In-depth explanation of EFF's courtroom victory over the FBI's "National Security Letters"


15 Responses to “In-depth explanation of EFF's courtroom victory over the FBI's "National Security Letters"”

  1. Mark Frauenfelder says:

    This is good news, but won’t Scalia dismiss it with a wave of his tentacle?

  2. awjt says:

    Oh, it’s wonderful and all, but I’m sure the artful dodgers will come up with some new clever legalspeak way to keep their jack boot on the backs of our necks.

  3. Ramone says:

    Part of me wants to believe some sort of overly optimistic conspiracy theory is at work. That Obama is behind it all, slowly trying to build a legal precendent for future administrations that would require them to be more transparent.

    What can I say, I like science fiction.

    • runjanerun says:

      Wow, you are really smoking something. Sorry.

      • jacklaughing says:

         No, this is all pretty simple: no President wants to be the one on whose watch the next 9/11 happens, because we all know that is coming some day. So Obama, like Bush, will seek whatever powers and privileges they can to deter that from occurring. And the FBI and Justice, seeing the opportunity to take advantage of a massive and superpowered legal loophole, will abuse the hell out of these powers because hey, why not, right? They have political quotas to fulfill as well.

        The question now is will the current Supreme Court side with what law enforcement wants to will they side with the Constitutional protections? It’s really hard to say, because they sway so easily between both ideological polarities, and their rhetoric on either subject is often extreme.

        And before I get smacked around, I’m not happy about how the Obama administration has handled this issue, but I think it’s pretty obvious why they’ve reversed themselves and seek to keep this privilege. Doesn’t make it right, not one bit.

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          …no President wants to be the one on whose watch the next 9/11 happens…

          Why? It’ll be another perfect excuse to seize more power and exert more control. Some politicians have even publicly wished for another such event because it would further their agendas. There’s a whole passel of people who think that Armageddon is a good thing.

  4. JG says:

    First, second, fourth, fifth?

    Missing something?

    • toobigtofail says:

       Yeah… well… if you’d bother to follow the jump maybe you wouldn’t be missing something.

      • JG says:

         I did, but really, if you’re going to post such a large portion of it to summarize the result, it’s a bit of a glaring omission.

  5. runjanerun says:

    So does this mean that the government is now required to reveal intended targets of former NSLs?

    • ldobe says:

      As far as I can tell from the news here and elsewhere, the court has struck down NSLs generally, but I haven’t yet seen any news saying past NSL recipients/targets must be disclosed. Granted, I have incomplete information and need to read the full judgement.

      If history is any indication, the FBI and other National Security orgs will probably make two arguments against disclosure of past NSLs:

      1. That disclosure is detrimental to National Security and 2. That disclosure of targets and recipients would jeopardize the privacy of both the recipient and the target even when specific subscriber records and info are withheld.

      • ldobe says:

        Just read the EFF article. The judgment has been stayed in order to allow the government its appeal. So we can expect that the FBI and other orgs may still be using NSLs and sending new ones currently since the legal finding of unconstitutionality is yet to be made final.

        It looks like it’ll go to the 9th circuit, then the supreme court. Which means while this is still a triumph, the judgement may still be struck down, or altered. And we still have more waiting to do before it can possibly go into effect.

        • hungryjoe says:

          I bet the 9th Circuit Court will not agree with this decision.  But I think we all know this is a Supreme Court decision, no matter what.  Why bother with the lower courts?

          …asked the taxpayer.

        • donovan acree says:

          I’m betting the ruling will be reversed as soon as the media stops paying attention.

Leave a Reply