US Senate Asks for National Security Letter Explanation 151
A group of U.S. Senators are asking the FBI to explain a recent controversial National Security Letter sent to the Internet Archive. The Internet Archive was able to defeat the request with help from the EFF and the ACLU this past April. "The Internet Archive's case is only the third known legal challenge to NSLs, despite the fact that the the FBI issues tens of thousands a year -- more than 100,000 such letters were issued in 2004 and 2005 combined. But despite the lack of legal challenges from recipients at ISPs, telephone companies and credit bureaus, successive scathing reports from the Justice Department's Inspector General have found illegal letters and a willy-nilly culture within the bureau towards tracking their usage."
who is first? (Score:5, Insightful)
If everybody could agree to all publish their letters at once and all be first, then the FBI would be powerless [more or less]. It would blow the whole thing wide open. Everyone could analyze for themselves the validity of these claims, including lots of lawyers who would eat this up. We'd see that 99.9% of these are just a template *.doc file printed with regards to [insert company name here] and mailed off.
I'm all for having watchmen, but not when we don't get to watch THEM. Which is exactly what this
Obligatory Watchmen (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:who is first? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, intimidating doesn't work when all work together - that's the stuff revolutions are made out of.
But honestly, do you think that in a country that unlawfully spies on it's own citizens, tortures prisoners and holds hundreds of people for years while denying them a proper trial, anyone would risk that ? In the end, for those involved it's a simple risk calculation: I'd bet that almost no one is willing to risk jailtime for freedom of speech.
It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
There simply is NOT enough terrorist activity or threat to warrant this kind of constitutional stomping authority. I really don't care if that sounds unpatriotic. I just do NOT believe that there was ever valid justification for such actions as allowed by the NSLs. They give carte blanche access to your information in ways that you are supposed to be protected from. Simply put, it is a non-supervised method to violate every or any citizens constitutional rights to privacy.
I'm tired of seeing arguments about how it's for security, or it fights terrorists. For FSM's sake, if it violates MY rights, then it's fucking wrong. period. no argument. for. ever.
I don't care if you tell me it will only be used in 'certain' cases.. I do NOT want you to have the ability to do so because I do not fucking trust you. ever. period. get over it.
The 2nd amendment is there to provide recourse to such actions by the government and I don't care if those in power think I'm saying treasonous things, I have a constitutionally guaranteed right to say them, think them, and 'believe it or not' act on them. I do NOT want this, or any, government to be snooping in my life, or anyone's life just because they can for expedience sake. Follow the law, do the right thing and you will have my respect. Don't and I will keep my gun very handy. THAT, my friends, is the intent of the framers of the constitution. Don't tread on me was used early on as a rally cry... I'm using it now. Don't tread on me or my privacy. It's time that ALL citizens of the USA said the same.
Ah, the fresh smell of paranoia (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:remember! (Score:5, Insightful)
Warrant (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Is violating the constitution enough to warrant a death sentence to all in power, or are there grey areas that warrant only throwing the government out of office next elections? If you do indeed decide to go on a shooting spree, who should die? Should everyone employed by the government be offed? How about everyone in executive positions, right down to transport ministers? Or everyone in the white house?
The second amendment may have been relevant years ago, when the US was small and times were unstable, but now you have a lot more to lose. You have a huge economy, a wealthy lifestyle, sturdy future prospects, large population and infrastructure just to name a few. Violent coups must be thought through because they are devastatingly expensive. A civil war could ruin the US, so you had better to be bloody sure that you are doing the right thing. That's not even counting if you're a pacifist...
Re:It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Agree and futhermore...
<soapbox>
It doesn't really matter how much, the ends don't justify the means - despite what the Bush administration would have us believe. The Constitution is there to protect us from our Government and from those citizens who want to limit the rights of other citizens. As far as the "War on Terror", if the US has to behave badly and/or contrary to our core principles to "win", then we lose and they win.
</soapbox>
What, me read? (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization) [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918 [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP [wikipedia.org]
http://www.amazon.com/Bowling-Alone-Collapse-American-Community/dp/0743203046/sr=8-1/qid=1172469926/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-3962904-3664448?ie=UTF8&s=books [amazon.com]
http://code.google.com/p/torchat/ [google.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_Shah's_Men [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_Contras_cocaine_trafficking_in_the_US [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree [wikipedia.org]
http://web.mit.edu/gtmarx/www/iron.html [mit.edu]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Rule_Book [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeal_of_prohibition [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writeprint [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance [wikipedia.org]
http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/PhotoRec [cgsecurity.org]
http://www.eff.org/testyourisp/pcapdiff/ [eff.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon [wikipedia.org]
http://ai.bpa.arizona.edu/COPLINK/ [arizona.edu]
http://ai.bpa.arizona.edu/research/coplink/authorship.htm [arizona.edu]
http://www.coplink.com/ [coplink.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO [wikipedia.org]
http://www.zurich.ibm.com/security/idemix/ [ibm.com]
http://packetstormsecurity.nl/filedesc/Practical_Onion_Hacking.pdf.html [packetstormsecurity.nl]
http://www.williamson-labs.com/laser-mic.htm [williamson-labs.com]
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~dfrankow/files/privacy-sigir2006.pdf [umn.edu]
http://freehaven.net/anonbib/topic.html#Anonymous_20communication [freehaven.net]
http://www.wiley.com/legacy/compbooks/mcnamara/links.html [wiley.com]
Re:They would, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm absolutely sure that when the rest of the world mocks our 'land of the free' label, it is time to do something. Not tomorrow, not next month, but now. Yes, voting is a quick and comparatively painless way to implement change. The problem (as I see it) is that this does not highlight to the citizenry that the people they vote in may be in the same cabal of (on face value) patriots that would violate their rights.
Sadly, in the land of the free, there are few who know their rights, and why they have them. I'm tempted to say that 'no child left behind' has ensured this, but won't. Despite the sig, I do not promote violent overthrow of the government, but I reserve the right to. There is no difference between one tyrant 3000 miles away and 30 tyrants 100 miles away... save for the fact that shooting the 30 is easier.
My entire tirade (and it is one) is for one simple reason; I'm tired of having MY rights trampled in the name of something that simply does NOT exist. If you think me wrong, shut down all the anti-terrorism measures... ALL of them, prove to me empirically that there is a danger that warrants such invasion of my life and privacy. Go ahead, do it!
I'm tired of people 'protecting me' from dangers that do not exist and trampling MY rights in the process. If you want to guard my house while I'm on vacation, fucking do it from the other side of the street. My security system is working fine, and I'm not paying you to waste your time and MY tax dollars to sit inside my house.
This goes for terrorism, child-pornography, internet bullies, file sharers, and any manner of thought crime criminals.
See my sig, I do not advocate violence, rather I suggest that the Internet changes everything. Information wants to be free, and information frees the rest of us. If the government is so honorable at protecting my rights, why do they have to do it in secret?
Don't give me that bs about national security
I am BLOODY SURE that what I'm saying is right. I'm not a pacifist, but I am also not advocating a violent revolution. I like the Ron Paul revolution myself. The trouble is that if you do not smack people around a bit, they won't have the attention span to listen. Now is the time to listen to what is being said. Now is the time to take heart. Now is the time to put on the tin foil hats and load your home security devices. Now is the time to be skeptical. Now is the time to question EVERYTHING that the government is doing, or is asking for laws so they can do. Now is the time to listen carefully. Now is the time to start making up your mind about whether you would use a gun. Now is the time to decide how much your constitutionally guaranteed rights are worth to you. Now is the time to figure out what you would do when they come to take you from your home....
Yes, sounds a bit paranoid but then when you compare the Bush administration to the German government prior to WWII, it's a scary piece of entertainment... try it for yourself.
If you give an inch, they will take a mile so the saying goes. In this case that is not true... they will not stop with the mile.
There is much that can be done before violence is needed, but it must be done now. Attention must be drawn to the wrongs that are happening in this country now, not next month, not in September, but NOW.
Re:It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Elections have become nothing more than pageants. Where did this term "unelectable" come from? The media decides to not cover a candidate because they are considered "unelectable?"
There is a problem. People just don't care enough to do the research to find a solution.
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Insightful)
war is peace
slavery is freedom
etc.
Scary shit, I tell you.
Penalties (Score:5, Insightful)
If an organisation is breaking the law (which is what "illegal" means, right?), why do police never get involved?
As an outsider looking in, it seems like the cycle is this:
Is it any wonder that nothing changes if there are never any consequences for illegal doings?
Re:Obligatory Watchmen (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not saying I believe it, I'm just saying that apathy is the price you pay for living by a catchphrase.
bureaucratic shortcut (Score:5, Insightful)
There should be a little work involved, shouldn't there ? Wouldn't it be just great if those letters would actually apply to matters of national security ? The FBI has proven for us that they don't, just by the simple fact that they've generated so many of them.
FUD has ruled for many years now. Contact your congresscritter, register to vote, after all it is supposed to be your government.
Re:remember! (Score:4, Insightful)
Slightly different sense, yes?
Re:Ah, the fresh smell of paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)
Stalinism was also just a bureaucracy gone bad.
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Insightful)
And since we all know how much difference that'll make, how about the day after the inauguration, we open the third box.
I think that's why other ACs up there were positing "What if everyone who had an NSL went public with it, (whether anonymously, or by simply upping a .torrent to WikiLeaks and following up with a blog entry under their own name)?"
That's what it means to open the third box. There's only 100,000 people who'd have to be rounded up, right? Dare them to file charges on everyone! Dare them to find 1,200,000 people for jury trials, all of whom will convict. That's working great for RIAA these days, isn't it?
Dare them to try and chase down 100,000 defense lawyers. And the millions of people who will be collecting ("gotta catch 'em all!", "I wonder if any of my friends got one?") their own copies of these embarassing letters just for curiosity. Keeping a lid on embarassing dcuments really worked great for Barbara Streisand, didn't it?
Yeah, it would suck to be the first guy crazy enough to do it. If you're a big powerful organization, picking off your critics one by one is child's play - when you've only got one or two critics to deal with at a time. As the Anonymous Vs. Cult of Scientology thing shows, the this approach just doesn't scale when you've got over 9,000 showing up at worldwide protests every month. Fair Game:Stop.
Y'know, if just one person does it, they'll think he's really crazy and disappear him. If two people do it -- in harmony -- they'll think they're both terrists and they'll disappear both of 'em. But if three people do it - can you imagine? Three people postin' an NSL to their blog, singin' a bar of Anonymous' Restaurant, and upping an NSL? They might think it's an organization. And can you imagine FIFTY people a day? I said FIFTY people a day -- loggin' in, copypastin' "Anonymous' Restaurant" and uploadin' an NSL to Wikileaks? Friends, they may think it's a MOVEMENT, and that's what it is:
THE ANONYMOUS' RESTAURANT THIRD-BOX MOVEMENT.
And all you gotta to do join it is to put on a Guy Fawkes mask (or not!) and upload your NSL to Wikileaks (or just post it on your blog) the next time it comes around on the guitar...
A good excuse for civil disobedience. (Score:5, Insightful)
Until there are cases where criminal convictions are challenged on Constitutional grounds, we will not learn just how much abuse, for example how often are instances of these letters used to uncover political information about lawful activities. Tools such as this are so dangerous to freedom that severe sanctions should exist for frivolous use.
Re:It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
In reality, it was a large group of men who all had differing opinions of what government should be and who all are now dead, and therefore unable to tell us what they intended. That's why they left a document to base the government on, so that we wouldn't worry about their intent, but the one document they left us with legal force. Intention should only be considered far enough to determine the meaning of archaic words because anything else cannot be independently verified.
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Insightful)
Good luck against 100 armed police, and a plethora of news networks reporting how an evil madman was shot dead by the valiant defenders of law and order.
Re:remember! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's about time (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:remember! (Score:2, Insightful)
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength
Re:Obligatory Strawman (I'm being ironic here) (Score:4, Insightful)
Apathy overwhelmed your culture when Ford pardoned Nixon, fear was on 9/11 (that one was obvious).
It really was much further back as some of the other posters have said.
"Ford's Folly" as I like to call it, did cause the death of the idea of Presidential accountability. Just look how bad that's gone since then. Had Nixon been punished no matter how mildly and we'd (not that I'd been born yet...) actually stood up for our right to be citizens and not subjects, do you really think Reagan ( or, well, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush Sr., and assorted other criminals we keep hearing from) would have dared to sell crack to buy weapons for terrorists in direct violation of Congressional orders? Created death squad training camps? Doctored intelligence to make the Soviets look like a much bigger threat than they were to justify massive welfare for government contractors and promote a culture of fear?
Then to pull this whole Iraq scam after getting away with all of that?
Not a chance.
So, Nixon needed a slap on the wrist. With what Ford did, he needed to be impeached.
As the crimes have gone up the stakes have too, so at this point to regain any possibility of accountability on the part of our government Bush, and most of the members of his administrations need to be tried, convicted, and executed for treason. If we don't, the next group of scumbags will *know* that they can get away with anything just like these scumbags did.
It's much worse than that even. Half the Supreme Court and most of Congress need at least long prison sentences for their complicity and that's never going to happen.
If I ever have an opportunity, I will piss on Ford's grave.
Re:It's about time (Score:4, Insightful)
or rather, americans have become USED to the fact that it regularly gets ignored.
we have lost control over our own country and government. I believe the constituion TRIED to keep a balance of power (checks and balances) since the makers of the const. had first-hand experience with, shall we say, a government out of control?
note: its not just the US; all countries (read the news, you'll see) are losing their privacy rights and freedom. the US is spearheading it but look at the UK and australia. they are actually BEATING the US in terms of wiping out checks/balances and personal freedom/privacy.
this is way beyond 'the US constitution'. this is a human phenomenon and its catchy as hell. the 'put fear into your own people' shit is happening all over the world and its not showing any signs of slowing down.
yes, the terrorists have already won. sad, isn't it?
don't look for our laws to protect us. this NSL stuff was always against the law - but that never stopped the US from the chilling effects it seeks to install in its population.
Re:Obligatory Watchmen (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd like to answer that, too.
but in a half hour, if you don't mind. my favorite HD tv show is on right now.
Re:They would, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
No part of government, not even the executive, can grant itself powers, not even the scheme you just described. What *can* (and, unfortunately, does) happen is that the executive uses powers it has not been granted. This is not a power grant, it's a power grab.
Think of it as the difference between being given something by someone, and taking it against the owner's will.
Re:They would, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
(Posting AC just in case i'm the only one that missed the memo.)
Re:They would, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
From a twisted amoral viewpoint, it's logical to fund those programs in that manner: not only can they conceal from ANYONE (including Congress) where and how much they are making & spending, but doing that sort of illegal activity probably also gives them all sorts of useful underground contacts.
Re:Obligatory Strawman (I'm being ironic here) (Score:4, Insightful)
to regain any possibility of accountability on the part of our government Bush, and most of the members of his administrations need to be tried, convicted, and executed for treason
With all the "debates" this past year, there are two conspicuous questions I would have emjoyed being raised:
(1) Candidate X, what in the first month of taking office will you do to roll back the executive branch's power grab of the last 8 years and restore civil liberties?
(2) As President, what will be your response if top officials of the Bush administration are arrested and imprisoned for war crimes when visiting a foreign country, say a European ally?
It's not that I would expect anything more than bluster from the Republicans and squirming from the Democrats but maybe they would at least understand that some people are concerned about more than flag pins.
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm no lawyer, but it seems that to be accused of a crime but NOT to be allowed to even talk about it (not even to your wife, for example) is TOTALLY beyond the design of any constitutional concept.
would our founding fathers (or even 100 years later, the 'middle fathers') have approved such a thing? that's the litmus test for.
while there's no way to know how a dead person would answer, they PROBABLY would have rejected the very notion that the gov can totally ruin a person's life and without just cause, without being allowed to question or challenge it and not even really be able to DEFEND against it.
really, if you get a NSL you are probably screwed and there is nothing that can help you. THAT very notion is completely against all that the US was built on. this is worse (far worse!) than 'taxation without representation'. if they threw a 'fit' about that, some 200+ yrs ago, what would they have done about THIS?
throwing tea into the water would have been the last thing they would have done. I'm thinking pitchforks and heads on sticks would have been the peoples' reply to any government power-grab to THIS level.
Re:remember! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I think many of those who have researched our current situation and are familiar with the players and history would say that there is a much deeper level of politics at work, and from what I can tell it has nothing to do with protecting our way of life. If it did, things would be so different. It is actually destroying our way of life.
Another thing to remember is that there is no such thing as perfect safety in a free society; and in a controlled/repressed society (as we are becoming) you aren't safe from the controllers. Blanket safety does not exist, and anything can happen.
The way the corporate media in league with government goes on with bombarding the populace with fear relentlessly, both via "news," movies and TV shows and even commercials on one hand - then speak of safety via giving up liberties and undermining our Bill of Rights on the other hand - you'd think our constitution had been replaced with a simple guarantee of safety - but it hasn't; and if it had, who would protect the populace from the sociopaths charged with protecting us?
There is a reason the that oft quoted statement in our constitution says "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and not "Safety, life, and the pursuit of happiness" - our founding fathers were all too familiar with the political uses of fear and how the populace can be manipulated via that method.
So my point is that IMO there is a level of political manuvering going on that most people aren't aware of. As far as the courts and congress, unfortunately we have seen many courts become political tools and the majority of congress has basically all but abdicated their duties to the people and the constitution.
Re:They would, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
In the appellate, facts are in law and the application of the law or procedures, not in the case itself. A fact would be if the evidence was gathered legally and if it could be used or not, not if the evidence is true or accurate or that it proves or disproves anything. It is the same word but a different application. In the original case, a finding of fact may be that X evidence proves or disproved someone's whereabouts on a certain date at a certain time. In the appellate, it is if that evidence should have been introduced or not or whether not introducing it gave someone a fair trial or not. In essence, they find facts about facts instead of just considering the facts.
A generic term for appellate might be appeals. The case has already been decided, they determine if it was decided correctly or if some gross error cause a miscarriage of justice or the principles of rights held by the people.
It's more of a testament to the appeals courts. If everyone would agree unanimously, it is likely that it would be resolved way before it ever got to the supreme court. The supreme court is usually three or four appeals up the road from initial appeals. You start by appealing the obvious to the original judge, if that doesn't work, then the next highest court then a district court and perhaps another court before the Supreme Court get the opportunity for a crack at it. Of course there are some varying approaches to it like when time makes it necessary to skip a few of the other processes or if by nature of the charge/case it starts off at a higher level or perhaps even at a state level. But yes, the cases the supreme court gets a hold of are generally the toughest ones where they think not only is there a dispute, but the dispute has enough validity that it needs a closer look.
Well, I agree somewhat with your prognosis except the I believe God does answer people in his own ways and you have to be somewhat deserving enough to recognize the answer. It is sort of like the preacher who wanted to let everyone else evacuate first when a flood was coming because he knew God would take care of him. He stayed and soon the roads were blocked. Someone drove by saying we can use goto the top of this hill to escape the dangers but there won't be any food or water. He said that's ok, God will take care of me. Soon, the waters got so high that the hill was blocked too. A boat ca