"Joy and pleasure are as real as pain and sorrow and one must learn what they have to teach. . . ." -- Sean Russell, from Gatherer of Clouds

"If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right." -- Helyn D. Goldenberg

"I love you and I'm not afraid." -- Evanescence, "My Last Breath"

“If I hear ‘not allowed’ much oftener,” said Sam, “I’m going to get angry.” -- J.R.R. Tolkien, from Lord of the Rings

Sunday, May 11, 2008

"Cans of Worms We Don't Want to Open" Department

From Ed Brayton, this story about the FBI and another one of those national security letters:

National Security Letters (NSLs) are typically used to compel libraries, internet service providers and telephone companies to turn over information on their customers without a court order or warrant. They are authorized under the Patriot Act, but the DOJ has admitted that the FBI has misused them in literally thousands of cases. The most serious problem with them is the lack of judicial oversight, which leads inevitably to abuse.

When a company receives an NSL, they are bound by law to turn over the information and they're also prohibited from speaking about the NSL to anyone. The Archive sued on that basis, arguing that this violated their first amendment rights. Rather than fight it out in court, the FBI decided to simply withdraw the request - while simultaneously claiming that the letter was legitimate and necessary.

The FBI defended its demand Wednesday on the Internet Archive in particular and the letters in general as important weapons to fight terrorism.

"The information requested in the national security letter was relevant to an ongoing, authorized national security investigation," Assistant FBI Director John Miller said in a statement. He said the NSLs "remain indispensable tools for national security investigations and permit the FBI to gather the basic building blocks for our counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations."


Yes, that should set off your bullshit detectors. If they really believed that they had a case here, why wouldn't they go to court with it? Could it be that they really don't have probable cause to serve this warrant (which is essentially what it is) and they know that if they actually have to show cause before a judge, they're going to lose?


I mean, aside from the fact that the FBI has been throughout its history one of the most abusive law enforcement agencies in the couintry, why should we worry about a situation in which the people who issue the warrant are the people who approve the warrent and the people who enforce the warrant?

Jeebus!

(I don't really want to get into that whole question -- the provisions of the Patriot Act that allow such things are obscenity of the lowest order. Thanks to Bush's congress for that one.)

No comments: