IT and A National Security Letter Gag Order 468
fstyke writes "An article in the Washington Post (anonymous for obvious reasons) describes the trauma the president of a small US IT company faces after receiving a National Security Letter. This is sent by the FBI demanding information (140000+ have been sent between 2003/2005 according to the article). Makes for an interesting read of the side effects of receiving such a letter and its requirements for the recipient to remain silent about even the fact he/she has received it.'The letter ordered me to provide sensitive information about one of my clients. There was no indication that a judge had reviewed or approved the letter, and it turned out that none had. The letter came with a gag provision that prohibited me from telling anyone, including my client, that the FBI was seeking this information. Based on the context of the demand -- a context that the FBI still won't let me discuss publicly -- I suspected that the FBI was abusing its power and that the letter sought information to which the FBI was not entitled.'"
My experience (Score:5, Funny)
Recently I received CONTENT REMOVED from the --- regarding one of my CONTENT REMOVED. It was delivered personally by two CONTENT REMOVED in a black CONTENT REMOVED and they CONTENT REMOVED terrorist CONTENT REMOVED you're not for us CONTENT REMOVED us.
Under the terms of the CONTENT REMOVED Act it appears I cannot CONTENT REMOVED or CONTENT REMOVED or even badgers. They said they had installed special CONTENT REMOVED on my CONTENT REMOVED connection and would be watching out for transgressions - even something as innocuous as calling G.W. CONTENT REMOVED failure or librarians CONTENT REMOVED CONTENT REMOVED Harry Potter in Syria. Since contacting my la +++NO CARRIER+++
Re:We one!????? (Score:3, Funny)
Rules (Score:3, Funny)
Re:yes (Score:4, Funny)
PHEW! That makes me feel better. OK. This conversation is over, everyone! It appears that the FBI may have been conflicting with the Constitution and therefore, it's legally null and void.
You can go home now! Nothing to see here!
Re:answering by omission? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:My experience (Score:3, Funny)
What so [REDACTED] we hailed at the [REDACTED] last gleaming?
Whose [REDACTED]stripes and [REDACTED]stars thru the perilous [REDACTED],
O'er the [REDACTED] [REDACTED] watched were so gallantly [REDACTED]?
And the [REDACTED] red [REDACTED], the [REDACTED] bursting in air,
Gave [REDACTED] through the [REDACTED] that our [REDACTED]was [REDACTED] [REDACTED].
Oh, [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]-[REDACTED] [REDACTED] yet wave
O'er the land of the [REDACTED]and the home of the[REDACTED]?
Re:In liberal America .. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This must change (Score:5, Funny)
Reminds me of whenever a US state is 2nd to last in something like education, arts support, % of citizens with their natural teeth, etc., we always say "Thanks, Mississippi".
Thanks, Rwanda.
Re:This must change (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This must change (Score:4, Funny)
Re:This must change (Score:2, Funny)
Re:answering by omission? (Score:2, Funny)
"Not that this has anything to do with why I'm seeing an attorney, but pepople who get those National Security Letters from the FBI can't discuss them with anyone..."
Re:This must change (Score:2, Funny)
Not much of a choice between the two is there...
Re:Goldstein? (Score:3, Funny)
This is 2007, not 1984. We've upgraded. Instead of just 2 minutes, there's 24 hours of it on Fox News.
Re:This must change (Score:4, Funny)
The idea that rights are "self evident" are also tagged with "endowed by their creator" and thus they are "inalienable". Our ancestors (who fought and died) were much smarter than you think they were, which is why that line is so important in the US Declaration of Independence.
See the problem with Atheists (I assume your one of them), is that they want the benefits of the wisdom of our fathers, without the reason they were so wise. You see, in the US of A, our essential founding doctrine says that certain rights are indeed endowed by our Creator, and that these rights are SELF EVIDENT namely because they are derived from a higher source. If you take away the higher source, you are left holding an empty bag.
But of course the average atheist teacher can't articulate why they have any rights what so ever. Just ask them "why?" they have rights. See if they can actually articulate it without self reference (Circular Logic).