US Appeals Court Upholds Nondisclosure Rules For Surveillance Orders (reuters.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: A U.S. federal appeals court on Monday upheld nondisclosure rules that allow the FBI to secretly issue surveillance orders for customer data to communications firms, a ruling that dealt a blow to privacy advocates. A unanimous three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco sided with a lower court ruling in finding that rules permitting the FBI to send national security letters under gag orders are appropriate and do not violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution's free speech protections. Content distribution firm CloudFlare and phone network operator CREDO Mobile had sued the government in order to notify customers of five national security letters received between 2011 and 2013.

Comments

A gag order should require a warrant from a judge

[schwit1]

National security letters serve the same functions as a warrant but do not require judicial(disinterested party) oversight. A gag order is too large a step to permit one branch/agency to decide.

Re:A gag order should require a warrant from a jud

[Anonymous Coward]

Beyond that problem, my other problem is non-disclosure forever. I understand the need for non-disclosure, it makes no sense to tell the person you're investigating that you're investigating them. But the gag should be of limited duration. Something like 6 months. Just to limit abuse. I believe that warrants have to be made available for public inquiry after some amount of time. It just makes sense to help hold the police accountable.