Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

National Security Letter Plaintiff Speaks

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the gagged-but-good dept.

The Courts 185

Panaqqa writes "On Monday, the US government appealed a September ruling striking down a controversial section of the Patriot Act as unconstitutional. The section permits the FBI to send secret demands to ISPs (called 'National Security Letters') for logs and email without first obtaining a judge's approval. The ACLU has quoted the president of the small Plaintiff ISP, identified only as John Doe because of a gag order under the law, saying that the gag provisions make it 'impossible for people... to discuss their specific concerns with the public, the press and Congress.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Of course they did... (2, Interesting)

crowbarsarefornerdyg (1021537) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263397)

Anyone appealing anything is hardly newsworthy. We knew it was going to happen. Just like whats-her-name eventually going to appeal the judgment of $222,000 against her for "making available 24 songs". Not meant as trolling; just a simple observation.

So What? (4, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263399)

"'impossible for people... to discuss their specific concerns with the public, the press and Congress.'"

So discuss away. Have sock puppets discuss away. Have your wife discuss away. Set up a blog to record all dealings with said 3 letter organizations. So what if they try to gag you. Leak stuff to the press. Hell even DRUDGEREPORT would cover it, if nobody else would. They can't hide if you speak out.

We have a right to remain silent, and the right to SPEAK.

The only question left is, what do you stand for? If you don't speak out, neither will the next guy and the guy after that. This is how tyranny wins.

Re:So What? (5, Insightful)

hnile_jablko (862946) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263457)

So discuss away. Have sock puppets discuss away. Have your wife discuss away. Set up a blog to record all dealings with said 3 letter organizations. So what if they try to gag you. Leak stuff to the press. Hell even DRUDGEREPORT would cover it, if nobody else would. They can't hide if you speak out.

You make light of this as if it is easy. When facing legal action, most people will succumb to pressure and retreat. The rare person who does is generally labelled a leftist lunatic who does not value nor deserve the 'freedom' and security of a 'democratic' nation.

We have a right to remain silent, and the right to SPEAK.

It seems from the article and the provisions of the patriot act, this person does not have the right to speak under threat of prosecution or jail.

The only question left is, what do you stand for? If you don't speak out, neither will the next guy and the guy after that. This is how tyranny wins.

You are telling the person to speak out, but the person can be prosecuted for doing it. Most people don't stand up to well in the face of tyranny which is why there are so many in the world and in history. I wonder how you would act in a similar circumstance.

Re:So What? (4, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263511)

Some 210 years ago, a bunch of guys under threat of death decided not to take it any more. Tossed some tea in the sea, and thus you have the rights today. Doing the "right thing" isn't always easy, its still the right thing to do.

That's the problem with Tyranny. It makes doing what is RIGHT, hard. That's how it wins.

Re:So What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21263665)

I'm gonna party like it's 1983!

Re:So What? (5, Insightful)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263711)

It is a little different when most of your neighbors and friends sympathize, and "the man" is a three week ocean trip away. And, if I recall correctly, the tea party gang did their bit in disguise so as to prevent reprisals and maintain plausible deniability who were willing to "do the right thing" so long as the right thing didn't tarnish their good name.

I certainly agree that "doing the right thing" is right even when it is not easy, but speaking as a person who has been arrested and charged for leading a protest, even winning a minor beat like a disorderly conduct charge can really toss a wrecking ball through an otherwise orderly life. The six of us involved won the case, but still failed nearly every class that semester just from missing class to be in court all the damn time. Now, instead of class, imagine it was work (supporting your family) and instead of disorderly conduct, it was some serious federal charges. Suddenly, doing the right thing isn't such a "no brainer" that you make it out to be; it's a hard choice I wouldn't expect even very principled people to make very often.

Re:So What? (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263767)

You should see what happened to the guys that signed the DoI. The Tea Party was just the warning shot.

Re:So What? (2, Interesting)

DaedalusHKX (660194) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263835)

Actually, that's the fun part. Most of them lost either "everything" or "close to".

Guess that's what happens when you go against Caesar... and the worst part was that they reinstated an easily exploited, very strong central government with "checks and balances" which were only seen as such by those promoting them.

Hell they had to EMBARGO and blockade Rhode Island to force them to ratify it, after RI shot it down in civil referendum, 11 to 1.

Makes one wonder if the American Revolution wasn't merely a power grab, and the Bill of Rights was a way to pacify the recently veteran revolutionaries who might've raised arms one more time before putting them away for the 230 year long winter that has set since then.

I don't know... how about this idea. (1)

DaedalusHKX (660194) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263865)

Actually, how hard would it be for the ISP to store digital copies of said files?

Then how hard would it be for some unknown "hacker" to randomly hack the ISP, deface their website with the said documents, slander the ISP, etc as "cowards" and then forward a copy of this to every 2600, world net news and drudge style publishers out there... cat would be out of the bag, and ISP would simply have to "reinstall a server due to possible rootkit installation" or some such. And if everyone at the ISP has alibis, and the "hacker" doesn't talk... well then, the world is a better place for it.

I am amazed that nobody has done this yet.

Re:So What? (1)

ls -la (937805) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263759)

210 years ago? You're showing your age. It's been over 230 now.

Re:So What? (3, Funny)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264339)

Well you revolt first. They will run out of bullets after the first wave. :)

Re:So What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21263519)

He told us exactly how he would respond, and so did you. Pray tell, what would inspire you to grow a spine? Do you have kids? Do you enjoy showing them how to choose what's easy over what's right?

Re:So What? (1)

temcat (873475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264239)

Kids have this nasty habit to eat multiple times every day. So there.

I'd speak up (1)

Travoltus (110240) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264403)

I fear living under this kind of fascist government more than I fear their jackbooted thugs, guns and threats of imprisonment.

Re:So What? (5, Insightful)

adrianmonk (890071) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263525)

So discuss away. Have sock puppets discuss away. Have your wife discuss away.

The stupid Patriot act makes it illegal for the person to tell their wife! So, that's not really a work-around. It'd be better for them to just say whatever they're going to say.

For what it's worth, I think the ISP owner has done the right thing. They've done everything they can without getting arrested. They haven't said, "Ah, it's too much trouble to fight this." Instead, they've called in the ACLU and taken the government to court. The government, so far, is losing. There's not much point in risking what the ISP owner would risk by giving up their identity. The ACLU has already drawn a lot of attention to it, and it doesn't seem like they'd get that much publicity by shedding their anonymity.

By the way, if you appreciate the fact that the ACLU provided free lawyers and made it way easier for the guy to fight the government on this (thus decreasing the chances he'd blow it off), you might consider donating a little cash [aclu.org] to help them provide more lawyers in future situations like this.

Re:So What? (0, Troll)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263563)

"They'vedone everything they can without getting arrested."

Where's the willingness to take one for the team? If you are so scared of being "arrested", I wonder what you'll do when they threaten to kill you? So much for principles worth dying for, huh?

So, your rights only worth the threat of "Arrest"?

Re:So What? (1)

adrianmonk (890071) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263657)

Where's the willingness to take one for the team? If you are so scared of being "arrested", I wonder what you'll do when they threaten to kill you?

Where's the benefit of getting arrested? The public already knows about the case. A federal judge has already ruled against the government and invalidated portions of the Patriot act. How much does it change if we know John Doe's name?

Re:So What? (0)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263705)

Then whats the point of complaining about abuses and threats to liberty and all that?

You can't have it both ways. Either it is a threat to liberties or it isn't. If it is, then take one for the team, if not then sit down and shuttup.

Re:So What? (3, Insightful)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264165)

OK Enough, I call bullshit.

Look,
If taking one for the team is the *only* way then fine. If it's the *best* way then maybe. If there is a fairly equitable solution that does not involve martyring one's self then that is the correct course of action. I mean you're almost acting as if the ISP should line up like the Judean People's Front crack suicide squad from Life of Brian, pull aside the armor, and stab one's self in the heart. I mean really, this ISP has armor in the form of lawyers that will go to the press for it, with a media/propaganda devision that rivals the duopoly political party's media machines... Why not use it?

-nB

Re:So What? (2, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264493)

That's only the right choice if taking one for the team and revealing their identity would accomplish something useful to advance their case. Since it seems to me that it wouldn't, I think they're quite justified in taking one for the team.

Defying unjust laws to defend your rights is admirable. Defying unjust laws when you were already defending your rights just fine without said defiance is idiotic.

The upside of naming John Doe (2, Interesting)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264135)

How much does it change if we know John Doe's name?
It might be very good for John Doe's business. I know when I am looking for an ISP, it would be a very good selling point if they said " We honor our customer's privacy. Even if it means risking jail. And we have court transcripts to prove it"

Imagine how his business would boom if privacy advocates and tin-foil-hatters accross the nation started transferring their business to him.

Re:The upside of naming John Doe (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264297)

Imagine how his business would boom if privacy advocates and tin-foil-hatters accross the nation started transferring their business to him.

Lets see... which do I want?

a) A successful business and the freedom to enjoy it?

b) A booming business but locked away in prison?

Tough choice. Not.

I find it particularly amusing that its the exact same choice I would have if I were contemplating doing something illegal to generate business? You know like bribing a politician to rezone some land, or fishing in a protected area using banned gear, or violating the gag provisions of national security letter... hmmm... wait... why does that last one sound so familiar?

Just because some laws are stupid and unjust, its still generally better to avoid breaking them while you fight them.

After all... bribing politicians is wrong, right? But supporting their bid for re-election, and investing in their kids businesses... A-OK!! Maybe someone should just martyr themselves on that law too, because its plainly stupid, given that there are a 1000 ways to bribe without it looking like a bribe.

Re:So What? (5, Insightful)

tftp (111690) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263685)

200 years ago if you were arrested (and not hanged, or shot right away) you'd be eventually released, and you could continue to live your normal life (modulo the unpleasanness of the experience.)

In the modern society an arrest may be more than that. You could be charged with a random offense just to justify your arrest; we probably all do a dozen of those offenses before breakfast, so many laws are on the books that it's not humanly possible to know them all.

An arrest record, not even mentioning a conviction, is a massive dark stain on your reputation. And you can not (at this time) point at British soldiers and earn karma; quite opposite, you instantly lose all the value, at least in the eyes of HR. Your career may be destroyed, and that means your family too. If things turn out really bad you can join the society of homeless.

So it would be unwise to treat an arrest today as a picnic. 200 years ago you would be risking your teeth, or your neck. But if you survive you'd be OK. Today an arrest may make you into a non-person, a member of the lowest caste that there is in the society. Besides, the society as a whole usually does not look at lawbreakers as heroes, and the media does not present them in the best possible light either. Remember the guy who was asking Kerry some inconvenient question and got tasered? The media described him as a troublemaker, and the police accused him in inciting a riot. The country meekly accepted all that and joked that maybe the guy should have been shot instead. Hardly encouraging to future challengers, just as intended.

Re:So What? (1, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263735)

200 years ago, people were hung for this sort of thing, not locked up and released. They didn't hold people indefinitely because killing them was much more efficient. Holding people forever was very rare, and today's prisons are a hotel with gourmet food compared to where they kept people 200 years ago.

Re:So What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21263843)

200 years ago, people were hung for this sort of thing, not locked up and released.
No, they were hanged. Show some fucking respect.

Re:So What? (2, Insightful)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264459)


All correct, but there's an interesting corollary - the more people who are convicted of crimes, the less effect this threat has. It doesn't even need to be conviction as simply the experience of being arrested and thinking that you may be sentenced is enough to open your eyes and disabuse people of the Us vs. Them stereotyping of criminals. When you or your friend or brother or your partner has a criminal record, the mark on a job candidate's history becomes much less of a instant trigger for dismissing them. Instead, you start to do what you should do all along which is assess it on the merits of the actual case - was it breaching a silence order from the government or was it murdering little old ladies? I personally have recommended that someone with a criminal record be hired. They appeared to be the best candidate.

The other effect of arresting someone, is that the ability to frighten them with arrest is often somewhat diminished thereafter. A senior British police officer here remarked in interview, that laws were for keeping the law-abiding law-abiding. I.e. people are afraid of being caught. Once you have been caught and your record marked, you usually care less about further marks. I might even go so far as to say that going out and getting yourself arrested (preferably for something minor and non prison-worthy) is quite a liberating experience.

Finally, is the very wrong law in the US that disenfranchises convicted felons from voting. As more and more people are convicted (and very predominantly from poor demographics), the US democracy becomes less and less representative. And we all know where that leads.

Re:So What? (1)

epee1221 (873140) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264107)

Where's the willingness to take one for the team?
You seem to have confused "willingness" and "eagerness." Nobody's a coward for trying the win-without-getting-arrested strategies before the win-but-get-arrested ones; it's generally considered pretty stupid not to go that way.

Actually (3, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264125)

You probably can talk about it with your wife. Spousal privilege is rather powerful. Your spouse can't testify about what you said to them in confidence (as in when no 3rd party is around), even if incriminating. Also, your spouse cannot be forced to be a witness against you in a trial. They can choose to, if they wish, but they cannot be subpoenaed or compelled by any party.

It is a privilege nearly as powerful as attorney client privilege. Since spouses are considered to in many ways legally be the same person, they are granted the right to free and open communication, without fear that it will be used against them in trial, civil or criminal.

freedom (3, Insightful)

hnile_jablko (862946) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263403)

free-est nation in the world my ass. the country is slowly turning into totalitarian soviet rule under the guise of democracy.

Right... (2, Insightful)

NEOtaku17 (679902) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263569)

Being the freest doesn't make one free. Haven't been to Europe lately I take it?

Re:Right... (4, Interesting)

hnile_jablko (862946) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264005)

In fact I have. I have spent the last 3 years living in and working in Spain and the UK. I would say there are much freer(sp?) states in Europe than the US. Many more.

I am missing your point about Europe and its relevance to my comment about the US slowly becoming a totalitarian state. That I know of, the number of totalitarian states in Europe has gone from about 50% in all of europe down to near 0% in the last 15-20 years. Sorry to ask and please forgive me, but can you please clarify because I am assuming I am completely missing something.

Re:Right... (2, Insightful)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264195)

freererer...er, yeah, you got me on that one...

As a red-blood yank I have to agree though. Europe (as a whole) is rapidly becoming the role-model that the USA once was.
Sad really. I still love my country, just my governments breaks have melted and if you thought a run-away semi down hill was bad, try a trillion dollar ball of red tape, pencil pushers, and self-important lawyers (as most congress critters are).

Re:Right... (2, Informative)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264029)

Being the freest doesn't make one free. Haven't been to Europe lately I take it?

I live in France. Can you tell me how France is "not freer" than the USA? Or any other European country for that matter? Are you sure the USA are freer than Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Japan and every country of Europe (not put together)?

My point is, if the USA have ever been "the freest country in the world", it had to be a long time ago, if ever (for example, a few countries [wikipedia.org] had abolished slavery before the USA even existed)

Re:freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21263647)

Yawn. It's not even close to that.

You've got rights. You're just too stupid or lazy to exercise them.

Re:freedom (2, Insightful)

hnile_jablko (862946) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264071)

Tell you what genius. You come sit down with my girlfriend's family and have them tell you some things about how the soviets operated. You might see some frightening similarities. The very idea that a person can be prosecuted or jailed for speaking publicly about a trial because it is in the interest of national security is VERY soviet.

Totalitarian Europe (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263673)

The total amount of totalitarianism in Europe seems to be constant. It just moves around from country to country.

Re:Totalitarian Europe (1)

hnile_jablko (862946) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264017)

Does it? Per a previous post, I believe that 20 years ago the percentage of totalitarian states in europe was around 50% and that has decreased to near 0%. So where is the constant and please list the countries which have drifted into totalitarian status in the last 20 years. by contrast, I bet I could name at least 10 off the top of my head that our now democratic.

Re:freedom (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264145)

Nah ... totalitarian PRC rule. We aren't buying all of our Christmas tree bulbs from Russia, you know.

Just remember.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21264219)

The terrorists hate us for our *muffled attempt to speak through gag*

Re:Just remember.... (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264739)

I can't quite hear you! Did you say "flea dumb"?

Systemic problem (5, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263405)

The idea is that once these clowns are out of office, these attempts to remove procedural constraints on law enforcement will end, right? Bushies are evil and want to eat your babies and all that. But the pressure to create these laws comes from law enforcement itself. The DHS wants these limits removed so that it can more effectively combat crime and, as its name implies, keep the homeland secure.

So even after GWB leaves office, the DHS and all the subdepartments under it will still be there demanding to have more access with less oversight. Will the next President have the balls to dismantle DHS into its constituent parts? Hell, will the next President have balls at all?

The growth of government into a huge self-sustaining entity is the root cause of this type of abuse. Only by returning to a smaller government with a more focused raison detre can we expect to have the people running it rather than it running the people.

Of course, since that will never happen, I hope they provide lube.

Re:Systemic problem (4, Insightful)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263587)

There's nothing wrong with biggish government. The world is both bigger and smaller than it was in 1776 and we need a bigger and more complex government to deal with it. It's also expected that certain parts of government will attempt to change things in order to make their lives easier at the expense of private citizens. The US and most western democracies have checks and balances in place for that.

We even have checks and balances for when the people who are supposed to keep the three letter organizations in check get out of control. It's called voting. We even have the ability for third parties to run when everyone sucks. The problem we have is that the people on average don't care. They buy the line about how doing all this will save them from the terrorist threat which doesn't exist. They buy the idea that the terrorists hate American freedoms and the only way to save our freedoms is to let the government take them away.

Democracy is about getting the government you vote for, and when the people who vote are apathetic, ignorant, greedy, fearful, and bigotted, you get apathetic, ignorant, fearful, and bigotted government. In other words crap government.

Is this current state of affairs George Bush(or more accurately Dick Cheney)'s fault? Yes. Dick Cheney is an evil bastard and Bush seems for the most part to just do what he's told. We've established that, we've paid for it now comes the new question?

Why are none of the feebs running for the next election being held accountable for fixing it? Why are we letting both parties and most of the third party candidates get away with not promising to dismantle this crap?

Re:Systemic problem (2, Insightful)

tftp (111690) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263761)

The problem we have is that the people on average don't care.

I think this is exactly the reason why democracy just can not exist as a stable state; it can be seen briefly in popular revolts, for example, but after things settle down people abandon their duty to the state. There are very few countries in the world that can be even called democratic, for a certain, watered down meaning of democracy.

Most countries are ruled by people who came to power because of who they are themselves or who they know. If a country has a good ruler (previously known as King) the country is in luck. If a stupid King settles on the throne - bad news. And the more industrialized and advanced the country is, the less active the population becomes, and thus the country becomes less and less democratic, and elections hardly mean anything.

Re:Systemic problem (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264557)


I think this is exactly the reason why democracy just can not exist as a stable state;


But this isn't a given. (Please note that I'm only disagreeing with your conclusion, not your argument.) The degree to which the people care is heavily influenced by factors of general education levels, wealth distribution and culture. The republic of Rome, whilst a republic having the subtle distinction of being a republic rather than a democracy and lacking universal suffrage, is still a valid example of a democracy lasting over four-hundred years. There is no intrinsic reason why a democracy must fail sooner than any other form of government. The apathy of people in the US regarding politics is, I think, largely a result of both poor education in history and world events, and of the prevalent meme that nothing can be done. Both are fostered, deliberately or not, by the highly controlled media in the country. Although affluence may well be a large factor in the apathy also, in some ways. This last is most certainly going to change!

Education levels and cultural attitudes can be changed and historically have been. It's not a rule that must inevitably be followed. And the desire and hope for a perfect democracy, even if thwarted, can also raise us up to a more representative society than we would have if never tried. Hang in there! :)

Re:Systemic problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21263815)

"There's nothing wrong with biggish government."

Oh when will we ever learn? Oh when will we ever learn!

Re:Systemic problem (1)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263897)

What's the alternative. Someone has to organise things, and private enterprise does an absolutely terrible job on anything where the goal can't be measured money.

Does the US need to spend more than everyone else in the world combined on their military? Do they need to have as many three letter agencies as they do? Probably not, but these aren't usually the things that small government proponents want to dismantle.

Someone has to organize treaties, trade, commerce, and all the other things the constitution says the government should manage and it's complicated and expensive for a nation the size of the US in the modern era. Even if we went to the libertarian ideal and got rid of the government all together we'd still have to have someone organize all those things, and after a bunch of groups got together to negotiate for the same things you'd end up with basically a government again.

Re:Systemic problem (2, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264407)

Even if we went to the libertarian ideal and got rid of the government all together we'd still have to have someone organize all those things, and after a bunch of groups got together to negotiate for the same things you'd end up with basically a government again.
Except, ya know, that we all wouldn't be forced to pay for it.

If you don't understand libertarianism, don't talk about it.

Re:Systemic problem (1)

stony3k (709718) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264019)

I would advice you and anyone else who thinks big governments are good to read some Thoreau [wikipedia.org] , specifically his essay Civil Disobedience [wikipedia.org] . It's in the public domain even, so you can get it for free from many places.

Re:Systemic problem (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264781)

It's called voting. We even have the ability for third parties to run when everyone sucks. The problem we have is that the people on average don't care. They buy the line about how doing all this will save them from the terrorist threat which doesn't exist.
The problem, to my mind, and the reason that people don't care, is that voting in a two-party system doesn't change policy a bit. There's no way for the populous to support their own views because politicians toe the party line, and the major parties run on a couple of headline issues while being otherwise very similar.

Even if the incumbent government IS thrown out, the network of advisors and upper-upper-middle management that actually runs the country tends to stay pretty much put, and the cogs keep turning as before.

Re:Systemic problem (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263983)

Will the next president have balls at all?

Not if Hillary is elected.

*ducks*

Re:Systemic problem (1)

migloo (671559) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264531)

Hell, will the next President have balls at all?
Yes, I think she will.

Re:Systemic problem (1)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264697)

Yes, I think she will.



"At least I do not think with things I do not have."

I HATE THE ACLU! (-1, Troll)

advs89 (921250) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263413)

Let the NSA do their job, ACLU! They are protecting YOUR life too. They aren't snooping on John in the US talking to his wife Jane on vacation in Peru. They're snooping on Mohammad in the US talking to Abdul plotting a terrorist attack in Baghdad. It's called profiling and it has saved the lives of many Americans in the past. It's not racist or bigoted or infringing on anyone's civil liberties - it's an accurate and reliable way to find out about possible terror attacks.

Re:I HATE THE ACLU! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21263439)

Wow, never knew a piece of shit could get access to a Net connection or even know how to operate a webbrowser!

Someone flush this turd...

Don't mod parent down. Contains kernel of truth (4, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263485)

While your inflammatory comment will be taken for a troll, I think that you do bring up a good point, and it's one that I agree with. Tying the hands of law enforcement is counter-productive in some cases. Letting the NSA wiretap international calls is one way to gain valuable information, especially if the calls originate from a suspicious person or are terminated at a suspicious person. While it grates the wrong way for most slashbots, I think that they see espionage as wrong in this case because of its ease.

But the problem with this law is that it requires private citizens to comply with demands that originate wholly from within a government agency without checks and balances. The judicial stamp of approval, even if it is really nothing more than a rubber stamp, at least preserves the appearance of checks and balances. Removing that requirement to grease the wheels of law enforcement removes a critical check on the powers of the executive branch of government. If we don't have checks against the executive branch, then we have, in essence, a dictatorship where the executive decides what the law is and executes it according to his own wishes (or according to the department's wishes in the case of FBI or DHS).

Re:Don't mod parent down. Contains kernel of truth (1)

Adam8g (1181859) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264227)

The judiciary is SO far removed from what our Founding Fathers (yep - Dead White Guys ) envisioned - our troops ON THE GROUND in Iraq need JD approval to listen in on electronic intercepts when in hot pursuit - W T F

Re:Don't mod parent down. Contains kernel of truth (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264261)

Completely, utterly, fucking wrong [wikipedia.org] . I suppose you have some source to back this crap up?

Re:I HATE THE ACLU! (0, Troll)

hnile_jablko (862946) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263501)

He has been modded Score: 3, Funny. Ummm... looking at his website, http://www.adamdoyle.net/ [adamdoyle.net] , I would say he is rather serious and quite niave about how the privileges given to certain organisations are being abused and will be abused by further administrations Furthermore, these abuses will creep further into everyday liberties we take for granted. This is one step in many already taken and being taken towards a place far away from democracy and the idea of liberty we claim to cherish.

Re:I HATE THE ACLU! (4, Insightful)

jo42 (227475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263515)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? [wikipedia.org]

Or are you ready for "Heil Bush!" followed by "Your papers." ?

Re:I HATE THE ACLU! (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263837)

I doubt that. More like Heil Clinton. Bush will be gone in a year (good riddance).

And it will be exactly this .... "Papers please, or you'll end up like Vince Foster."

Though, I have to say, I didn't think it could get much worse than Bush 1, then came Clinton, then Came Bush 2. I suspect Clinton 2 is going to be the worst of all of them. Which is saying something.

Re:I HATE THE ACLU! (2, Interesting)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264169)

I don't know about the "Heil Bush" part, but I already got the "your papers, please." at LAX when I was coming home a few weeks ago. I was in line at the security checkpoint, and this Indian character in a security jacket went down the line looking at everyone's boarding passes, saying, "I'll need to see your papers, please." When he got to me I asked him if he knew how scary that sounded. He looked at me and blinked, and finished the line saying, "Tickets, please."

Re:I HATE THE ACLU! (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264525)

Of course, at that point you threw him out the window and exclaimed to the passengers, "No tickets!"

Re:I HATE THE ACLU! (3, Interesting)

hotair (600117) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263559)

How do you know that they only protecting my life from Mohammad? BTW, there is a Mohammed who lives in my community. He's a nice guy from a long line of Americans. Why should they protect me from him any more than any other guy walking down the street.

How do you know they are not listening to John talk to his wife or a political opponent plan his/her campaign? It seems like the John Doe bringing the complaint might know. He was forced to cooperate and is saying that he has something to say on the subject that you or I might be interesting in hearing.

I don't use a sig, but the answer is:
Lrf!

It's called checks and balances (4, Insightful)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263603)

It's not racist or bigoted or infringing on anyone's civil liberties - it's an accurate and reliable way to find out about possible terror attacks.

The ACLU isn't trying to eliminate all wiretapping. They're on record as saying that there are times when wiretapping is necessary. I think any but the most deluded would agree that sometimes in order to stop people from doing very bad things, you need to use wiretapping. But this is the part that many people (not just the ACLU) object to:

...without first obtaining a judge's approval

Organizations like the NSA perform valuable service in defense of the country. So does the U.S. Navy. But just as I don't want the U.S. Navy deciding to bomb dangerous countries whenever it likes, I don't want the NSA deciding when to wiretap without any judicial oversight. Our system of government was initiated by men who were very aware of the dangers of too much power concentrated in one arm of the government. That's why we divide power in our government.

In a society that values the rule of law, the involvement of an independent judiciary in anti-terrorism matters is a good thing, not something to route around out for the sake of temporary convenience.

Re:It's called checks and balances (1)

epee1221 (873140) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264053)

...without first obtaining a judge's approval
Even though what I hear them say is that they haven't got time to go to court first, they already have a court which can grant retroactive warrants.

Re:I HATE THE ACLU! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21263675)

NOTE: Osama never liked Mo and Abdul.

Re:I HATE THE ACLU! (0, Flamebait)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263807)

Yeah, baby! You tell 'em [shelleytherepublican.com] !

Re:I HATE THE ACLU! (1)

hnile_jablko (862946) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264047)

Wow. That was a great read. I am indoctinated. FUCK YEAH!

yess! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21263415)

w00t!! frist post!!

penis (0, Troll)

Asshat_Nazi (946431) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263469)

fuck you yogurtdick.. polesmoking turd bunglers.

Contact their congressman (3, Interesting)

GrEp (89884) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263513)

Sharing one of these letters with your congressman is fine. The executive is supposed to keep them abreast of all matters anyway. I don't remember reading anywhere in the "patriot" act that congress asked to be left in the dark...

absurd (4, Insightful)

drDugan (219551) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263533)

At what point does the story become so absurd that people will rise up with some energy and stop this insanity.

This is one of a long list now that together paints absurdity:

gag orders from the state like TFA

fake government news conferences

secret rules for companies offering travel

warrentless searches, warrentless wiretaps without oversight

executive officials declaring they aren't part of the executive branch

former AG and AG in the approval process both who think simulating death by drowing is OK

overt torture of dissidents by the state

political litmus tests for federal prosecutors

taking water and degrading people with "security theatre" before they can fly

secret prisons

history rewritten with medals of freedom

CIA IG hamstrung by OMB red tape preventing the investigation of illegal activity

police that require papers on demand, without reason

overtly funding terrorist dictators, then attacking them

being tazed and arrested for asking tough questions to Senators and acting up

the lead opposition party candidate supporting the war through 2012

somehow "not finding" the Saudi prince who was "responsible" for the 9/11 attack

spending fully 60% of the global military expenditures ($623 Billion, not counting Iraq)

a looming awful choice: a draft -or- mid-east civil war. Pick one.

a president beating war drums about WW III

an endless war on fear that causes fear

This is the United States today. Any memory or idealism of some other "land of the free" is completely gone.

Re:absurd (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21263593)

Whiny liberal fuckwad. You have no idea what you're talking about. The US is still better than any other country in the world. Go jump in a hole and wait for the terrorists to win while you bitch about how mean and terrible the government is that is protecting your sorry ass.

Re:absurd (1)

jaxtherat (1165473) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263749)

What I'd dearly like to know, is whether people like the AC above genuinely believe what they say, or whether they are just spreading inflammatory shite just for trolling purposes.

I'm not feeding the trolls, I just would like to know...

Re:absurd (1)

pintpusher (854001) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263765)

must resist... must resist... can't resist!

You cowardly little turd pile AC. You crack me up. What will you do when they come for your mom? huh? How will you get your ass to school then? hmm?

At what point will it be bad enough for you to change? You clearly think it's bad since you bothered to say "still better". That's an admission that it's worsening. So what does it take? How bad does it have to be before there is one country better? And will that be enough? or will you just say "The US is still better than any other country in the world, except that one?"

And furthermore, you ass-drip, why is "better than any other" good enough? Are you satisfied to beat everyone else even if you didn't play as hard as you could? That's pretty hollow isn't it? There's nothing quite like *not* giving it your all. Wouldn't it be so much more awesome to say "better than any other" and getting better all the time? Wouldn't that be great?

just sayin'.

Anger problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21263915)

Anger problem. The parent post was written by someone who thinks he has an opinion about government, but is only angry.

George Christian (2, Interesting)

kmarek (860953) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263609)

His name is George Christian. I met him a few months ago when he came to my town for a speech about this very issue. He told us his story from his perspective. This was the day after the September ruling. I even have his card somewhere here on my desk. Boing Boing was all over this 9 months ago. Old news. Here's a few videos about this case: PBS (RealPlayer) (June 2, 2006), YouTube (September 5th, 2007).

Re:George Christian (1)

chuckymonkey (1059244) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264715)

Could you repost the links? Either something went horribly wrong with your HTML or my browser is on the fritz(very possible).

Jesus H. Christ on a crutch. (2, Interesting)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263617)

It should actually read that

The Executive Branch of the US government appealed a September ruling by the Judicial Branch of the US government, striking down as unconstitutional an act approved by the Legislative Branch of the US Government.
Got that?

EVERY product and service could be compromised. (5, Insightful)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263629)

Consider carefully what has happened. The U.S. government has established that it can break the law, and demand that those who know about it keep silent.

That means that EVERY product and service from the U.S. could be compromised. Those who don't want to risk U.S. surveillance and control won't want to risk buying from manufacturers in the United States.

If you are a U.S. citizen, are you ready to be poor? Are you ready to live in a poor country?

Re:EVERY product and service could be compromised. (1)

Telepathetic Man (237975) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263693)

The U.S. doesn't sell much of any products anymore. All production is done over seas, you know China, Taiwan, Korea, etc.

All we sell is services and IP (culture).

UDel's "ThoughtReform" a better fit for YRO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21263707)

Many universities try to indoctrinate students, but the all-time champion in this category is surely the University of Delaware. With no guile at all the university has laid out a brutally specific program for "treatment" of incorrect attitudes of the 7,000 students in its residence halls. The program is close enough to North Korean brainwashing that students and professors have been making "made in North Korea" jokes about the plan. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has called for the program to be dismantled.

Residential assistants charged with imposing the "treatments" have undergone intensive training from the university. The training makes clear that white people are to be considered racists - at least those who have not yet undergone training and confessed their racism. The RAs have been taught that a "racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture, or sexuality."

FIRE reports that the university's views "are forced on students through a comprehensive manipulation of the residence hall environment, from mandatory training sessions to 'sustainability' door decorations." Residents are pressured to promise at least a 20 percent reduction in their ecological footprint and to promise to work for a "oppressed" group. Students are required to attend training sessions, floor meetings and one-on-one sessions where RAs ask personal questions such as "When did you discover your sexual identity?". Students are pressured or required to accept an array of the university's approved views. In one training session, students had to announce their opinions on gay marriage. Those who did not approve of gay marriage were isolated and heavily pressured to change their opinion.

The indoctrination program pushes students to accept the university's ideas on politics, race, sex, sociology, moral philosophy and environmentalism. The training is run by Kathleen Kerr, director of residential life, who reportedly considers it a "cutting-edge" program that can be exported to other universities around the country. Residential assistants usually provide services to residents and have light duties, such as settling squabbles among students. Kerr and her program are more ambitious. She has been quoted as saying that the job of RAs is to educate the whole human being with a "curricular approach to residential education." In this curricular approach, students are required to report their thoughts and opinions. One professor says: "You have to confess what you believe to the RA." The RAs write reports to their superiors on student progress in cooperating with the "treatment."

The basic question about the program is how did they think they could ever get away with this? Most campus indoctrination is more subtle, with some wiggle room for fudging and deniability. This program implies a frightening level of righteousness and lack of awareness. But the RAs have begun to back away a step or two. After telling the students the program is mandatory, the RAs sent an email saying the sessions are actually voluntary.

----------------
In one-on-one sessions with RAs (Resident Assistants), University of Delaware students were questioned: "When did you discover your sexual identity?" In dorm meetings, they were pressured to pledge their allegiance to university-approved views on race, sexuality and environmentalism. When FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) spotlighted the indoctrination, a university official defended the "free exchange of ideas." A few days later, the program was canceled.

How can academics talk about "critical thinking" while turning residence halls into reeducation camps? Well, they meant well. Everyone agrees they meant well. If only academics were capable of thinking critically about their own assumptions.

Thanks to FIRE's links to ResLife (Residential Life) materials, we know the goal was to teach dorm dwellers "competencies" for "citizenship," such as: "Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society," "Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression," and "Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality."

"Learning" was defined as "specific attitudinal or behavioral changes." The program was called a "treatment."

Students who agreed with ResLife's views on "diversity, homosexual rights (and more subtly, politics)" were hired as RAs, writes Dan Lenker, a former RA, on SayAnything. Then RAs were trained in how to pressure students to accept the program's "unarguable dogma," such as the fact that "racist" applies to all whites in the U.S. "regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality." Over time, "ridiculous and poorly designed" programs became "more belligerent" in pushing students to accept the approved beliefs, Lenker writes. While older students realized they could skip dorm meetings, "gullible" freshman believed RAs who said they had to participate.

This year, ResLife hired Shakti Butler, executive director of World Trust Educational Services, to train RAs. Her specialty, according to her web site, is "constructive conversations on oppression through the lens of race." She claims her work "speaks to the interconnectedness of racism, classism, sexism and homophobia."

The program "has gotten out of hand," writes "Bill," who says he's been an RA for two years, on Chronicle of Higher Education. Asked to defend the training to the press, he refused. "When I declined, I was taken aside and told that my future as an RA was in jeopardy as was my future as a student."

The university's first response to FIRE came from Michael Gilbert, the vice president of student life, who claimed the program wasn't mandatory and was all about "the free exchange of ideas."

Not so, responds "Marie," who says she works in the student affairs office, in the Chronicle: "... until this week the program was mandatory and they have temporarily suspended the mandatory nature of it, but once the attention goes away especially with Parents Weekend arriving they want to look good. Boy can they lie."

A chilling description was provided by freshman Brooke Aldrich in a Wilmington News-Journal story: "Students were asked if they approved of such things as affirmative action or gay marriage. If they did, they would join students on one side of the room. If they didn't, they would join students on the other side of the room. They were not permitted to explain their reasons or to answer 'I don't know,' she said."

You'll be throwing out your computer then? (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263799)

Because most of the products in it are from American companies, and a good deal are made in America. Unless you've got a Via processor, your processor is American. Intel, AMD, Motorola and IBM are all American companies. A good deal of their fabs are American as well. Your harddrive, while not manufactured in America is likely from an American company. Seagate (and by extension Maxtor) and Western Digital are both American and that is by far the largest share right there. How about video? Both nVidia and ATi are American as well (ATi was Canadian but they are now owned by AMD, who is American).

I'm just saying if your paranoid rant is for real, you probably need to dump your computer and get a new, and not nearly so fast, one. Of course either way you go, you are probably getting parts manufactured in China. Well if you want to really get all conspiracy nutjob, how about that place? They are flat out about government control. They publicly censor information and so on. They wouldn't even have to break the law to compromise a product and make people stay silent about it.

Or are they ok because you just hate the US?

If you are going to start mistrusting all products from a given country, you can pick much better targets than the US. Of course you will find it kinda hard to buy many things. Turns out that while the US makes the news on account of being big (and on account of this being a US based site) if you live in and investigate another country you discover that most of them have their own "big brother" stunts they pull. There is, as far as I've seen, no perfect nation where the rulers are all fair, just and uncorrupt. That is because all nations are ruled by humans and all humans are imperfect.

If this is just another ill informed anti-US rant, please get off the Internet.

Re:EVERY product and service could be compromised. (1)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263801)

That means that EVERY product and service from the U.S. could be compromised. Those who don't want to risk U.S. surveillance and control won't want to risk buying from manufacturers in the United States.
We already treat anything that is US owned as probably compromised. But then, anything running closed source can be assumed to be compromised. Easy solution: just don't trust anything important to the yanks.

Re:EVERY product and service could be compromised. (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264799)

But then, anything running closed source can be assumed to be compromised. Easy solution: just don't trust anything important to the yanks.
Even suppose you use opensource software and that said software was compiled with an uncomprimised compiler the hardware could still be comprimised.

Re:EVERY product and service could be compromised. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21264033)

Are you ready to live in a poor country?
Ha ha ha ha!! You think the Federal Reserve printing presses are not going to bankrupt the United States first? We are already a poor country, getting poorer by the minute. The U.S. Dollar has lost 34% of its value since 2001. Think of that: 1/3 of the country's entire worth is now in the hands of a relatively small number of people who did not previously own it.

Kind of profound, huh?

Re:EVERY product and service could be compromised. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21264237)

If you are a U.S. citizen, are you ready to be poor? Are you ready to live in a poor country?

It's going to happen.

At this point, I think it's so hopeless that I just want to see the dumb fucking Republicans stay in control for the whole slide. That way there can be no doubt that they are complete and total fucking idiots.

*sigh*

America gets worse every day.

Plaintif letter contents (5, Funny)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263763)

The following is a copy of a National Security Letter, the FBI has requested that we remove all contents that would make them look bad

Dear Plaintif,



















Sincerly
Special Agent
John Smith

Re:Plaintif letter contents (2, Funny)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264585)

The following is a copy of a National Security Letter, the FBI has requested that we remove all contents that would make them look bad

Dear Plaintif,



Apparently, misspelling "plaintiff" doesn't make them look bad.

The Proverbial Simple Solution (5, Interesting)

Ambiguous Coward (205751) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263787)

There is a simple solution to a significant portion of this bullshit (which will absolutely not become a reality until there is an actual revolution and the current establishment is dissolved): DO NOT, under ANY circumstances, allow the GOVERNMENT to appeal a decision made in the courts. EVER, EVER, EVER. (implied underline, strikethrough, blink, and high-voltage electrical shock)

The moment "the government" attempts to appeal a court decision, it is PAINFULLY CLEAR that "the government" is serving its own interests, rather than those of the people. If the court has made an incorrect decision, let THE PEOPLE appeal the decision. Let a private citizen (or group thereof) take up the torch and fight the incorrect decision.

I have a difficult time imagining ANY situation in which "the government" should be allowed to appeal a decision made in the courts. All that really allows is to require only a very small subset of judges be corrupt. The government can simply escalate all the way to the top, past the non-corrupted officials, at which point the case falls under the control of the corrupt party, and "the government" wins.

-G

P.S. I absolutely loathe the term "the government." It is only used to make those being abused by "the government" think there is a single, cohesive entity against which one can wage battle. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The only way to fight this creature is to destroy the entire thing at once. A Wish would do it, and maybe a Fireball, but only if you roll really, really high.

P.P.S Sorry if the paragraphs above are a bit muddled or poorly organized. When I get riled up, I have difficulty organizing my thoughts.

Re:The Proverbial Simple Solution (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264599)


Now this is why I read /. - in amongst all the bemoaning, I come across the odd interesting idea that had never occurred to me. Banning the government from appealing (not that they're very appealing anyway ;). Would need to think it over, but that could be a good thing and I fully agree with the comments about government not being a single entity. People forget that.

funny... (1)

DustyShadow (691635) | more than 6 years ago | (#21263817)

Anyone else think it's funny that this news of the appeal comes on the same day that Congress bashed Yahoo for giving in to China's laws against free speech? (Not that the appeal wasn't expected though)

No John Doe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21263991)

His name is Norm de Plume, A.K.A. Henry Miller, A.K.A. Ham Berger, A.K.A. Been Laden, and he operates a terrorist ISP for islamofascists. I thought everyone knew that!

In the land of the free (1)

Kunax (1185577) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264057)

subject line, come now sing it with me

But if they have nothing to hide (1)

kryten250 (1177211) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264079)

they should have nothing to fear or to complain about.

Three words (2)

brundlefly (189430) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264143)

Why We Fight [imdb.com] .

Explains how we got here, what we're facing, and why we are screwed. US Government is FUCKED by private interests, largely because there is no line between the two any more.

I'm getting my son EU citizenship and teaching him French. Hopefully that's enough to ease his transition to a new continent.

So the nuke is ticking in downtown New York (0, Flamebait)

Adam8g (1181859) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264161)

We have the Raghead who planted it I say whatever it takes What the f is wrong with you people

I'll take the bait (2)

UnrepentantHarlequin (766870) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264757)

The nuke will not be ticking. The person who delivered it there will also be the person who pushes the button to set it off. What, you think an organization that specializes in suicide bombers wouldn't be able to find someone to do that?

The whole "ticking bomb" scenario is a straw man. Any organization with basically competent operational security (which is something that Al-Qaida has demonstrated) will compartmentalize essential information so that no one person can compromise the whole plan. Well, except for the man carrying the nuke, but if you catch him he just pushes the button.

And assuming for the moment you do have a "ticking bomb" scenario, and you've got the guy who can lead you to the bomb, all he has to do is run out the clock. It's amazing how much a person can endure if they know they only have to do it for some definite time, even if they don't expect to get a free ticket to Paradise out of it.

There is a story I read years ago, possibly in a science fiction magazine, that I'd like to track down, and can't. I believe the title was "Citizen Torturer" but I've been unable to find any reference at all to anything by that name. The basic premise was that ordinary citizens were recruited and trained as official government torturers for just such "ticking bomb" scenarios, and their purpose was gradually expanded until they were doing such things as torturing a group of office workers, knowing all but one of them were innocent, to find the one who was embezzling. That is chillingly like what we've seen with everything from the RICO Act to these National Security Letters. First the extraordinary power is for a specific, worthy goal, such as going after the Mafia, then it is broadened to apply to other sorts of "bad guys", and in the end it is turned against ordinary citizens. I want to read that story again, so if anyone can give me any information -- the name, the author, anything -- I would very much appreciate it.

Conflict of law ? (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 6 years ago | (#21264369)

Presumably finding the information requested takes a reasonably amount of effort and it thus costs. There are various financial disclosure/reporting laws ... does the ISP need to say that it has cost it $X complying with NSA requests ?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?