FBI: If We Told You . . . (Part II)
1–10 of 25 posts
Re: FBI: If We Told You . . . (Part II)
#2Hum I read that more as, we need it secret or corps providing us info will never accept to do it and will fight to the end even if they are legally bound to provide the information.
So it's not that they don't want challenges it's that they think they can't even get what they legally can without secrecy.
It's not a very good argument by the FBI for sure. Obviously if people knew that some corps provided info but not other, it could penalize the first by losing customers but we already know we can't trust certain companies even with all the secrecy.
Re: FBI: If We Told You . . . (Part II)
#3'if what we ARE telling you is this scary imagine the stuff we're protecting you from knowing.'
how fantastically polite.
Re: FBI: If We Told You . . . (Part II)
#4I think that whatever grounds corporations (and their customers) have to challenge these requests that those grounds have far more basis in the law than "it would be bad for business." If the grounds for challenge are baseless then a court will toss the case, but I think that would be highly unlikely.
People have a constitutional right to be secure in their papers and effects and the court should be the one judging where these rights start and end, and not the FBI.
Exactly what is so important that a warrant cannot be obtained from a judge before tapping these lines? Where is the justification that this is necessary to secure our happiness and freedom?
If it is necessary to repeal parts of the constitution then we should have a frank, open and honest discussion about it. The more likely case is that Augustus has no clothes.
Re: FBI: If We Told You . . . (Part II)
#5To me, this suggests that corporations have too much power in this country. This explains why the FBI is heavy-handed with their "do not disclose" style issuances to corporations. It isn't so much that the FBI is scared the company will tip someone off, but that people in general will become more knowledgeable about these activities. This poses a risk for companies as proponents of privacy will be very outspoken.
If anything, this is a great argument for why these things SHOULD be public knowledge.
Re: FBI: If We Told You . . . (Part II)
#6I think that whatever grounds corporations (and their customers) have to challenge these requests that those grounds have far more basis in the law than "it would be bad for business." If the grounds for challenge are baseless then a court will toss the case, but I think that would be highly unlikely. People have a constitutional right to be secure in their papers and effects and the court should be the one judging w…
I couldn't have said it better myself. What I've witnessed is that companies are apt to lie down in favor of the FBI because building up a rapport with the FBI can be a good thing in certain business models. (don't ask).
The DoJ is well-aware of this, I'm sure, and is only too happy to throw its full weight around.
Re: FBI: If We Told You . . . (Part II)
#7I think that whatever grounds corporations (and their customers) have to challenge these requests that those grounds have far more basis in the law than "it would be bad for business." If the grounds for challenge are baseless then a court will toss the case, but I think that would be highly unlikely. People have a constitutional right to be secure in their papers and effects and the court should be the one judging w…
I couldn't have said it better myself. What I've witnessed is that companies are apt to lie down in favor of the FBI because building up a rapport with the FBI can be a good thing in certain business models. (don't ask). The DoJ is well-aware of this, I'm sure, and is only too happy to throw its full weight around.
Which business models are you referring to?
Re: FBI: If We Told You . . . (Part II)
#8As a corporation that would like to resist any demands for my customers information & data stored on my servers what can I do? Currently the way the laws are written it is illegally in some cases even to notify the customer that they are being surveilled.
Re: FBI: If We Told You . . . (Part II)
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
I couldn't have said it better myself. What I've witnessed is that companies are apt to lie down in favor of the FBI because building up a rapport with the FBI can be a good thing in certain business models. (don't ask). The DoJ is well-aware of this, I'm sure, and is only too happy to throw its full weight around.
Which business models are you referring to?
He said "don't ask" but I still would've asked if you didn't.
Re: FBI: If We Told You . . . (Part II)
#10As a corporation that would like to resist any demands for my customers information & data stored on my servers what can I do? Currently the way the laws are written it is illegally in some cases even to notify the customer that they are being surveilled.
Not true.. the old Clinton era law states that after 30 to 90 days FBI has to tell someone that they asked for records.