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."
Re:Obligatory Watchmen (Score:3, Interesting)
e.g. Why won't you think of the children?! I'd like to know when such a supreme case of apathy and callousness overwhelmed our culture.
Re:Obligatory Watchmen (Score:5, Interesting)
The FBI itself was supposed to be a temporary agency within the government, but under J. Edgar Hoover leaped to astounding levels of power that were not cut back until his passing. It still exists and does anyone really thing that the FBI won't seek greater power and that such things as the misuse of NSLs won't enable such?
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson
Re:Obligatory Watchmen (Score:5, Interesting)
Nah, critical mass of fear was already there during the first Red Scare, when they passed the Sedition Act of 1918, locked up Eugene Debs, deported hundreds without due process, and destroyed the American left.
It probably goes back to the Great Upheaval of 1877 [wikipedia.org]. You know those big old National Guard armories they have in a lot of cities? They weren't built in case of invasion. They were built in case the workers got uppity again.
Re:It's about time (Score:5, Interesting)
1. The purpose of the constitution was to protect the rights of the individual from the tyranny of the majority.
2. Violating the constitution is against the law. There should be a trial. But if some legislators were to come and deprive me of any of my rights, you damn right there will be violence. The government depriving anything from me is tantamount to forcing me to choose between doing what is right and violence done against me by the state.
3. They started this, I wouldn't be pissed off if they had just left me alone to live freely. But they had to take the money that I work for, as if they owned 25% of my worth as a human being. Now they want to take my rights to do something about it.
Re:Penalties (Score:5, Interesting)
If an organisation is breaking the law (which is what "illegal" means, right?), why do police never get involved?
Some got fired for investigating people belonging to THE party. (The one in power)
Do you now understand what all the fuss was about?
Why you can't allow the power to be above the law?