Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Communications Privacy Security The Internet

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Appeals Court Upholds Nondisclosure Rules For Surveillance Orders

Comments Filter:
  • Link? (Score:2, Informative)

    by XXongo ( 3986865 )
    The link seems to go to an article on net neutrality. Correct link is here: http://www.reuters.com/article... [reuters.com]
  • by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Monday July 17, 2017 @03:32PM (#54827723) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • your laws are only good in your country. when you try to press them on the world you become a tyrant. and we dont take kindly to tyrants
      • by gnick ( 1211984 )

        ...we dont take kindly to tyrants

        I see a lot of evidence to the contrary.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          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.

    • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      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

  • not shocked they got it wrong
    • by Anonymous Coward

      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

  • by schwit1 ( 797399 ) on Monday July 17, 2017 @03:45PM (#54827825)
    National security letters serve the same functions as a warrant but do not require judicial(disinterested party) oversight. A gag order is too large a step to permit one branch/agency to decide.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      It more like protection during a fishing expedition or the hunch phase of a legal investigation.
      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
  • It seems the 5th amendment would be much more applicable.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17, 2017 @05:35PM (#54828729)

    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.

  • 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.

    • So what? When has blatantly going against the plain meaning of the constitution ever stopped the courts from letting the government do whatever it wants? My favorite is still the drug war... a federal domestic police force has the right to raid your home, imprison you, and seize your assets, when you've broken no laws of your state, simply for growing a particular type of plant, because, get this, because you grew it yourself, that means you didn't buy it from someone else, and that someone else might then

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. -- Winston Churchill

Working...