FBI: If We Told You . . . (Part II)

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/fbi-if-we-told-you-part-ii

by trotsky • 15 years ago

226 21 15 years ago

nkassis• 15 years ago

Hum I read that more as, we need it secret or corps providing us info will never accept to do it and will fight to the end even if they are legally bound to provide the information.

So it's not that they don't want challenges it's that they think they can't even get what they legally can without secrecy.

It's not a very good argument by the FBI for sure. Obviously if people knew that some corps provided info but not other, it could penalize the first by losing customers but we already know we can't trust certain companies even with all the secrecy.

meatsock• 15 years ago

'if what we ARE telling you is this scary imagine the stuff we're protecting you from knowing.'

how fantastically polite.

fleitz• 15 years ago

I think that whatever grounds corporations (and their customers) have to challenge these requests that those grounds have far more basis in the law than "it would be bad for business." If the grounds for challenge are baseless then a court will toss the case, but I think that would be highly unlikely.

People have a constitutional right to be secure in their papers and effects and the court should be the one judging where these rights start and end, and not the FBI.

Exactly what is so important that a warrant cannot be obtained from a judge before tapping these lines? Where is the justification that this is necessary to secure our happiness and freedom?

If it is necessary to repeal parts of the constitution then we should have a frank, open and honest discussion about it. The more likely case is that Augustus has no clothes.

ramdac4• 15 years ago

I couldn't have said it better myself. What I've witnessed is that companies are apt to lie down in favor of the FBI because building up a rapport with the FBI can be a good thing in certain business models. (don't ask).

The DoJ is well-aware of this, I'm sure, and is only too happy to throw its full weight around.

palish• 15 years ago

Which business models are you referring to?

ncarlson• 15 years ago

> I think that whatever grounds corporations (and their customers) have to challenge these requests that those grounds have far more basis in the law than "it would be bad for business."

I wouldn't underestimate the extent to which the Commerce Clause could be applied.

CWuestefeld• 15 years ago

Sure. Congress never underestimates how far they can take it.

ramdac4• 15 years ago

To me, this suggests that corporations have too much power in this country. This explains why the FBI is heavy-handed with their "do not disclose" style issuances to corporations. It isn't so much that the FBI is scared the company will tip someone off, but that people in general will become more knowledgeable about these activities. This poses a risk for companies as proponents of privacy will be very outspoken.

If anything, this is a great argument for why these things SHOULD be public knowledge.

armored• 15 years ago

As a corporation that would like to resist any demands for my customers information & data stored on my servers what can I do? Currently the way the laws are written it is illegally in some cases even to notify the customer that they are being surveilled.

shareme• 15 years ago

Not true.. the old Clinton era law states that after 30 to 90 days FBI has to tell someone that they asked for records.

btilly2• 15 years ago

Your information is seriously out of date. The PATRIOT act takes precedence, and it famously authorized gag orders where the people under surveillance cannot be told that their information was requested by law enforcement.

dedward• 15 years ago

IANAL, but although you may not be able to tell the customers, you could chase up other legal avenues to contest the court order - even though you'd probably lose in the end (according to this doc at least) - and that's what the FBI is trying to avoid. Hence, they reassure the companies involved of complete confidentiality regarding their involvement to make the case go smoother.

Scummy, innit?

ramdac4• 15 years ago

I can attest to this. I've seen these orders.

jaredwill• 15 years ago

In other words: The only way we can obtain this information is to not tell what what information we're obtaining.

smokeyj• 15 years ago

Someone should start a company that rates how companies handle customer data. On a scale of 0 to telco, how invasive are you.

ramdac4• 15 years ago

I actually like this idea. Where does facebook sit in that scale? I imagine pretty close to telco.

Helianthus• 15 years ago

Hell, I'd put facebook ahead of telco. Telcos have the bureaucracy that begets incompetence and therefore inaction; facebook ranks whose profiles I visit most so it can optimize my search results and minifeeds.

firefoxman1• 15 years ago

Reminds me of a certain movie...

"Operation Blackbriar started as an NEAT surveillance program. It is now the umbrella program for all our black-ops. Full envelope intrusion, rendition, experimental interrogation - it is all run out of this office. We are the sharp end of the stick now"

FBI: If We Told You . . . (Part II)

Related Stories