ISP Owner Who Fought FBI Spying Freed From Gag Order 404
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.'"
Troubling (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Free country, my ass. You no longer have freedom of speech.
Re:Troubling (Score:5, Insightful)
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.....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Which would have gotten you sent to jail? He basically said what you said, telling it on slashdot and writing letters to editors is kind of like sending it to a news outlet.
Wikileaks couldn't really have helped because as soon as they provide any information his anonymity is gone because the FBI will have known it was he who leaked the info.
Re: (Score:2)
otoh, wikileaks might actually publish it first. A conventional newspaper will propably just shop him, and give the letter back to the FBI.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
that site is OK. Google around, do your own research. Here, I found this just searching for that title in quotes:
http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/cia_press.html [floonet.net]
Now think about modern day "embedded reporters". They won't be embedded very long if they don't pump out the official party line. That's just as corrupt, IMO. And if they aren't embedded, they just kill them, you must have seen that video of the apache video game gunner wasting those reporters and the civilians who stopped to help them. That's what mi
Re:Troubling (Score:5, Insightful)
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, [indybay.org] wait... [sjgames.com]
Re:Troubling (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Troubling (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Troubling (Score:5, Interesting)
>A fine is different from 5 years in jail when you have a family to support.
My mom and all her friends did that in Poland in the early 1980's. She was eventually kidnapped from in front of our house, interrogated, beaten black and blue and sent to a special prison in Goldap Poland http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Goldap+Poland+prison&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= [google.ca]
Actually my aunt, my moms sister who was also arrested around the same time got the worst of the beatings with full fists of heir missing from her head.
My mom also took me to this riot http://www.lubin82.pl/index_eng.html [lubin82.pl]
She did what she had to do to stop tyranny and oppression.
Eventually the gov realized it would be much easier to just let all political activists emigrate where ever they wanted to. We came to Canada while her other friends ended up in the places like the USA and South Africa.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That sounds suspiciously like it validates to "If it's worth my having it's worth him making a sacrifice for.".
Pug
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sitting on the back of a city bus has a strategic advantage.
If the bus has two doors, you have very quick access to the rear door.
You can observe everyone boarding the bus, and their activities while on the bus, without changing your direction of view.
In the event something "bad" happens, you have the opportunity to duck behind the seat in front of you. If some nutjob, or someone after you, comes on with a gun, you have time to take cover before y
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
And what did she gain? As far as I can tell, by my experience, black people still sit in the back of the bus.
Yes, of course, they don't have to sit there, but most of them seem to.
You, not having these kinds of rules enforced on you, may not appreciate the difference. The difference is huge when you do if by choice instead of lack of choice.
Court? (Score:4, Interesting)
you mean a show trial? How about "Special Administrative Measures" where you just disappear, never to be heard from again (except for some faint screaming from a Pakistani prison!
Re:Troubling (Score:5, Interesting)
Read the article:
"In Merrill's case, although the letter's gag order "was totally clear that they were saying that I couldn't speak to a lawyer" about it, he immediately contacted his personal attorney, and together they went to the ACLU in New York, which agreed to represent him. "My gut feeling is I'm an American," Merrill said, in an interview with Threat Level on Tuesday. "I always have a right to an attorney. There's no such thing as you can't talk to your attorney."
This guy wasn't allowed to defend himself with a professional lawyer.
Clearly that is NULL according to both US and NY Constitutions.
And Supreme Court ruling (see the movie Gideon's Trumpet).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Did you really just cite a movie as a reference?! It's not that hard to cite the actual case [wikipedia.org], after all. That being said, this case dealt with a criminal case, not so much a civil matter such as this. While I agree that you should always be allowed to consult an attorney, I don't think Gideon v Wainwright actually applied in this case.
Re:Troubling (Score:5, Funny)
Did you really just cite a movie as a reference?! It's not that hard to cite the actual case [wikipedia.org], after all.
We're Americans (mostly). We won't look up the case, but we might watch the movie. So which is a better way to get the point across, cite something we'll look up or something we won't?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we do. Because there is nothing inherent in a corporation that is different from a government, except there is a chance that the corporation has to operate under rules that are written and enforced by a government. However, without those rules, a corporation is nothing but a hegemony. If we're lucky, a meritocratic hegemony, but a hegemony nonetheless.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Would you accept a parallel example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit [wikipedia.org]
Not that I consider GM equiv. to UF (I like Chevy's), but the potential's always there.
Re:Troubling (Score:4, Informative)
Ah - Prop 8 is proof that, having voted to extend certain rights equally among all citizens and legal residents of the United States, we don't get to vote that we only meant that for people we liked.
That being, y'know, the whole reason for the 14th amendment and all. Which our duly appointed representatives made part of the supreme law of the land.
And Glenn Beck now wants to repeal.
Pug
Re:Troubling (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Troubling (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Corporations don't have the power to send armed agents to kick in my door and slap handcuffs on me.....
Ever wondered what organisation decided and enforced the decision that they don't have that power?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Thought experiment: what if the Government removes its monopoly on force, either in the name of deregulation or because the government wants to outsource that part of its work?
Re:Troubling (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>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.
Re:Troubling (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
be smarter still-The Santa Cruz method (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/03/10/LIBRARIES.TMP [sfgate.com]
"In Santa Cruz, where library officials are trying to stir up patrons about the Patriot Act, chief librarian Anne Turner has found a more subtle way to sidestep the gag order, if she ever faces one.
"At each board meeting I tell them we have not been served by any (search warrants)," she said. "In any months that I don't tell them that, they'll know."
Other uses for this sidestep? (Score:3, Insightful)
"At each board meeting I tell them we have not been served by any (search warrants)," she said. "In any months that I don't tell them that, they'll know."
I wonder if this technique could be used in other ways.
An ISP could use automation to send its customers some sort of message once a day as long as the the customer is not under investigation in a message queue the customer doesn't need to check. If an NSL comes for a customer, the "not under investigation" flag could be disabled for that customer. The ISP could then set up an email alert / automated phone message if the message is not sent one day to make it very obvious to the customer that some unidentif
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Another variation on this tactic that I saw in Vermont was a sign on the wall of the library that said "The FBI has not been here. Watch for the discrete removal of this sign."
This is also the RSYNC.NET canary approach (Score:3, Interesting)
RSync.net, the online backup company, has been using a "warrant canary" for many years now:
Every week they update a special page with a PGP-signed dated article stating something like this:
http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt [rsync.net]
The current message is here:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
2010-08-09
No warrants have ever been served to rsync.net, or rsync.net principals or employees.
No searches or seizures of any kind have ever been performed on rsync.net assets,
including:
ALL San Diego lo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like it or not, we need WikiLeaks.
I don't know that we need WikiLeaks. What we need is unbiased investigative reporting, something that is sorely lacking these days because it is hard work. WikiLeaks, aka Julian Assange, has a definite anti-war and possibly an anti-US agenda. Which is his right, I'm not one of those people that thinks 'inalienable rights' requires citizenship.
OTOH, his military source violated US laws and was well aware of what s/he was doing and should be prosecuted. Civil disobedience
Re: (Score:2)
Free country, my ass. You no longer have freedom of speech.
And yet, you have the freedom to say what I just quoted without being thrown in some secret prison.
Still, I know what you're getting at. I'll leave it with a Bill Hicks quote:
"Go back to bed, America! You are free to do what we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!"
Re:Troubling (Score:5, Insightful)
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"?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You won't get all of that. Civil disobedi
Re:Troubling (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Troubling (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Troubling (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Troubling (Score:5, Interesting)
We don't have an "empire" and free speech has always been something that can be curtailed for an ongoing criminal investigation. National Security really doesn't have anything to do with it. When I was in the ISP business I learned that it's illegal in New York State to tell one of your customers that he's the subject of a electronic surveillance warrant. Are you going to claim that's an infringement on free speech?
This law isn't troubling because the ISP owner can't tell the public about the NSL. It's troubling because he can't even tell his own lawyer. If the law is found to be unconstitutional that will be the reason why.
Re:Troubling (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, we do have an Empire. We have colonies and military bases all over the world. We have intervened in dozens of country's internal politics. We have waged wars of aggression and toppled democratically elected leaders like Salvador Allende.
A good place to start is the wiki article on American Imperialism [wikipedia.org], which is obviously horribly slanted if you think no such article should exist because no such thing exists, but you will find a lot of people all over the world strongly believe that not only does American imperialism exist, it has killed someone they know. Even if you don't think any such thing exists, it might be enlightening to you to research just what it is that all these people are calling 'American Imperialism."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Troubling (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
We give less per capita than any other first world nation, and only to countries where we have an economic interest. What did we do to protect East Timor from Suharto? You also forgot to mention the Empire we are most like: the Dutch Empire [wikipedia.org]. Empires are not the same as they used to be in any case, they are primarily economic rather than military. We still use the military to protect our economic interests, but we no longer need to occupy a country in order to exploit it. We just overthrow any elected head o
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Despite what you may have learned in junior high, "Put the bong down and step away slowly," is not a cogent counter argument.
Re:Troubling (Score:5, Informative)
The bases are not all there at the behest of current local governments, we have ongoing treaties dating back to WWII that they can not break without serious repercussions. As for colonies, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Marianna Islands, the US virgin Islands, American Samoa, are all official colonies, but I consider Iraq to be a colony, too, in that we have extracted billions of dollars in natural resources that remain unaccounted for.
Re:Troubling (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't you have a hit to take hippie?
What's your motivation for posting that? Are you trying to insult me? Win me over to your way of thinking? Convince others you are right? Whatever your motivations, you might want to look at your tactics. I don't think they are getting you what you want.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I know of at least one US military base that is officially there "at the behest of the local government". The local government has different ideas, depending on which official you ask.
The truthful answer is a bit more complicated, going along the lines of: they don't want us to have a military base in their country, but they *do* want something else and we used that as leverage to force the military base on them.
Saying that base is there "at the behest of the local government" is plain inaccurate. Saying th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like "the local government permitted it as part of a quid-pro-quo" would be even closer.
Unless you're referring
Re:Troubling (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [digg.com].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do you suffer from dyslexia? I never said liberals were in the majority, I said the majority find Shakrai's style of petty snark, affronted whining, and fearmongering puerile.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Heck, these guys make me nostalgic for Nixon.
Nixon appointed Daniel Patrick Moynihan as his secretary of Health and Human Services, and he let Moynihan promote some very progressive policies, like the guaranteed annual income, and a health policy that was better than Obama's.
Ralph Nader said that on domestic policy, Nixon was better than the Clinton Administration.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, no, I'm even more surprised by the argumentation of liberals because I expect more from them. Perhaps most disappointing is their emotion laden appeals for other liberals to stop picking on poor president Obama for not doing what he promised to do, he's just a man not a miracle worker, how can you expect him to do everything he promised in just two years? You know what I say to those "LEeeaaave Brittany Alone!" liberals? I say, fuck that corporate toady Obama, fuck him right in the ear.
Re:Troubling (Score:5, Interesting)
free speech has always been something that can be curtailed for an ongoing criminal investigation.
Yes, but there was always judicial oversight -- if a law enforcement agency wanted your records, they had to go to a judge and have a warrant issued. These letters need no warrant, despite the fact that the Constitution says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
TFA is, as I said, quite troubling. The fourth amendment has lost all meaning, as well as the first, which reads "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech".
When I was in the ISP business I learned that it's illegal in New York State to tell one of your customers that he's the subject of a electronic surveillance warrant. Are you going to claim that's an infringement on free speech?
No, because that looks like a judge has to issue a warrant. No judge's warrant is required for the FBI. From TFA:With an NSL, the FBI does not need to seek a court order to obtain such records, nor does it need to prove just cause. An FBI field agent simply needs to draft an NSL stating the information being sought is "relevant" to a national security investigation...
The gag orders raise the possibility for extensive abuse of NSLs, under the cover of secrecy. Indeed, in 2007, a Justice Department Inspector General audit found that the FBI, which issued almost 200,000 NSLs between 2003 and 2006, had abused its authority and misused NSLs.
Yeah! National security! For our own protection! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see an exception for criminal investigations in the First Amendment.
That's because you don't understand the law. Read any court case about the limitation of freedom of speech and you'll see where that comes from.
Neither do you have unrestricted access to 'arms' as the NRA narrowly thinks the Second states.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The first amendment is pretty clear. Any ruling that contradicts the clear and obvious meaning of the first amendment is wrong.
Re:Troubling (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (
Re: (Score:2)
And the fact they don't even need a court order to issue one. And as with any power granted without oversite, it will be abused. Trust them to do their job, but don't trust them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Last I checked you always have the right to an attorney (which he did contact) no matter what, but this is only part of the problem with NSL's. It's more the infringement of the 4th amendment that concerns me. This is just as bad as the warrantless wire tapping that was going on (and most likely still it). It's an abuse of power if you don't have one branch of government checking on the other. Now if the NSL came with a warrent, signed by a judge to obtain the information/items that where being asked for
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Those obstruction of justice laws also violate the First Amendment. Any judge that rules otherwise is failing in their duty to uphold the Constitution.
The 2nd amendment also codifies an absolute, personal, right of Americans to own any arms (but not munitions).
Re:Troubling (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On second thought: the first amendment infringement seems to be a second order effect. In other words, it's not that NSLs in and of themselves infringe on the first amendment. But what they are designed to do is to make it impossible to even have a public discussion about NSLs.
With wiretaps, you can go to historical cases where the court records have been unsealed and discuss their appropriateness in public. I believe this holds true even for grand juries. In other words, it is possible to have a public dis
Re: (Score:2)
If only we could have two! All we've got is the empire.
Re: Troubling (Score:2)
now we have security and empire, but our empire sure doesn't seem to be doing anything for the average citizen.
Did empires ever?
Re: Troubling (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
the roman empire netted common soldiers a nice plot of land in Gaul, the poor in Rome cheap Egyptian wheat, and the empire as a whole several hundred miles of buffer between itself and possible invaders
Okay, but aside from the Gaulish land, the cheap wheat and the defensible borders, what has the Empire ever done for us?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
In what sense have NSLs and the Patriot Act increased security? If I were a terrorist I would get a job with the government, since I can get any information I need and not have to worry about any oversight.The fed is up to 2.15 M employees, you think they are all thoroughly screened? If we were really concerned with security, we would be making the government more open.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
In what sense have NSLs and the Patriot Act increased security?
In what sense did I say they did increase security?
Re: (Score:2)
It was getting better until recently... the history of the limitation of free speech in the US has showed, over two centuries, a gradual trend of easing of restrictions during times of conflict/war.
This trend is in danger of changing, with inroads against it made under GWB and not being reversed
Re: (Score:2)
It's amusing to watch liberals fall all over themselves justifying the fact that BHO has not reversed Bush's policies on this issue. Well, not so much amusing as terribly, terribly depressing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, I've always seen Obama as a corporatist centrist, just like Clinton... I don't know why so many vocal liberals were under the delusion that Obama was exactly what they wanted him to be, instead of what he really is.
Power (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Free country, my ass. You no longer have freedom of speech.
You're about 212 years behind the times [wikipedia.org].
Re:Troubling (Score:4, Informative)
And yes, those acts were repealed, but it just goes to show that the 1st Amendment has taken a backseat to government interest since pretty much the beginning.
Re:Troubling (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I haven't really believed there is freedom of speech in the United States ever since I heard about free speech zones [wikipedia.org].
I first heard about free speech zones in an article about how protesters against G.W. Bush were directed to free speech zones that were far enough away from where Bush would be passing that he, his supporters, and other onlookers would not be able to hear them. Apparently, free speech zones predate G.W. Bush's government, though.
I'm not sure how useful free speech is if you can only exercise it where nobody who doesn't already agree with you will hear it.
Re:Troubling (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Have you ever been to jail? (Score:3, Insightful)
If not, I have to question your willingness to incur incarceration for your principles. Not that I think it would be wrong -- I'd applaud you. But, I'm not convinced you know what you'd be in for.
If you are incarcerated for more than a few days, you will probably lose your job, which will make mounting a legal defense more difficult unless you have plenty of cash (and it hasn't been seized or your assets otherwise frozen). I presume you will not accept a plea bargain, because it appears you would rather fig
Yeah. (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, the FBI is doing what the MAFIAA do--they know that they're the big boys with power and money and will go against you whether you're right or wrong because nearly no one will fight.
Re: (Score:3)
An old buddy of mine works at the FBI. He says that these demanding letters come in all shapes and forms, are frequently quite illegitimate, and are becoming more and more widely spread.
TFA says the same thing, so your post serves to back up what TFA said.
Re:Yeah. (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah, I wish I still had mod points.
It reminds me of a story about a Canadian who refused to cooperate with the FBI and had the FBI officer argue with him until he was blue in the face that the man had to cooperate with them and it was illegal to do otherwise.
To be fair though the FBI can just put a request through proper channels and the RCMP can go get whatever they needed. It is illegal to be uncooperative with the RCMP in Canada. Its funny how often the FBI thinks they can just do whatever they want and bypass all of the regs though.
Re: (Score:2)
they know that they're the big boys with power and money and will go against you whether you're right or wrong because nearly no one will fight.
Bolded the important part. This is one guy with a small ISP. Every other business, ISP, content provider, etc, bends over immediately. There is no more expectation of privacy, and the forth amendment is long dead.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So your buddy is allowed to talk about them with people outside of the bureau (presuming you don't work for them too), but those that receive them aren't?
Re:Yeah. (Score:5, Interesting)
So your buddy is allowed to talk about them with people outside of the bureau (presuming you don't work for them too), but those that receive them aren't?
Yes, we were discussing policy. He can talk about policy all day long but by no means is he allowed to talk to me about specific cases.
FBI Liars (Score:2, Funny)
I wonder why I root for Al Capone in all those gangster movies.....
Re: (Score:2)
(1) Size up opponent in terms of political clout, potential exposure and wealth.
(2) Weakness on any front? Issue National Security Letter
(3) Profit!!!
Re:Yeah. (Score:4, Insightful)
I can tell you. (Score:2, Informative)
IOW, they wanted everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I just wish this guy had another ISP opened. I would like to get my Internet connection from him, AKA someone with scruples.
Bet this guy was VERY exceptional (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bet this guy was VERY exceptional (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, there's no way to know with these "gag orders" in place. Even if some piece of information is needed for national security reasons, it should be subject to speedy judicial review after the fact -- otherwise, there is no mechanism to identify abuse.
Re:Bet this guy was VERY exceptional (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>it should be subject to speedy judicial review after the fact -
BEFORE the fact. Warrants are supposed to be issued by judges, not police, and while under oath. These warrants the police are issuing without involving the courts are unconstitutional.
Prez! (Score:5, Interesting)
Nicholas Merrill for President... of Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc!!!!
Who's with me?
A Solution? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's what you do when you get one of these letters:
1) Deny that you have any of the records they are looking for.
2) Make sure that data (which you do have) is seriously protected.
3) They have no way to get the data from you now without either:
a. arresting you for not complying - in which case their secrecy is blown, so they won't do that
b. getting a court ordered warrant - in which case their secrecy is blown, so they won't do that
c. Getting all sneaky and stealing the data - see #2
d. Totally screwing you over and destroying your life - in which case their secrecy is blown because once your life is destroyed, you have nothing to lose by revealing the letter, so they won't do that
4) Dance
Re:A Solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
You can't dance without kneecaps (Score:3, Insightful)
Once law enforcement starts going down the "might is right" route you have to be careful which fights you choose because the wonders of medicine can not fix all damage or remove all pain. Unless you are somebody that a lot of people care about or somebody sets you up as a "symbol" your hardship just becomes another statistic for a later histori
You get what you don't pay for (Score:3, Insightful)
"the fight over NSLs is not over. The Obama administration has been seeking to expand the FBI’s power to demand internet activity records of customers without court approval or suspicion of wrongdoing. If granted, the data sought without a court order could expand to include web browser and search history, and Facebook friend requests."
It puts many of the anti-Bush wiretapping arguments in perspective. I was certainly not a supporter of George W. Bush, but my support of Ron Paul is looking more sparkling by the month.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He is a consistently good guy, going on decades now. Just keep him in mind if you want to host anything -- might be a bit pricier/less featureful than other ISPs, but it comes with the peace of mind that the company is customer-first.