US Appeals Court Upholds Nondisclosure Rules For Surveillance Orders (reuters.com) 53
An anonymous reader shares a report: A U.S. federal appeals court on Monday upheld nondisclosure rules that allow the FBI to secretly issue surveillance orders for customer data to communications firms, a ruling that dealt a blow to privacy advocates. A unanimous three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco sided with a lower court ruling in finding that rules permitting the FBI to send national security letters under gag orders are appropriate and do not violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution's free speech protections. Content distribution firm CloudFlare and phone network operator CREDO Mobile had sued the government in order to notify customers of five national security letters received between 2011 and 2013.
Link? (Score:2, Informative)
Other sources (Score:2)
the hill http://thehill.com/policy/nati... [thehill.com]
zdnet http://www.zdnet.com/article/u... [zdnet.com]
Yahoo https://finance.yahoo.com/news... [yahoo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The tools of trade i.e. the server is been used as a Star Chamber to extract information?
With no courts or warrants?
Thats totally legal in the US system. Once the information is collected and the person arrested they will be informed of what crime they have committed.
A lawyer will be able to read any logs or documents before the trial. Any hired expert will given full access to information collected during the later legal search.
The gag just protects m
Violation of Canadian and EU rights (Score:3, Funny)
Just a note that this is still (as upheld by the Canadian Supreme Court and the EU) a violation of their citizens rights to privacy worldwide.
Besides, everyone knows the US is the sick man of NATO. Can't even afford healthcare for their citizens. Sad.
Re: (Score:1)
In other words, Canada and the EU want to force their laws on the rest of the world. If the US did the same thing, Slashdot readers would throw a fit about it. But because it's Canada and the EU forcing their laws on everyone else, Slashdot readers are okay with it.
Someone has to take over global leadership while the US is out of it. Ain't gonna be Russia.
Pax Europa, Pax Canadiana
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, Canada and the EU want to force their laws on the rest of the world. If the US did the same thing, Slashdot readers would throw a fit about it. But because it's Canada and the EU forcing their laws on everyone else, Slashdot readers are okay with it.
Look who's talking! The US of A will never force their laws on anybody else....as long as everybody else just does as the US of A commands.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, the biter bit. Not so fucking funny when the shoe is on the other foot, is it? How'd you like them apples? Sauce for the goose. What goes around comes around. Reap what you sow. Et cetera.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...we dont take kindly to tyrants
I see a lot of evidence to the contrary.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
He meant other tyrants... who aren't operating in our economic or geopolitical interest... or if they pay us... or if they make an under the table deal with the right senator... okay, you got me.
Re: (Score:2)
However in the case of the United States is most definitely does infringe the thirteenth amendment, specifically "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.". The courts have forced involuntary servitude upon all US citizens by that false interpretation of law, forcing people to take actions or else face punishment, so that would be h
9th circut (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know why yo say that ....
When it comes to trampling our Fourth Amendment rights, the government comes first when it comes to the courts. The TSA can do whatever they want and we have no recourse.
And when it comes to government power, THE power to have is information and getting it by any means.
We may have the right to bear arms, but the government knows who has what - mostly. We may have the right to free speech, but the government can find out easily who says what.
The Boston bombers did what they
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
THE 9th is the most often overturned appeals court of any, so maybe there is hope for a Supreme Court overrule.
They are 3rd on the list of most frequently overturned decisions, not first. Please do a little fact checking before you post.
Source: http://www.politifact.com/pund... [politifact.com]
Re: (Score:1)
This is about gag orders from the period 2011 - 2013. People should at least have the right to know they have been investigated after some amount of time, way shorter than then the up-to 6 years in these cases.
Nobody is arguing you should inform people at the time of the investigation itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up.
If old Surveillance Orders are not released then voters do not have the information to decide if they are happy with how these have been used by the FBI -- who, I am told, operate on behalf of citizens of the USA, in their best interests and with their complete approval.
Lots of things make sense (Score:5, Insightful)
You make a case for why the first amendment is a bad idea and ought to be repealed. I understand. Gun control advocates make a pretty good case for why the right to bear arms should be infringed. I'm sure people in law ernforcement can give some excellent reasons why the 4-6 amendments really ought to go, as they're making their jobs harder and you less safe.
For every amendment in the Bill of Rights, I bet you can make some pretty damn good arguments for why we would be better off without that amendment limiting the power of government. Think of the tax money we're wasting on military bases when we could just force homeowners to quarter soldiers.
Yet, for whatever reason, these damn amendments, which limit the power of our government (WTF, how can that possibly be a good idea if you're trying to make a good government), are still on the books! Why haven't we repealed the Bill of Rights yet? Wouldn't it be easier and more efficient, if we could eliminate all these things which waste the courts' time? Wouldn't this case have been handled much more quickly, if the appeals could have just explained, "The government can do anything it wants, so therefore of course this law is legal"?
All I can think of, is that some weirdos in the past placed these seemingly-arbitrary limits on the powers of government, because they had a totally different idea of what makes sense. Were they trying to optimize some other value? Could it be that they thought there might be more important things than worrying about whether or not a suspected criminal might find out that someone suspects? I can't imagine what.
It's all so mysterious! As Yangs, I think we ought to just stick to memorizing our holy words, and get rid of all these silly constraints on effective governance.
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment is taken as sarcasm here, but it's frightening just how many people would think it's serious and agree with it 100%.
Re: (Score:1)
"Why would you tell an innocent person that you're monitoring them? They'll simply go underground until you stop watching, then they'll go back to their innocent activity. Plus you'll miss out on the opportunity to identify their friends. It's completely reasonable to maintain a level of secrecy about active mass surveillance. Non-disclosure rules make a lot of sense. Innocent people are already encrypting their communications, so why give then additional unnecessary advantages over law enforcement?"
What wa
A gag order should require a warrant from a judge (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Beyond that problem, my other problem is non-disclosure forever. I understand the need for non-disclosure, it makes no sense to tell the person you're investigating that you're investigating them. But the gag should be of limited duration. Something like 6 months. Just to limit abuse. I believe that warrants have to be made available for public inquiry after some amount of time. It just makes sense to help hold the police accountable.
Re:A gag order should require a warrant from a jud (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, Congress has stated that a term mandated by the Constitution has being only for a "limited period" is perfectly acceptable to set at "forever minus a day"; given such abuse of discretion I'm just shocked, shocked I say that the 9th Circuit decided once again the Constitution means the opposite of what it says. Because its a "living document", and living things can change their mind, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Everything has to be protected until a friendly court can retroactively rubber stamp an investigation later on.
How is the need for an investigation going to be proved? Well what was gathered under the gag order will show any court that further investigation was needed and the gag order was correct.
If people get a legal document from a court they might secure funds to gets real lawyer, remove evidence, escap
Re: (Score:2)
Legally you never could.
Re: (Score:1)
So, what happens if you try? Have people been compelled to issue fake canaries?
If it had happened, you'd think there's eventually be an incident where someone just says "fuck it" and violates the gag, and yes, got punished (or skipped out of the country and then leaked it). But the word would still be out. Yet I haven't heard of it ever really happening yet.
Anyone know? We all have opinions, of course, but does anyone know of even an anecdote, either way?
1st amendment? (Score:2)
It seems the 5th amendment would be much more applicable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: 1st amendment? (Score:2)
I understand. I think the lack of due process is a bigger issue, since gag orders aren't that uncommon.
1st amendment well known revision (Score:3, Funny)
They're simply talking about the well known revision to the 1st amendment, which reads as follows:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, except when a gag order is issued related to terrorism or protecting the children."
That must be it.
US Appeals Court Is Wrong (Score:2)
A unanimous three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco sided with a lower court ruling in finding that rules permitting the FBI to send national security letters under gag orders are appropriate and do not violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution's free speech protections
Well, they're wrong.
Re: (Score:2)