Slashdot Log In
National Security Letter Plaintiff Speaks
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:37 PM
from the gagged-but-good dept.
from the gagged-but-good dept.
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.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Of course they did... (Score:2, Interesting)
So What? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the problem with Tyranny. It makes doing what is RIGHT, hard. That's how it wins.
Re:So What? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 bal
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And Rhode Island still almost didn't. The ratification convention, I shit you not, happened about a hundred yards from where I'm sitting now, in a surprisingly tiny meeting house in Kingston. The story goes that the federalists did not have the numbers t
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So What? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So What? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Actually (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the benefit of getting arrested? The public already knows about the case. A federal judge has al
The upside of naming John Doe (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagin
Re:So What? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Defying unjust
Re:So What? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 en
No Sh*t Sherlock - (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the US society really doesn't. To a suprising extent.
I went on a tour of Alcatraz recently, I found it utterly amazing that when the tour guide told us about the indian/stu
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, anybody caught running an ISP 200 years ago would probably be burned at the stake as a witch.
freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
Right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Right... (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Totalitarian Europe (Score:2)
Systemic problem (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think I can easily offer you such a reason. It is called motivation. Take two opposing examples - democratic Athens and tyrannical Iraq (under Saddam.) What
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you don't understand libertarianism, don't talk about it.
Contact their congressman (Score:4, Interesting)
absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 clearl
George Christian (Score:2, Interesting)
Jesus H. Christ on a crutch. (Score:3, Interesting)
EVERY product and service could be compromised. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
All we sell is services and IP (culture).
Plaintif letter contents (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Plaintif,
Sincerly
Special Agent
John Smith
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dear Plaintif,
Apparently, misspelling "plaintiff" doesn't make them look bad.
The Proverbial Simple Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Three words (Score:3)
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.
Don't mod parent down. Contains kernel of truth (Score:4, Insightful)
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:I HATE THE ACLU! (Score:4, Insightful)
Or are you ready for "Heil Bush!" followed by "Your papers." ?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's called checks and balances (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Correct: they can go to the court up to 72 hours after the wiretapping, and get the approval to use the da
I'll take the bait (Score:3)
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 "tickin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for people "allowing" Bush's election, I'm curious as to what you suggest they should have done. Are you faulting everyone who did not martyr themselves in some k