded under the Patriot Act that allows the government to get detailed information on Americans’ finances and communications without oversight from a judge. The FBI has issued hundreds of thousands of NSLs and been reprimanded for abusing them — though almost none of the requests have been challenged by the recipients. After the telecom challenged the NSL, the Justice Department took its own extraordinary measure and sued the company, arguing in court documents that the company was violating the law by challenging its authority. The move stunned the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is representing the anonymous telecom. ... After heated negotiations with EFF, the Justice Department agreed to stay the civil suit and let the telecom’s challenge play out in court. The Justice Department subsequently filed a motion to compel in the challenge case, but has never dropped the civil suit."
It's nice to see checks and balances. I wondered what happened to those.
It's not just for Humble Bundles anymore.
they are constitutional. I have proof but you're not allowed to see it. I'd tell you how many pages that proof has but that would endanger the lives of officers in the field.
My bet is on a small ISP based in Santa Rosa, CA.
.: Semper Absurda
. Stunning is the right word. That lawsuit, which appears to still be active, is an affront to a nation of laws with respect for civil rights. Legally attacking citizens for challenging authority ought to carry a steep political price.
There should be a mechanism for cases like this to leapfrog to the SC. Nothing will be decided 'till it gets there. (I should live so long...)
Who the hell is running that circus act? They are acting like nothing more than a bunch of clowns. Evil, murdering, vicious clowns.
to support this and help it get driven all the way to the top SCOTUS?) so it gets set in concrete?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
This was the right thing to do by making them illegal cause that's what they are,illegal as hell
Obama promised to govern transparently and end invasions of privacy without a warrant.
It always seemed like a simple solution to me. Kill everyone who does bad things and then hey! No more people doing bad stuff! What's wrong with that?
And then no one can ever challenge their constitutionality again.
Well, there's the Dred Scott decision; but the process of challenging that one killed 600,000 Americans.
Less difficult challenges were "Buck vs. Bell" which IIRC was the one that allowed states to sterilize people against their will and was the source of the infamous "3 generations of imbeciles are enough" quote.
I'm sure there are plenty of other cases; but the bottom line is that SCOTUS ruling one way doesn't etch things in stone. You know what they say, Freedom isn't Free. Sometimes you have to die, fill the jails, lose all your money, etc; and if you're lucky you'll live to see your grandchildren get their God given rights back from those who stole them.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Many people think that a corporation's Human Resources department is there for the protection of the employees. In reality, the opposite is the case - to protect the management from the employees. The same is true for the Justice Department. It doesn't exist to protect the people, but rather to protect the administration and control the population. Sure every once in a while they manage to do the right thing to satisfy the people. My HR department organizes an annual summer picnic.
How is this not all over the front of every news site's homepage?
Giving to EFF is a good step.
It always seemed like a simple solution to me. Kill everyone who does bad things and then hey! No more people doing bad stuff! What's wrong with that?
Would that "everyone" include those engaged in 'unapproved-of' vigilantism, as determined by other vigilantes?
It always seemed like a simple solution to me. Kill everyone who does bad things and then hey! No more people doing bad stuff! What's wrong with that?
Would that "everyone" include those engaged in 'unapproved-of' vigilantism, as determined by other vigilantes?
No. That "everyone" includes everyone. No one is exempt from doing bad things. And when there is no one left, there won't be anyone to do the bad things anymore.
No vigilantes. You basically set up a few thousand people to be the executioners. Those people are also bad, because killing is bad, so then you get them to kill each other. When there's only one left he kills himself. Then only the clean and pure and good people survive. Yay! Plus the corpses of the damned will provide food for a good while if processed properly.
Which is silly, because if companies even wanted to expend the slightest effort to pretend that was the case, they would call it "Employee Services". They call it "Human Resources" quite honestly -- its there to manage corporate resources that happen to be human.
No, its there to protect the value of the employees (including those that are "management") as corporate assets; protecting the corporation from harm when those assets operate outside of the corporations desired parameters is a part of that, but doesn't define the role. This is much the same role as, say, the department tasked with overseeing factory operations has with respect to heavy machinery.
Manging morale for the purpose of increasing retention and productivity is part of the positive value side of protecting the value of the employees as corporate assets as much as mitigating the harm from dissatisfied employees is on the negative value side. You oil the machine to keep it working while it is working as desired, and you contain the damage and discard it as quickly as possible when it stops doing so and becomes a liability to keep around. All part of the same mission.
The number one rule about NSLs, is no one talks about the NSLs.
Even as I was a TSA screener for a while, the whole "papers please!" measures that have been coming down have simply reminded me of "Nazi Germany" from old movies and the like. At some level I found it amusing if only because people were so easily pushed into accepting this. Nobody questioned things enough. Nobody asked "why is the security threat condition never 'GREEN'?" Of course I was also disgusted by it. That we were told to explain to people about rules which were 'secret' and couldn't be shown to them made me feel like a real shit. I was glad to finally get another job when I could.
A government which cannot be trusted has already betrayed the people and it needs to be corrected. "It was my job" was an excuse I used too... though, the things I let slip by me... well... :) I can't say that I let them slip by intentionally, but in one attempt, I was foiled by a co-worker who ratted out a one-legged man who had marijuana in his pocket. I *so* wanted to let that go...
The whole point of national security letters is to suspend rule of law due to an emergency, right?
Isn't the 14th Amendmen to the *Constitution* supreme to any law that would give the feds the right to do this crap?
They call it the "supremacy" clause for a reason.
Their address is:
This is probably as close as you can get to anonymous, unless you have a friend drop off cash at their office.
My question is, why would the telecom want to remain anonymous? Wouldn't they gain plenty of positive attention from consumers if they showed they were sticking up for their privacy?
Who gets to define what is 'bad'?
A modestly positioned judge has taken a stand against what most of us here oppose. What can we do? Make noise!
Write your congrescritters -- real letters, made of paper.
Call your local TV stations and urgently express your desire that they talk this up repeatedly.
Use social media to praise the judge too.
Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
Finally, a judge with the cojones to try to stop the United States' slow slide towards a police state. A bit disappointing to see that he left them weasel room. Far too many 3 letter folks operating unchallenged like The Inquisition.
The Secret Executive Kill Order was written, signed, and delivered.
The USAF Raptor Drones and support F16 and JSTARS aircraft from Edwards AFB are in pursuit of the 'Cracker' Judge.
Drone 1 Orbiting Bethesda Maryland, pinpointing the residence; Status READY.
Drone 2 Orbiting Federal Judiciary Buildings in DC; Status READY.
NAVY SEAL TEAM RAINBOW, on locations in DC, Bethesda and Falls Church; Status FLAMEN.
Message for DoD Sec Hagel: 'The Fucker Cracker will never know what killed her [snicker snicker].'
during the next 90 days the government will send 27 757 676 times 315 492 000 (8757324716592000) National Security Letters to be delivered by the US Postal Service. The US Postal Service goes postal as a result.
I'm going to bed a little happier. Good night Gracie.
I don't like the way they are arguing over just the gag order. It just means courts could cop out on the issue and the congress can rewrite the law with limits on the gag requirement.
The bigger issue is whom establishes when the executive branch has substantial real cause. Second does the legislature have the authority outside of a constitutional amendment to allow the executive branch to bypass judicial oversight.
That's the beauty of the whole plan. No one does. Everyone does bad things, so everyone is bad, so everyone dies. There is no need for such silly and trivial definitions.
After reading the headline I had to check my calender to make sure this wasn't April Fool's Day. Over a decade after 9/11 of non stop claims by the government that there is no limit to their constitutionally defined powers, my first reaction to such a story is incredulity. My second reaction of course is that this ruling will be quickly overturned on the inevitable appeal.
fuck those sorry sacks of shit!
you do as your told
There was a company in California (Arcadian HealthPlan) that called its "HR" department the "Human Capital" department.
All that you say makes a great deal of sense, but thinking about people as "corporate assets" always makes me cringe. I know that you mean "asset" in its generic sense of "something of value", and certainly people can have value. But in all other cases except people, tangible assets are things -- things to be owned and managed. Thinking of humans as "resources" objectifies people in a way that is not only uncomfortable to them, but what is worse, completely fails to capture the unique way in which a person has value, but never as an object. This matters because if you don't understand and think about something accurately, you can never treat it properly.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
In my most recent job change, I was astonished at how helpful HR is. This was punctuated by a call from a HR manager to me about a month or so after I started asking if there were any problems they could help me with. The HR department has been helpful, doing their best to take work off me and help me get to my primary job duties.
Yes, some HR departments are at best unpleasant to work with and should be treated as a hostile entity. Some IT departments earn their nickname of "Preventer of Information Services". Some computer security departments earn less polite nicknames and make HR look like amateurs. Some senior managers make you scramble to memorize everything you can so you can document it as soon as you get home and call (because you wouldn't dare call from your personal phone or worse, use a work phone to call) a lawyer, or district attorney.
Hating HR may be popular here, but two of my jobs over the past many years have actually had very positive experiences with HR, right down to the last day and beyond.
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend unto the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
I was jubilant when I read of how District Court Judge Susan Illston declared those damned National Security Letters unconstitutional. Despite the epic waves of psuedo-cynism, which apparently have overtaken slashdot today, as evidenced here, this is major step in the right direction. While everybody and their brother loves to hate on the government, regardless of the ruling party and their respective policies, the real culprit in the post 9/11 dementia, which held America in it's sway for more than a decade now, has been the "American people", who blindly obliged and acquiesced to every absurdity coming from congress and the executive.
The fact that is has taken so long for a judge to point out the most basic issue of constitutionallity in regards to NSL's is what is really incredible. Our federal judges have been so inept and so asleep-at-the-wheel for such a long time now people are almost shocked to see a judge actually point out what is painfully obvious- federal judges are not beholden to either congress or the executive branch. On one level federal judges are nominally governed by the Justice Department and Attorney General, both of which are functions of the executive branch of government, yet, more importantly, they answer ultimately only to the supreme court. The federal government can only tell a judge that they have no jurisdiction over a given law, if the judge buys into the notion that "father knows best" and is willing to allow the federal government absolute impunity in the name of national defense, ie. secrecy, which in the post 9/11 world has been used to justify almost everything.
This willingness to allow the federal government total impunity in the name of "security", on the basis that our "enemies" might win against us if actually follow our own constituion, where secrecy demands from the feds trumps every other right, is what has damaged our society-not the policies of the government-but that we let them get away with this bullshit, is the tragedy of what really happened post 9/11. If the citizens of this country are so craven in their apparent respect of authority then even a different administration, which perhaps was less likely to play the patriot card used so carelessly and frequently by the predecessor administration, will still be given to use the leeway that the citizens blindly handed over, because we let them get away with this bullshit.
Susan Illiston made the right call. The real proof for just how insanely authoritarian our current administration is will be shown if they attempt to fight this all the way to the supreme court. I doubt they will. I doubt it because they know that NSL's are unjust and indefensible, even if the government has been drunk on the power that NSL's have given them, and lord knows it is difficult for folks to walk away from power however unjustly granted.
It may take another decade for America to completely stand up after having been on our collective knees for so long, but this is an important step in that direction.
I want to see this in writing, I want it distributed to news outlets and all the people who GOT NSL's and broadcast world wide until people fucking GET it. Because if the judge can change this fucker today, he can also change it again tomorrow and the next day, that's called uncertainty, while the PRESS release is PERCEPTION, and the state secrets will hold the truth. So let's see the NSA sign this judges ruling in writing. Display it for all to see. Distribute it to everyone who got an NSL. Redact the threats, in writing, signed by the head of the NSA.
You know actually the better thing to do is start de-activating EVERY agency that doesn't follow the US Constitution and bill of rights. We have BRAC for bases, why not "CRAC" (CRrap Agency Closure) for the oath breakers. CRAC RTFL ( acronym for "CRap Agency Closure and Relocation To Ft Leavenworth" )
Imagine taking down the sign that says , "Department of Just Us" and again putting one up that says, " Department of JUSTICE"
Canada even has a bill of rights and a human rights commissioner and still these bladdy things are in use.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Would an employer put up with an employee committing the antics the government has been?
Since when did those funding government become victims of government?
Time to apply the founders instructions for the People to apply. See Declaration of Independence, not only for what to do but what teh job of government is supposed to be.
I have a sneakin' suspicion that this whole thing has been planned out. My conspiracy theory: The district court judge had a secret phone call conversation with chief justice Roberts and they agreed that the district court judge would rule against the government for the sole purpose of it then being heard by scotus who will then rule the other way. This has probably been planned out for some time.
I sure hope I'm wrong here but .. watch, wait and see, sheeple.
I thought they were more like 'HR' in 'Person of Interest'.
Does anybody know of an open source full encrypted peer to peer VOIP solution?
I have been looking for some time for this. I know ZRTP is a valid protocol, but there does not appear to be any good software for this (that I can find). The only solutions I found would not work over the Internet due to excessive lag and dropped packets. Please let me know if you are using something that is good for fully encrypted computer to computer voice chats.
Please do not suggested encrypted Skype.
There is tor-browser for web pages. There is PGP for email. There is OTR for instant message chat. So where is the encrypted voice chat solutions?
I am explaining the approach, not endorsing it.
Okay, I was trying to be funny with the first line, but it was wrong of me ; I'm sorry.
I still don't get how it was supposed to be funny, but that's fine. I suppose I came off harsher than I intended.
... You are aware, aren't you, that it was the Nazis who burned the Reichstag?
I don't think we'll ever know that for sure, but it's a reasonable hypothesis. It fit their character, and their agenda, and became their propaganda. I believe it.
And that there is valid evidence that Pearl Harbor was known ahead of time
Possible, based on indirect evidence. It's still a bit of a leap, but possible.
--no, pushed for an. Arranged-- by the President , ahead of time, to force Americans into a war they didn't want?
This one I just don't get. Did the president write a letter to Japan and beg really nicely to get attacked? I'm not sure how you think this works.
And that most people in the world tend to believe--again, not without good evidence, that the US. Government arranged 9-11?
There's a significant percentage of people who believe that, granted. It's not most, but it is a lot.
There is a very low signal to noise ratio on this one. It's hard to find truth in either side of the argument. I think the "we were attacked" argument has more sane backers. It could, of course, be the case that the government is spreading around all the crazy 911 theories, but I've not heard anybody call them on it.
Besides, Occam's razor suggests that the same engineering theories that said the building couldn't fall down due to a plane crash (when it was designed) would be used to prove that it didn't fall down due to a plane crash (on 9/11). Regardless of what truly happened, engineers were going to say that it was demolition.
I've got a friend that believes very differently, so I haven't seen the last of this issue, I'm sure.
And that the crash that led to the looting of people worldwide was arranged by the Fed, by means of first triggering a housing bubble, and then setting the inflation rate to zero? When doing that, in light of peak everything meant that wages HAD to fall, resulting in mass defaults?
Now this one I reject wholesale.
Paraphrasing the old adage: Never rush to attribute malice where incompetence will suffice.
The FED didn't trigger the housing bubble. The banks did. Goldman Sachs, for instance, though they were late comers to the party. The long and the short of it is, some banks were selling really bad investments to other banks. If they couldn't sell them, they repackaged them again and slid them through a ratings agency and asked for a AAA rating (praying that they were too complex to be understood; they were). When there were no more, they actively started finding (and making) bad loans that they could turn around and sell. Then when it became obvious what was happening, they tried to play innocent and let other banks take the fall.
When all the terribly loans started to fail, banks started to have cash problems. They revisited all the "adjustable rate" mortgages they had issued (aka: the other liar loans), and made it so that most people with recent loans could no longer easily pay them, if at all. When banks stopped issuing loans to businesses, they tightened their belts, causing lay offs. When people could no longer afford their homes, and tried to sell them en mass, the housing market completely collapsed. This worsened all the above.
Lots of people knew something was amiss, but were benefiting from it and could not tear themselves away from the money. (A rare few did, bless their souls.) This category includes many local bankers, real estate agents, appraisers, and even a few housing contractors. Those that spoke up to say there was something wrong weren't listened to any more than Chicken Little. Everything was Great... ri
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
The decision is effective only within the metes and boundaries of the Northern District of California. Until and unless the Ninth District grants review or if the Supremes intervene, does not mean anything in the rest of the Land of the Formerly Free.
There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA