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

111–120 of 176 posts

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

#111

Post by rdtsc »

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…

Isn't it really about how this "law" is written. Stopping posting negative notifications is equivalent to "notifying the suspect". In the end they can wrap it up in a black box and say "we don't care what mechanism you used, we told you not to notify the suspect and you did, this a violation of this law, whether it was done via posting or refusing to continue post-ing something to a website it doesn't really matter".

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

#112

Post by unclebucknasty »

It shouldn't feel like a victory that the DOJ didn't prevail here.

Instead, it should feel like a loss that we are even having to argue this. NSLs are flagrantly unconstitutional warrantless searches.

How far gone we are since 9/11. We gave up so many rights in virtually one fell swoop, and now we are having to claw and fight to try to win back some of our most basic protections and freedoms.

It's so bad that we win back a mere semblance of a basic right that should be ours by the Constitution, and we feel like we won the lottery. I was pretty excited myself until I had that realization.

Not to be a party-pooper.

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

#113

Post by badgar »

rayiner wrote: post #107
foobarqux wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think that different Americans believe different things. Believe it or not, your paragraph of an anecdote from 11 years ago doesn't do much to convince me otherwise.

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

#114

Post by rayiner »

badgar wrote: post #113
rayiner wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think that different Americans believe different things. Believe it or not, your paragraph of an anecdote from 11 years ago doesn't do much to convince me otherwise.

What's your point? Yes, there is a minority of Americans that cares about drones blowing up people in Yemen. The media does not cater to those people. None of this refutes my point.

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

#115

Post by badgar »

rayiner wrote: post #114
badgar wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that different Americans believe different things. Believe it or not, your paragraph of an anecdote from 11 years ago doesn't do much to convince me otherwise.

What's your point? Yes, there is a minority of Americans that cares about drones blowing up people in Yemen. The media does not cater to those people. None of this refutes my point.

> a minority of Americans that cares about drones

Does "minority" here mean 49%? 1%? You don't know, you don't care. You're pretending to argue using data but really just going from your gut beliefs about media, not from any basis in fact other those precious few you've selectively picked to form your opinion over the years.

That's my point.

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

#116

Post by khuey »

jtc331 wrote: post #58
KoulMomo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama's justice department has been just as horrible, if not more-so than Bush's justice department.

The irony is that their argumentation in court is identical to that of the Bush DOJ.

It's almost as if most of the people involved are career bureaucrats and don't change with the party in power.

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

#117

Post by ajross »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #103
anigbrowl wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

The important difference here is that the DoJ made that argument before a court and didn't decide for itself in a "dark, windowless room". You're invoking an image of unfettered power that doesn't match reality. This was a law suit, by definition it was going to be settled by the judiciary, not the DoJ.

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

#118

Post by wnight »

anigbrowl wrote: post #93
icelancer wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it isn't, but that is not for the DoJ to decide.

Exactly - and such legislative overreach is often rebuked and/or set aside by the courts. But legislation is not required to be pre-certified as Constitutional before it is passed by Congress or signed by the President. This is probably a good thing, because otherwise it would be much more difficult to bring challenges on unforeseen grounds that manifested after the legislation had gone into force, and you'd have a l…

Even soldiers (with guns, while under fire) are expected to act legally, and ethically where those standards differ, and we need to hold everyone - public servant or not, to the same standard.

Not only does such a law (making challenging a gag a crime) clearly require authority the people would not and did not grant to the government, but applying such a law to stifle oversight of your actions is criminal - especially when in a sensitive position over so many.

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

#119

Post by rayiner »

badgar wrote: post #115
rayiner wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your point? Yes, there is a minority of Americans that cares about drones blowing up people in Yemen. The media does not cater to those people. None of this refutes my point.

> a minority of Americans that cares about drones Does "minority" here mean 49%? 1%? You don't know, you don't care. You're pretending to argue using data but really just going from your gut beliefs about media, not from any basis in fact other those precious few you've selectively picked to form your opinion over the years. That's my point.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/02/06/th...

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

#120

Post by rayiner »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #102
rayiner wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The "power grab" since 9/11 is mostly imagined. There is very little the President can do now that he couldn't in 1970, and as a practical matter he can do a lot less than he could in 1955.
Post reply on HN