National Security Letters Ruled Unconstitutional, Banned 231
A U.S. District Court Judge in California today ruled that so-called National Security Letters, used by government agencies to force business and organizations to turn over information on citizens, are unconstitutional. Judge Susan Illston ordered the government to stop using them, but gave the government a 90-day window to appeal the decision, during which the NSLs may still be sent out. The letters were challenged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on behalf of a telecom who was ordered to provide data. "The telecom took the extraordinary and rare step of challenging the underlying authority of the National Security Letter, as well as the legitimacy of the gag order that came with it. Both challenges are allowed under a federal law that governs NSLs, a power greatly expanded under the Patriot Act that allows the government to get detailed information on Americans’ finances and communications without oversight from a judge. The FBI has issued hundreds of thousands of NSLs and been reprimanded for abusing them — though almost none of the requests have been challenged by the recipients. 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. The move stunned the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is representing the anonymous telecom. ... After heated negotiations with EFF, the Justice Department agreed to stay the civil suit and let the telecom’s challenge play out in court. The Justice Department subsequently filed a motion to compel in the challenge case, but has never dropped the civil suit."
Patriot Act is unconstitutional (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional (Score:4, Insightful)
Looks more like David against Goliath to me.
Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional (Score:5, Insightful)
This is all just part of the process in getting it to the Supreme Court where they will be rubberstamped. And then no one can ever challenge their constitutionality again.
Challenging Authority (Score:5, Insightful)
. Stunning is the right word. That lawsuit, which appears to still be active, is an affront to a nation of laws with respect for civil rights. Legally attacking citizens for challenging authority ought to carry a steep political price.
Re:Challenging Authority (Score:5, Insightful)
Who are you talking about now? Norway? Sweden? Vulcan?
Re:Link to donate to the EFF (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, this actually makes me want to donate outside of the bundles. It's great to see an organization that is fighting for the rights of individual citizens instead of companies and the government.
Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah. Except this David doesn't even have a sling. It's going to go to SCOTUS, they'll side with the save-the-children, oh-no-terrorists, and it's-for-your-own-good crackpottery that dominates the mindset of our legislature and our judiciary.
Interstate = intrastate, ex post facto = go ahead and add punishment (just call it something else), probable cause = "well, we thought it was a reasonable search", borders = 100mi from the.... borders.
Come on, we know exactly how this is going to go.
Although I have to say, three fucking big cheers for trying, little people.
Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional (Score:3, Insightful)
"Patriot Act" was a very highly manipulative naming for a very unpatriotic act. Smoke and mirrors all too common and further enabled by current major media.
Re:Justice Department is just like an HR departmen (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is silly, because if companies even wanted to expend the slightest effort to pretend that was the case, they would call it "Employee Services". They call it "Human Resources" quite honestly -- its there to manage corporate resources that happen to be human.
No, its there to protect the value of the employees (including those that are "management") as corporate assets; protecting the corporation from harm when those assets operate outside of the corporations desired parameters is a part of that, but doesn't define the role. This is much the same role as, say, the department tasked with overseeing factory operations has with respect to heavy machinery.
Manging morale for the purpose of increasing retention and productivity is part of the positive value side of protecting the value of the employees as corporate assets as much as mitigating the harm from dissatisfied employees is on the negative value side. You oil the machine to keep it working while it is working as desired, and you contain the damage and discard it as quickly as possible when it stops doing so and becomes a liability to keep around. All part of the same mission.
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what's interesting is that the Bill of Rights is in the constitution as a pack of 10 amendments, whereas the laws that even define the concepts of state secrets and classified information are established at a federal statute level.
Given the supremacy clause, shouldn't my civil rights trump concerns about national security?
The law that says I am entitled to due process outranks the law that says I have to let the government play keep-away with information.
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the interpretation that gets you. They simply redefine the words of the Constitution so that it means what they'd like it to say.
Re:The Justice Department (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people still think there are two parties in Washington instead of two faces of the same party, the Money Party.
Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional (Score:2, Insightful)
""on suspicion of brown-ness.""
You're the governor. The bureau of vital statistics and voting records, along with other documents indicate that you have x million legal residents who are *whatever*. But, your police forces routinely encounter ten or fifty times that many *whatever*. And, when your police forces encounter them, it's almost always due to law violations.
And, you're incapable of drawing any conclusions from those few, simple bits of data? Really?
The conclusions might be erroneous, the conclusions might be almost-right, the conclusions might be perfectly on target. But, OBVIOUSLY, someone needs to look at *whatever* people, make some attempt to determine which *whatever* people are legal, and which are not, which are law abiding, and which are not, and SHIP OUT THE ONES WHO DON'T BELONG!
Or, are you of the opinion that anyone and everyone in the world who wishes to "improve their lives" should just drop in, and expect the US to provide for them?
People who are incapable of distinguishing subtle details hear that "suspicion of brown-ness" sound byte, and assume that it is exactly the same as "driving while black". Yeah - they are somewhat similar. But, you might consider the fact that "driving while black" targets people who are perfectly legal, while "suspicion of brown-ness" targets illegal aliens, many of whom are breaking a lot more laws than just immigration.
Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional (Score:4, Insightful)
"'Patriot Act' was a very highly manipulative naming for a very unpatriotic act. Smoke and mirrors all too common and further enabled by current major media."
Kind of like "Affordable Care Act"? The one that would fine people thousands of dollars for not buying insurance they already couldn't afford to buy?
Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, fuck you. If there is anything the Obama administration has proven, is that Democrats ONLY hate the GWB neo con agenda when the GOP does it. When a Democrat is even more hardcore than GWB .... Fucking crickets. America would better off by far if every GOP and DNC POS simultaneously had massive strokes. It could be called the stroke of luck in future history books.
Re:Patriot Act is unconstitutional (Score:5, Insightful)
"'Patriot Act' was a very highly manipulative naming for a very unpatriotic act. Smoke and mirrors all too common and further enabled by current major media."
Kind of like "Affordable Care Act"? The one that would fine people thousands of dollars for not buying insurance they already couldn't afford to buy?
You mean, that act that provides subsidies for low-income people to buy insurance with, and tightens the screws on employers who don't provide health insurance? That prohibits insurance companies from dumping/refusing you because you were sick?
Yeah, it's a crappy law, tailored to keep the big insurance companies happy. They should have just expanded Medicare to cover everybody (health care shouldn't have anything to do with the tender mercies of employers or insurance companies, and Medicare's overhead expense is a small fraction of what insurance companies cost), but the insurance business (which largely overlaps the financial business) is too powerful to let themselves get cut out of the picture that way.
But it's better than the previous situation, where medical problems are the #1 cause of both bankruptcy and homelessness, where the wealthy and well-insured get great care, and the hospitals have to eat the cost of care for those who can't afford it.