Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 176 posts

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#101

Post by mbetter »

jacoblyles wrote: post #50
sixQuarks wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who is not affiliated with either party, I really don't get Obama supporters. He was supposed to bring change to the white house, instead, he has expanded Bush-era secrecy and has eroded our civil liberties even further... and not a peep from his support base. In my view, democrats are the lesser of two evils, but I'm just surprised that nothing has been done about this.

I'm in the business of building things that have never been done before, so I value economic freedom and good governance and my estimate of the lesser of two evils goes the other way. But it's sad that we get no civil liberties either way (unless people like Rand Paul get their way).

Translation: I'm rich and I don't want to pay taxes. Go suck an egg.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#102

Post by unclebucknasty »

rayiner wrote: post #94
white_devil wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IANAL, but is it not true that you can only sue the government to the extent that it lets you? It doesn't really matter what laws say about that. Your only recourse against wrongdoing by the government is the justice system run by the very same government . It's certainly within its power to decide not to punish itself . This is perhaps something to think about.

The government isn't a monolithic entity. It's composed of people who have often differing interests to each other. The justice system is run by the government, but that didn't stop e.g. the Supreme Court from ordering the bush administration to give process to the Guantanamo prisoners (and the administration complied!)

Yeah, and of course this is just fundamental separation of powers by design, else the government would be exactly a monolithic entity.

But, then this type of victory seems rare these days, as the Executive has grabbed so much power since 9/11. Seems the balance has been upset.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#103

Post by InclinedPlane »

anigbrowl wrote: post #40
mmastrac wrote: post #6

This part is a big WTF: "After the telecom challenged the NSL, the Justice Department took its own extraordinary measure and sued the company, arguing in court documents that the company was violating the law by challenging its authority."

This is exactly what's supposed to happen; the DoJ brought the dispute to the judicial branch and asked a court to resolve it, as opposed to arresting people or seizing control of the assets. They didn't seek the breakup of the company or the arrest or ruin of its officers, they asked the court to require compliance with what they believed to be a valid request in the form of the NSL. The court sided with the defenda…

That's not the important part here. If two parties go to court to resolve a dispute over the legality or constitutionality of something that's normal. What's quite unusual is the DoJ attempting to deny the ability of telcos to use the court system at all.

As an analogy imagine that you've just been arrested by a police officer and you are sitting in a dark, windowless room in handcuffs. The officer comes in and you say very clearly and plainly "I want a lawyer, I know my rights". Then the officer responds "you don't have any rights here, you're not getting a lawyer". Most people would probably be outraged, most people would probably experience a chill running down their spine accompanied by an onrush of fear. But this is not so different from what the DoJ was attempting here.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#104

Post by InclinedPlane »

noonespecial wrote: post #69
bashinator wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't this just be considered premeditated intent to violate the NSL gag orders?

I think it works like this. They are not permitted to tell you that they have been served a warrant, but they are always free to tell you that they haven't . If they should suddenly stop doing so, its up to you to draw your own conclusions as to why. That seems reasonable, even in the context of the madness of federal law. As the text file says however, its always possible that they are being coerced to lie and conti…

They could physically destroy all copies of the private key they use if they are served a gag order, making it impossible for them to be coerced into maintaining the canary.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#105

Post by InclinedPlane »

bashinator wrote: post #46
rsync wrote: post #30

This will open up our Monday morning schedule nicely if we no longer have to maintain: http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt It would be our great pleasure :)

Wouldn't this just be considered premeditated intent to violate the NSL gag orders?

Until they've been served the gag order they are under no obligation to follow it.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#106

Post by InclinedPlane »

marze wrote: post #80

Given the lack of seriously dangerous threats to the usa we've heard about (and I assume we'd hear), I can't believe that just letting someone discuss a request for information they receive would be cause any real danger.

To be fair there have been some seriously dangerous threats that have been forestalled by government action.

Unfortunately though there is a widespread pattern of many of these folks effectively being entrapped by the government, but there are a handful of legitimate threats even so.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#107

Post by rayiner »

foobarqux wrote: post #84
rayiner wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we talking about the same press that cheer-led us into the Iraq war? And on a macro scale--the same press that has basically deified Ronald Reagan? The American press has never been opposed to blowing up foreigners, because Americans believe it is our god-given right to blow up foreigners. This is true regardless of what party is in power. To the extent that there is opposition, it is rooted solely on the impact…

The press don't care because of structural reasons not because of a belief system common to Americans. Press reporting is systemically biased in favor of powerful interests that influence them by carrot and by stick.

Have you spoken to many Americans?

I went to college in Atlanta, Georgia (a pretty liberal place as far as the South goes). A year or so after the 9/11 bombing, I remember my classmates talking about how we should turn the Middle East into a glass parking lot. Quite seriously, with zero disagreement from anyone else. This was at a well-regarded engineering school, so these weren't stupid people, and indeed they were all very nice guys. We're just a tribal people--it's "our tribe" versus "their tribe" and the use of force on people outside the tribe is seen dramatically differently than the use of force on people within the tribe.

You don't need to reach to "bias" and "powerful interests" to see why the media reports the way it does. The media is a reflection of the beliefs of the American people.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#108

Post by anigbrowl »

wnight wrote: post #90
anigbrowl wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realistically, you are just as screwed if any large organization launches a civil suit against you. Congress frequently produces laws that attempt to mandate the behavior of the Executive branch* while excluding that behavior from judicial review (which courts do not take kindly to and frequently dismiss). A lot of legislators do not like the Judicial branch and consider it to be an annoying restraint on their lawmak…

And (a) explicitly not constitutional in that it attempts to bypass the limits knowingly placed upon government by the people. An order to bypass auditors is never valid, especially from government. That you think this is okay is scary. But this is why we need to remember that the law is an imperfect rendering of our intent, not the other way around.

You need to distinguish between the different branches of goverment; it's not a monolithic entity, nor is it constituted as one.

It's not as clear as you think that the example above isn't constitutional, because in making immigration law Congress is exercising one of its enumerated powers to 'establish an uniform rule of naturalization,' and an argument can be made that the Judicial branch has business poking its nose into that situation. Likewise, there's a school of legal philosophy - a minority one to be sure, but present nonetheless - that Marbury v. Madison, upon which much of the judicial power to constrain the other branches rests, represented an inappropriate overreach by the Marshall court - a criticism first voiced by no less a personage than Thomas Jefferson. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison#Criticism for example.

That you think this is okay is scary.

You have no idea what I think is OK. I'm telling you how it works now, not how I'd like it to work.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#109

Post by InclinedPlane »

MartinCron wrote: post #23
csense wrote: post #20

There's a lot of grousing in the tech community -- and HN in particular -- about all the threats to freedom, and for all the problems with the government's responses to current issues like new technologies or terrorism. There's legitimate substance here, but occasionally, the system actually works exactly the way it's supposed to -- the judicial branch both asserting its independence from the executive and striking d…

the system actually works exactly the way it's supposed to The system actually works exactly the way it's supposed to far more often than the cynics like to admit. The system isn't perfect, but I'm not about to stop believing in justice just yet.

A big reason why the system doesn't work when it doesn't is apathy, if more people merely took the effort to inform themselves and work within the system we'd be light-years ahead of where we are now.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#110

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

mrich wrote: post #91
rayiner wrote: post #10

Great work by the EFF here. There is a delicate balance between the power of the executive and the power of the courts and trying to chill the telecom's access to the court system by claiming that the company was interfering with an investigation by challenging the NSL is a deeply troubling action. Abuses can be fixed, but not if they can't be challenged in court.

Kudos also to the unnamed telecom company that went out of their way to fight this, and the EFF for fighting the good fight. Don't forget to donate to them.

Credo mobile, it's in the article.
Post reply on HN