Yahoo Becomes First Company To Disclose FBI National Security Letters (tumblr.com)

Yahoo has disclosed receipt of three national security letters (FBI requests for data that Yahoo is typically barred from sharing) and published redacted copies of the letters online for anyone to see. The company says that the move "marks the first time any company has publicly acknowledged receiving an NSL following the reforms of the USA Freedom Act." The bill was created last year allowing companies to gag orders relating to National Security Letters. Engadget reports: It takes some doing to get permission to acknowledge the receipt of a letter, too -- Yahoo says that the FBI needs to review if the nondisclosure provision is still necessary for each specific NSL before allowing a company to publish it, and even then certain information needs to be redacted before being made available to the public. Still, when companies do get these gag orders lifted, it allows them to notify the investigated parties that the FBI was looking into their data, and it's a big win for transparency overall.

Comments

WTF does this mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The bill was created last year allowing companies to gag orders relating to National Security Letters."

That sentence in TFS makes absolutely no sense.

Re:WTF does this mean?

[orion205]

"The bill was created last year allowing companies to gag orders relating to National Security Letters."

That sentence in TFS makes absolutely no sense.

I have to guess that it should say "allowing companies to challenge gag orders" or something like that.

Re:WTF does this mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

That word was redacted by NSL mandate

"big win"

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only is this banal, monosyllabic expression now so diluted as to be meaningless, it's really, really not a "big win" for transparency if individual arbitrarily secret letters secured on the basis of absurd penalty can be exposed to the public long after they have ceased to be relevant.

It's not even a small win.

First Ammendment

[Anonymous Coward]

How is a gag order like this in the first place not a violation of the First Ammendment?

Re:First Ammendment

[dunkindave]

There is no law against slander in the US. It's a civil matter.

While it isn't a criminal matter, it is a civil matter BECAUSE THERE ARE LAWS AGAINST IT!

At the federal level, the law is part of common law, but the definition is in 28 U.S. Code 4101. Also, all but three states have their own defamation laws; for example, Illinois' is 740 ILCS 145, AKA "The Slander and Libel Act".

Re:First Ammendment

[Dog-Cow]

Freedom of Expression is not the same as Freedom from Consequences.

Re:First Ammendment

[EndlessNameless]

The FBI has jurisdiction in several matters that might lead to NSLs. Terrorist acts are federal crimes, as are other things that might involve NSLs such as espionage.

Anything touching classified information can land in their lap as well. In fact, most of it will, as local law enforcement generally will not have clearance.

All NSL letters should be released ...

[Alain Williams]

after some period. As I understand it the whole point of keeping the existence of a NSL secret is to stop the crook/whoever from being alerted to the police/whatever investigation into him. So: once the crook is locked up there is little reason to keep it secret. There is also an argument that the NSLs should be disclosed at the crook's trial.

I do understand that matters are more complex, a crook could be part of a gang and investigations into other gangsters could be hampered by disclosure that is too early.

There should be an assumption in law that all NSLs should be disclosed after some time, eg 10 or 30 years. It would be up to the police to argue that disclosure should be delayed in particular cases.

Above I talk of crooks, much the same arguments apply about terrorists, paedophiles, etc. Ditto: police to be FBI, NSA, etc

Re:All NSL letters should be released ...

[drinkypoo]

There should be an assumption in law that all NSLs should be disclosed after some time, eg 10 or 30 years.

The rights of the people to know have to be balanced against the need for security, but 10 to 30 years is way too long. Five years might be a good upper bound. If you can't move a problem forward in five years such that we can talk about it, we probably need to talk about it.

Here's what they asked for...

[nuckfuts]

Here's what the letters asked Yahoo! to hand over:

• Subscriber name and related subscriber information
• Account number(s)
• Date the account opened or closed
• Physical and or postal addresses associated with the account
• Subscriber day/evening telephone numbers
• Screen names or other on-line names associated with the account
• All billing and method of payment related to the account including alternative billed numbers or calling cards
• All e-mail addresses associated with the account to include any and all of the above information for any secondary or additional e-mail addresses and or user names identified by you as belonging to the targeted account in this letter
• Internet Protocol (IP) addresses assigned to thi3 account and related e-mail accounts
• Uniform Resource Locator (URL) assigned to the account
• Plain old telephone
• The names of any and all upstream and downstream providers facilitating this account's communications
• The above-listed information from "inception of the targeted account to the present" if this request cannot be processed as presently written

We are not directing you to provide, nor should you provide, information pursuant to this letter that would disclose the content of any electronic communication. Title 18 United States Code 2510(8) defines content as "any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of" a communication. Subject lines of e-mails are content information and should not be provided pursuant to this letter.