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."
If they really want to know... (Score:5, Funny)
They would, but... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:They would, but... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They would, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, but you're as far off base as emo kid!
Good Lord! Is that what they taught you in civics class back then? Cheer up boomer dude, The Executive has the ability to simply grant itself powers; as long as the Department of Justice (which is part of the Executive Branch) chooses to Congressional requests for information (and when the requests are ignored, to also ignore Congressional subpoenae issued against other members of the Executive!), no charges are filed, no arrests are made, and the case (and its constitutional issues) never reaches the Judicial Branch, and in the absence of a judge's ruling, the Executive's actions can never, by defintion, be ruled unconstitutional.
(I'm not the original AC, as you might guess. Google "inherent contempt", and "contempt of Congress". It may sound like I was going for +5, Funny, but it's actually been happening for real over the past 6-12 months. Long enough for everyone to forget what the original issue was, other than that it's useful for making the other side look bad in an election year.)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
All excellent points ... however, Executive Orders have been happening a lot longer than 6-12 months... but the plan for the Executive Branch to play hard-to-get with Congress over information "protected" by an EO has been going on for *years*. Look at some of the earlier EOs, from 2001-2005, which Congress is still struggling with.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
A good deal of the Executives new powers (if they are that, and I think that's debatable) have been granted with Congress's approval. If Congress so desired, and the numbers were there, the Executive's abilities would be limited. The powers are firmly set in the Constitution. There's no doubt that there are fuzzy boundaries, but that's what SCOTUS is for.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(Posting AC just in case i'm the only one that missed the memo.)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure we are, we're perfectly free to chant all the pro-government propaganda slogans they come up with. Just make sure you're in a Free Speech zone when you do, and make sure you smile for the FBI cameras. Don't bother looking for Media-controlled cameras, there won't be any, they'll be down at the 'main event' where all the action is, recording everything our Glorious Leaders have to say.
The Constitution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
N
Re: (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 ho
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This isn't a situation as simple as saying we will cut your funding so don't do this. As long as funds are the
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They would, but... (Score:4, Informative)
Sure people attempt to stack appointive position in an attempt to retain power or further a goal. That's called politics. FDR was the first president to start us down the "unconstitutional is the norm path". A lot of his new deal policies were unconstitutional and ruled that way by courts and he basically said "so what, they aren't going away, so something about it". This is when the interstate commerce clause had become expanded and now almost anything in government can be justified by the interstate commerce clause. A lot of what is considered unconstitutional is done through some interpreted reading of the constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
You are the one confused if you think that any branch follows that document as written.
A lot of what is considered unconstitutional is done through some interpreted reading of the constitution.
If you have to "interpret" in order to get something to say what you want it to, then it isn't there. Speaking of which, who gives the Supreme Court the "power" t
Re: (Score:2)
There is no confusion. The problem is that people think it means and says different things in practice. The governments are following it quite a bit. They are also abusing it to some extent. But as to what you originally states, it is being followed.
Re: (Score:2)
I did. Nowhere is the Supreme Court given the power to interpret the Constitution. That job was supposed to land on all three branches, but was taken by the Supreme Court. If you disagree, please tell me where they are tasked with interpreting the document.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
All cases can't really be argued with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First off, I don't think you understand what "facts" are in this situation. The
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, the constitution says "In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."
Ok, so then real slowly so
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Another paragraph worth quoting... (Score:3, Funny)
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: (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: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.
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
If you read the entire article, it provides a decent summary of the ebb and flow of labor union power in the US. I favor the balance that was struck here in the US, as opposed to total Communism or total Fascism. I think most people in the US do too.
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory Strawman (I'm being ironic here) (Score:2)
I'd like to know when such a supreme case of apathy and fear exactly overwhelmed our culture.
I'd say for apathy it was around the time that popular actors were being picked to represent private interests as their candidate to be the president to the United States of America, I mean... come on. An actor.
These days I see people complain when actors give their opinion on world matters.
No, I take it back, it had to be before that. You need preexisting apathy to get that far.
Nixon? Maybe he killed the peoples' collective trust in the system. Or was it the pardon?
Yeah, I'll go with that:
Apathy overwhelm
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: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: (Score:2)
Yes, habeas corpus, torture, provisions of the Patriot Act, use of signing statements, lying to congress, hiding behind national security directives are all great mysteries at this point. It's not as if most of this information has long been in the public domain or that former members of the Bush administration have written a do
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Well, there were political riots in the late 60s, so I figured apathy hadn't set in yet...
But *something* happened to the USA in the 50s, you can tell by looking at propaganda movies from the late forties, where they would make sense, and then the ones from the 50s, where the bullshit started piling up.
Is that the "further back" you were referring to?
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.
The other way around (Score:2)
And we have been telling them that this is wrong for ages.
Re: (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.
Re:who is first? (Score:4, Funny)
it must be true: I read it on the internet! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't issue much more then a couple of thousand of those a month. There was around 50,000 issued in all of 2007. Many of which go to the same companies. Lets say an average investigation involved at least 2 but not more then 4 suspects and a NSA letter needs to be issues for each suspect. That would drop t
remember! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:remember! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 ther
Re: (Score:2)
I think you should actually look below the surface if your going to make comments about on the surface. The NSA letters have been aro
Re:remember! (Score:4, Insightful)
Slightly different sense, yes?
Re: (Score:2)
'Also from old Winston
Which he then corrected with the remainder.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength
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.
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)
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)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
With 55 people contributing on behalf of 13 political bodies, claiming to know what the
Know many on the hard left have your back (Score:2)
Like you I don't believe it's the proper time for violence but if say John McCain were to say put Blackwater troops on the streets to engage in gun grabbing
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:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
But when you look at the principle of it all, I see protection of individual's inalienable rights and the restraint of government power as two sides of the same apple.
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>
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: (Score:2)
Re: (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 ve
Re: (Score:2)
I think your a little confused. The NSA letters aren't imprisoning anyone, they aren't accusing the person who receives them of anything, They are simply saying we have a right to this information now give it to us.
You as a citizen have no duty to follow the constitution in matters like this. The constitution i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
People don't just need to hear these things, but do something about them. I feel the biggest problem is that people are not doing anything but complaining on internet forums thinking that they are doing something.
There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
Ed Howdershelt
If the internet is our soap box, then it is time to move on to the ballot box. And voting for either of the three people that are being pushed on us by the media will not change anything.
Convince friends/family/strangers to do a little research on how
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Your math is faulty because your not considering real world variable. Like how multiple letters are sent for different people under the same investigation. For instance, of they were to investigate our threads here, they would have to
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Or, you know, they could just pick and choose the ones the
Re: (Score:2)
If the internet is our soap box, then it is time to move on to the ballot box. And voting for either of the three people that are being pushed on us by the media will not change anything.
I think you are on the wrong side of the ballot box. Using a soap box does not just mean watching people spout their opinions, using a ballot box does not just mean voting. If there are no candidates from the major parties that you want to elect, put your own one forward. In the 2006 election, voter turnout was 43%. If you can convince half of the non-voters that it's time to start voting again, and that your candidate is the reason to do so, then you'd win. And, as you said, the Internet is a good so
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
war is peace
slavery is freedom
etc.
Scary shit, I tell you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Ah, the fresh smell of paranoia (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ah, the fresh smell of paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)
Stalinism was also just a bureaucracy gone bad.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is, no one here is trying to turn the US into communist Russia. If someone did try, could they use this bureaucracy to their advantage? Yes, of course, which is why we need to make some changes. But there is no mass secret conspiracy. There is no need for a revolution, as others here today have suggested (at worst, we'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is worth noting that even with the McCarthy issue, as soon as people realized what he was doing, they got rid of him.
Re: (Score:2)
Warrant (Score:5, Insightful)
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]
I'm glad the headline wasn't ... (Score:2)
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: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?
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.
Related interview (Score:5, Informative)
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.
This all feels so Unconstitutional (Score:3, Funny)
Workaround? (Score:2)
I mean, could I just make sure a friend of mine opens any mail I get from the FBI?
He wouldn't be constrained by what he saw, and by that point I wouldn't have been notified not to include him on anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I haven't yet been notified this is one of those notices, then I'm not covered by it, right?
I just can' tell anyone about it after I see it.
How do I know that the next think I get from the FBI is an NSL?
Scathing Reports! (Score:3, Funny)