Shining Light on National Security Letters
transparency.automattic.com
Shining Light on National Security Letters
1–8 of 8 posts
Re: Shining Light on National Security Letters
#2You are in contempt of God.
God says... coarser abdicated depository's grosses unsuccessfully cankered splashdown's torches phraseology's anarchist's kismet's narration twitch's dogwoods conquerors Atahualpa Guayaquil's snugly quantifier's bankrupting acupuncture inordinate exit's misplacing brimstone assimilation stolidity Seleucus tiredest laser Sumeria appointments
Re: Shining Light on National Security Letters
#3It would be a lot more satisfying to know the context of these. Was [redacted customer #3] a terrorist, a spy, some guy who got swatted by the kids down the street?
Re: Shining Light on National Security Letters
#4I dont see how these provide any transparency other than into pure process.
These provide no context, who, or what type of accounts were sent NSLs. Were they suspected child pornographers? Occupy Wall Street Protesters, Terrorists?
Since any pertinent information was redacted, we get nothing more than nearly identical form-letter templates with nothing much unique except the file number and date and who sent it.
THANKS OBAMA
Re: Shining Light on National Security Letters
#5Most interesting part of DOJ letters: "[Y]ou should not provide information ... that would disclose the content of any electronic communication." "Subject lines of e-mails are content information and should not be provided pursuant to this letter." The letters were directed to logs, dates, addresses, essentially unmasking tools.
Re: Shining Light on National Security Letters
#6I dont see how these provide any transparency other than into pure process. These provide no context, who, or what type of accounts were sent NSLs. Were they suspected child pornographers? Occupy Wall Street Protesters, Terrorists? Since any pertinent information was redacted, we get nothing more than nearly identical form-letter templates with nothing much unique except the file number and date and who sent it. THAN…
To me, knowing what the process for triggering judicial review of the gag order is like in practice was quite valuable. Apparently the FBI really doesn't want to get the gag orders in front of a judge.
Re: Shining Light on National Security Letters
#7More like "Shining a light sort of near, in the vague direction of NSL's, but without really doing much to illuminate them in the end."
Re: Shining Light on National Security Letters
#8I dont see how these provide any transparency other than into pure process. These provide no context, who, or what type of accounts were sent NSLs. Were they suspected child pornographers? Occupy Wall Street Protesters, Terrorists? Since any pertinent information was redacted, we get nothing more than nearly identical form-letter templates with nothing much unique except the file number and date and who sent it. THAN…
> other than into pure process.
Agreed, but I'm still finding that pretty interesting.