Slashdot Mirror


Judge Orders Google To Comply With FBI's Warrantless NSL Requests

An anonymous reader writes "CNet reports that a U.S. District Court Judge has rejected Google's attempt to fight 19 National Security Letters, which are used by the FBI to gather information on users without a warrant. Quoting: 'The litigation taking place behind closed doors in Illston's courtroom — a closed-to-the-public hearing was held on May 10 — could set new ground rules curbing the FBI's warrantless access to information that Internet and other companies hold on behalf of their users. The FBI issued 192,499 of the demands from 2003 to 2006, and 97 percent of NSLs include a mandatory gag order. It wasn't a complete win for the Justice Department, however: Illston all but invited Google to try again, stressing that the company has only raised broad arguments, not ones "specific to the 19 NSLs at issue." She also reserved judgment on two of the 19 NSLs, saying she wanted the government to "provide further information" prior to making a decision.' This does not affect the Electronic Frontier Foundation's challenge to the constitutionality of the letters in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals."

9 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Funny

    Putting the Constitution aside a moment ... oh, wait, they've already done that. Carry on citizen.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Hmm ... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We're not putting the Constitution aside, we're putting it on display for all to see... in a cellar... without lights or stairs... in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard".

      But the point is that it's on display for all to see.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  2. Reading only this summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Looks like the judge doesn't like these things but can't do much about them, at least not in broad strokes.

    That itself is curious.

    Of course, that these things exist at all is pretty bad, and that the justice department is out of control is even worse.

    Then again, not being an American[tm], little I can do about it.

  3. What's the government's problem? by nanospook · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If their concerns are valid, why don't they simply get a warrent?

    --
    Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
    1. Re:What's the government's problem? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Informative

      If their concerns are valid, why don't they simply get a warrent?

      Because a warrant has provisions for letting people know about them.

      NSLs are super duper top secret, and you can't tell anybody about them. As in, there's no real oversight of them, and as long as they keep them secret they can do anything they want to.

      Surely you don't expect an open and honest process? They wouldn't be looking at these people if they didn't already know they were terrorists ... what are you, some kind of hippy?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:What's the government's problem? by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's just it. For the most part their concerns aren't valid. The government just wants to go on a witch hunt, and won't tolerate any interference. This is not the the main problem. The main problem is that we won't do anything about it and will reelect the same people who put all of this into place, as we have always done.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:What's the government's problem? by intermodal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If there is one thing we need to challenge as a nation, it's the concept of government secrecy. The way it has encroached into areas that it has no business in (i.e. things which aren't like avoiding having Germany know about our radar/sonar/aircraft effective ranges/location of troops during World War II) is highly troubling. Today, even the remote possibility of something being vaguely and obtusely connected to something that might be mildly inconvenient gets turned into a "secret", a capability that has been shown not just to increase abuse of government power and constitution-breaking activity, but to lead to the defense of the indefensible.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  4. Re:WTF by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How can the NSL process possibly be construed as anything other than a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment?

    Executive Orders.

    It's basic, black-letter law: warrants have to be issued by the judicial branch, not the cops themselves

    But these aren't warrants, they're letters. Much more powerful, because they say so.

    Are the courts really going to allow the Fourth Amendment to be read out of the Constitution by a meaningless invocation of "national security"?

    Have you not been paying attention? The 4th amendment has been interpreted so narrowly that if it isn't actually 'paper' and on your person, it's not covered by the Constitution. And the whole border check thing within 100+ miles of any border. And free speech zones. And holding US citizens without trial. And assassinating citizens.

    They've been bypassing the Constitution for almost 12 years now, when and how they see fit.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  5. Re:WTF by clonehappy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Exactly. I don't have any rose-colored glasses, nor do I harken back to any halcyon days where the government was just completely honest, free from corruption, and always did what was in the best interest of the people. The United States government has never done that.
     
    However, I do firmly believe that 9/11 had to happen before they could "come out" with what they had been doing for years. Of course, there were terrorist attacks before 9/11, but those were mostly small time acts perpetrated by Americans. The people in charge know that we won't give up our liberties (again, knowingly) because one of our own did something crazy. We know other Americans, and we know that the majority of them aren't up to any no good.
     
    No, to give up our rights, we needed someone who didn't have any constitutional protections. A foreign enemy, but one that could be living right here amongst us. They could be using our email systems our cellular networks, our internet service providers!!!
     
    You see, the terrorists hated our freedoms. And they were using them against us! So of course, the only obvious solution is to get rid of the freedom. With freedom, comes risk. Once the average citizen had become stupid, fat, and lazy enough to care more for their own comfort and perceived safety than being free, it was time to drop the hammer on us. Now that the precedent has been set, any legal victory or victory over the minds of people that can be attained by the minority who treasure their freedom and can actually see and understand what is happening can be countered simply by giving some relatively small incident wall-to-wall media coverage for a few weeks, then letting the "pundits" sit and tell everyone how anti-American it is to not want to do "x". (x being reading everyone's emails, listening to everyone's phone calls, banning guns, placing a large urban area under martial law, or warrantless this or national security letter that...the list goes on and on.)
     
    So, essentially, any time the people on the side of good win back one step of freedom or due process, we take 5 more steps down the road to slavery. This is why it's so egregious now. Someone essentially disabled the firewall (the public caring and fighting for freedom), then used a root exploit (a perceived massive threat to safety sold to us by the media) on the constitution.
     
    The only way to fix it is to remove the offending exploit (stop caring about every little incident that occurs) and put the firewall back up (make people care about freedom again). Unfortunately, given how we are all asleep at the wheel, there's a snowball's chance in hell of that actually happening. As long as the average citizen has food, booze, sex, and "Ow, My Balls!" on the TV, why would they want anything more?