The Center for Democracy and Technology has issued a scathing report on the FBI’s attempts to self police with regard to compliance with regulations associated with the issuance of National Security Letters (NSLs). This comes as a result of two successive DOJ-IG reports showing systematic failures and abuses by the FBI in the management of these disclosure devices.
In October 2001, the PATRIOT Act dramatically weakened the standard for issuing NSLs by removing the requirement that the records sought with the NSL pertain to an "agent of a foreign power" such as a terrorist or a spy. The PATRIOT Act also eliminated the requirement that the government be able to articulate the factual basis for its suspicion.
Current law merely requires an FBI official to state "purely for internal purposes — that the records are "relevant to" or "sought for" foreign counter-intelligence or terrorism purposes. Furthermore, an amendment adopted in 2003 dramatically expanded the institutions subject to NSLs to include travel agencies, real estate agents, jewelers, the Postal Service, insurance companies, casinos, car dealers and others.
Among other things, the IG found that the FBI issued NSLs when it had not even opened the investigation that is the only predicate for issuing an NSL. It found that the FBI retains almost indefinitely the information it obtains with an NSL, even if the record subject turns out to be innocent of any crime and of no intelligence interest.
It also found that the Attorney General had refused to adopt adequate "minimization" procedures designed to protect the privacy of information about innocent Americans obtained with an NSL, even though an interagency working group had recommended such procedures.
So, the CDT is calling for an overhaul of the legislation related to NSLs. After the 2007 IG report, CDT reports that the FBI did institute internal rules and training which improved things somewhat with regard to agents actually opening a case before issuing an NSL, or returning or destroying information received but not relevant to the investigation. However, the 2008 IG report still found that the internal review process prior to issuing an NSL was stil insufficient.
In some instances, for example, the supervisor’s approval memo was inconsistent with the case agent’s request, suggesting that supervisors were not carefully reading case agent claims. Even more tellingly, the IG expressed concern that mid-level supervisors in FBI field offices were reluctant to turn down NSL requests for fear of antagonizing their supervisor — the head of the field office. Most importantly, the IG also found that the FBI had used NSLs to circumvent the FISA Court’s refusal to authorize surveillance on First Amendment grounds.
Therefore, CDT is supporting two bills that can provide some oversight.
In the Senate:
The National Security Letter Reform Act, S. 2088 [pdf], goes to the core issue. First, it would separate information that can now be obtained with an NSL into sensitive and less sensitive categories. The less sensitive information — including information identifying a customer by name and address — would continue to be available to the government by means of an NSL.
However, the bill would tighten the standard for issuing NSLs even for less sensitive information, to prevent fishing expeditions. Other, more sensitive information, such as telephone dialing information, the ‘To" and "From" lines on email, and the details of one’s checking and credit card transactions would require a court order. The bill would also impose a time limit on the "gag orders" that normally accompany NSLs and would require that any gag be narrowly tailored.
And in the House:
The House counterpart, the National Security Letters Reform Act (H.R. 3189), would not require judicial approval, but it would impose a time limit and tighter requirements on issuance of gag orders. The House bill would also return to the pre-PATRIOT "agent of a foreign power" standard for issuing NSLs.
It would create a civil damages remedy against "any person issuing or obtaining the issuing" of an NSL contrary to law. Both bills would require the Attorney General to issue strong minimization procedures to protect irrelevant information pertaining to Americans.
Here’s their letter endorsing the Senate bill.
photo by Turkinator
Related posts:
- Silvestre Reyes Announces Investigation into Violations of National Security Act
- PATRIOT Renewal Hearing, Day One Wrap Up: Who Protects Us from the Protectors?
- House Judiciary Committee to Propose PATRIOT and FISA Reforms
- Bush’s Illegal Domestic Surveillance Program Also Expanded “Legal” Spying
- Speak Out: Write Letters To Your Local Papers and Urge Members of Congress to Vote “No” On Supplemental
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
So, LHP! Yay!
Yes they do…… this is SO scary….. along with the No Fly list….. and well the list is endless
Slighty off Topic but its secret too: Keeping Secrets: In Presidential Memo, A New Designation for Classifying Information
Wow! Three AZ’s in a row!!!
LHP – do we really need to have NSLs at all?
i don’t even know the history of when and why they were first used. can anyone fill me in or give me a couple of good links to read? thanks!
Hey it is going to be 109 today….. if you want any outside time it will have to be at 5-7am…. ;)
we must de-certify the “patriot act” and it must be made known this “act” was plaguerized from hitler’s “enabling act”
and the president must be told straight up, if he even THINKS of a signing statement when the de-certification takes place he will be removed from office
National Security Letter
Anything and absolutely everything bushco does need supervision. They know it, and we know it. This is scary because things like this is what makes me believe bush has NO intention of leaving office.
Has anyone heard of the No Buy List. The current list has more than 7 thousand names. Unfuckingbelievable!
since they can do their search long before they get their warrant the answer is absolutely no
I might consider lengthening the time period between when a search is made and when it is applied for but that’s as far as I want to go
the bigger the list the less useful it becomes
They use it to deny credit. I know of a woman who’s first and middle name appeared on the list, she was connected to a name on the list of a known drug trafficer. Even though the two women had different last names, birthdates etc. it took her more than two years to clear her name.
On the face of it, that just seems to be in direct contravention to the Fourth Amendment. After you have searched one’s house, it is pretty easy to swear an oath “particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Granted in light of the Supremes disdain for the Fourth and their willingness to allow the fruits of any kind of search to be admitted, I suppose it really doesn’t matter that much, does it? Hey, it’s all in “good faith”…
NSL’s are like administrative subpoenas. Or should be. The problem with NSL’s is how do you challenge them in court?
If I work at the NYC Dept of investigation and I want a business’ books and records, I can get teh Commissioner to sign an administrative subpoena and serve on the business. The business then either coughs up the records or makes a motion to quash the subpoena.
If I am an AUSA and I want your records, and as long as there is a grand jury sitting, I issue a grand jury subpoena. same results.
The thing with the NSLs is the secrecy. When you get an NSL, in theory you can’t even consult a lawyer b/c you are not supposed to tell ANYONE.
Which is just silly.
When we look back at this list from the future, inclusion may represent something of a badge of honor to those of us deemed “worthy” (or is that “unworthy?”)
Surely nmore than one doggie, both rank and file AND top tier posters, will find themselves there.
Surely some have already.
I believe the warrant request should be made without the results on that request, it has to be granted on the merrits
the purpose is to protect our shores not to prosecute, I believe we can act on actionable intel to prevent a threat but couldn’t prosecute
correct me if I’m wrong looseheadprop but I believe a warrant is only useful for prosecution, information without a warrant is still actionable
and iaNal
i should have been more specific… i was looking for a review of stuff like what was the early justification, what were the political debates if any, have there been reports of how they were used prior to bush? not asking anyone to do my research for me, just thought there might be someone here who’s already done it.
The idea of civil subpoenas is inherently flawed. The only way to curb abuses is to make them all enforceable by court order only. This would essentially do away with them as a separate category. The FBI has shown a substantial and ongoing inability (or unwillingness) to administer NSLs properly. Splitting NSLs into sensitive and non-sensitive types and spelling out new guidelines for when they can be used will not solve this problem.
The FBI will continue to use NSLs for “non-sensitive” information to go after sensitive data. It will continue to use them in circumstances where the jusification for them is dubious. It will continue to be sloppy in how it manages, processes, and keeps the information it acquires through them.
How do I know this? Because since its inception the FBI has abused all its powers which were not closely supervised by courts.
so you think they are fundamentally a flawed instrument and the solution isn’t minor tweaks to the rules or oversight? we should just pitch them entirely?
… i’d be ok with that.
There is no “search” with NSLs. I think maybe you are confusing them with FISA warrants. NSL are like subpoenas.
What I don’t know is how they comport with the fourth amendment? How can they be constitutionally supported?
LHP, slightly OT, but David Iglesias is on the road with his new book, IN JUSTICE. Maybe you could host him here, he seems to have a lot of inside contacts that he maintains, and he is talking.
Since when has any government agency in the bush administration concerned itself with the constitution?
ARRRRGH – what is the difference between a warrant and a subpoena?
Perris, there are no “searches” connected with NSLs. They are demands for information or copies of records.
With respect to information obtained illegally, w/o a search warrant. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies only to whether information may be admitted into evidence in court.
In the case of a counter terrorism investigation, the goal may or may not be putting together a criminal case. It might be thwarting an attack, in which case admissablilty of evidence would not be germaine
Subpoena compels court appearance, Rove et al notwithstanding.
Go to the link at comment 5
I am not sure exactly of the Constitutional history as to how this arose but 4th Amendment protections have generally been qualified in cases of national security, hence the fairly evocative name National Security letters.
Just repeal the Patriot Act. The FBI had NSLs for a couple of decades w/o widespread abuse. It’s only since the Patriot Act that the craziness has started.
That would be WAY cool.
I saw McKay a few weeks ago at a criminal justice retreat at the Association of the Bar of the City of NY. It was terrific panel. Sen. Whitehouse was on it as well.
Thanks lhp, always a treat.
Here’s Mueller at the National Press Club
link to video of speech
He responds to questions about NSLs; but is, imo, blase about it, saying: oh well now we’re doing it right, so nevermind about whatever gross abuses we may have engaged in before.
It did dovetail nicely with “America’s Most Wanted” 1000th arrest tho, speaking about the FBI’s relationship with the press.
that’s my point though
A warrant allows you to search something. Like if I want to physically search your house. Or if I want to metaphorically search your telephone wire to eavesdrop on your conversations.
A subpoena is a demand for information or records. So, I send you a subpoena for all your checking account records. You rummage around in your handbag and in your desk drawer and dig them out and send them to me. With a subpoena, as with a document demand during the discovery phase of a civil litigation, YOU are searching your own records looking for something responsive to my demand.
You have some control over the end product.
With a search warrant, it’s completely involuntary and I come in and look for things myself.
I think it has more to what you mentioned above. If a court case is likely the FBI will be more circumspect in how it acquires information because it has to pass the scrutiny of a judge. But in national security cases, this is not the goal so they don’t bother.
It’s an act. When he first found out how badly they had fucked up the record keeping for NSL’s (that would be two years ago?) he went postal. Big Strum und Drang. This has been a major thorn in his paw.
that gets to part of my question about the early history – was there really no abuse prior to the bush era? i read the wiki article first thing – it has lots of good links for recent info, but almost nothing about the early history. which doesn’t reassure me that they were being properly used prior to bush.
if there’s no reason they are really needed, why not just get rid of them entirely?
They may not, but I am, as every citizen should be. If we insist that we are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then we, the people, need to concern ourselves with such things as our representatives refusing to protect the checks and balances inplanted into our constitution, or any other abuses of the bill of rights or the constitution. Ultimately, the responsibility, and the failing to cure it, is ours.
Good Morning All. Terrific job LHP!
I want shooter sitting in plain sight, hands on the table, palms up, until he’s bodily hauled off to the pokey.
Perris 11. + + You’re really cookin’ this morning.
as well as more dangerous?
I think David I. is fairly accessible. He started his tour at independent local bookstores in ABQ. He will be at Bookworks today. They are on the web and you could contact him through them, I think.
The big thing they need to do is bring back the “agent of a foreign power” standard. Throughout the changes made by the Patriot act, and not just in the NSL category.
The legal basis for these unwarranted government intrusions into the life of its citizens, surveillance and searches of people for whom there is NO PROBABLE CAUSE to believe they are involved in any criminal behaviour, the legal basis for being able to do that is soley a “foreign intelligence gathering” exception to needing a warrant. There is, as noted, some “less sensitive” information in which there is not as strong a privacy interest and there might be grounds for reaching that information validly without a warrant, but even those situations ignore the issue of WHY citizen information should be allowed to be gathered by the government without permission.
To that end there needs to be an valid investigation subject to oversight, for a legitimate government purpose, with criminal and civil avenues of enforcement of the oversight, to obtain even less sensitive information, i.e., to “build a file” on a US citizen. Those reasons need to be something other than fishing expeditions and non-consensual database building.
But they won’t be. DOJ these days is a Moose Lodge for criminals and those who aren’t actively involved in the criminal behaviour are actively involved in the cover ups of that behaviour or are passively sitting in silence, allowing lies to courts and Congress and wallowing in a “but we’re the good guys” mindset that excuses everything and not only excuses, but resentfully reacts to any scrutiny with an “us” and “them” mentality that effectually makes the people and the law “them.”
How do you ever establish “oversight” with a degenerate Congress and a wholly corrupted prosecution process? Even the “scathing” IG reports ducked away from recommendations to send people to prison, didn’t they?
The exception – of being able to build an intelligence file, without probable cause/criminal action warrants, for intel related to activities of foreign powers and their agents- has become the Mary Poppins’ bag for the Executive Branch. It has now been used as a basis for a never ending array of warrantless searches, seizures and government victimization of citizens, all without any of the original requirement of a foreign power intelligence gathering.
A subpoena means that the subject supplies the info. A warrant means that the authorites come in and take it.
I don’t want to mislead. The goal should always be to both prevent an attack AND bring a criminal case. During the Clinton administration Fitzgerald and Kelley’s Counterterroism Unit did exactly that.
The foiled the Millennium Bomb plot and the original Day of Terror (of which the crashing into the WTC was only one component part) AND then put the plotters in jail–SuperMax to be precise.
It IS entirely possible to play by the rules and still beat the clock. It’s just that the lazy, corner cutting, chicken shit Bush administration can’t be bothered to play by the rules. Actually seems to deliberately flout the rules even when it’s uneccesary.
Thanks for the reminder. For anyone living in the area, David Iglesias will be giving a talk & signing his book In Justice @ Bookworks in Albuquerque this evening:
http://www.bkwrks.com/NASApp/store/IndexJsp
would this address the cases where the company (isp, bank, etc) is willing to give the info without going to court?
Thank you.
If there was abuse prior to the Bush admin, I’ve never heard about it.
The reason to have them? The FBI does not have any subpoena power. In the early days of NSLs, compliance was voluntary. It was a letter that merely said, I would like to see XYZ info and please don’t blab about it b/c I’m spyhunting.
There were usually two basic reactins: either the recipient got all exited and eager, like Jamie Lee Curits’s character in True Lies (love that movie) or you got no reply at all to the letter.
The problems really stem from two things: Serious lack of internal controls at FBI. This is a training issue. and secondly, the degradations of the standard for issuance.
It’s a matter of principal. Rules, I don’t need no stinking rules.
Here we disagree. I don’t think BushCo is lazy or corner cutting for what they want. Cheney was around when the power of the executive got severely curtailed, at least on paper. He wants that back. So he does it his way every time and hopes someone will take him to court. He knows he’s got a friendly court system and every win takes power from congress.
But congress responded by being so spineless as to challenge almost nothing! He gets away with it, but he doesn’t get the court ruling he wants.
Boxturtle (I’m not pretending the spinlessness was actually genius. Not at all)
yep, yep, yep, oh and ah, yep.
but doesn’t constant pressure by the administration toward the “dark side” make it much less likely the letter of the law will be followed by fbeye?
Thanks for this post lhp.
and thank you Mary for your 42.
a thorough house-cleaning at fbeye would be terrific, but what lasting good will come of it if junior, shooter & their minions skate free?
Uh huh. At this rate pretty much the whole world will be on the list.
I agree with you about the power grab at the top.
When I was talking about lazy (and I meant that in terms of being intellectually lazy, not physically lazy) I was actually referring to the agents using these Letters. Instead of THINKING about whether or not they are the correct device to use in obtaining a particular piece of info, they just crank ‘em out b/c it’s so much easier than having to walk across the street to the USAO and explain to an AUSA why they should issue a GJ subpoena.
This is rot on the investigative services that will take years to correct.
When I was getting a divorce, I ended up representing myself “pro per” and was delighted that I could subpoena information from his employer verifying his employment and his wages, etc. But even then, IIRC there were some judicial restraints on how much I could nose into his personal business after he left the state (although it’s amazing how much he didn’t want me to know that I was able to find out.) It’s scary how much information the government is privy to through the NSLs. I never will understand what people’s hangups are with infringements of 2nd amendment right to bear arms and yet they don’t care about the infringement of virtually all their other civil rights by the government.
Thanks as always, LHP. I have learned so much about the law from you. It amazes me how ignorant I have been for all these years (actually it frightens me!) I have a lawyer in the family but the law remains an arcane subject. Granted, I admit to taking pains in order to avoid familiarity with the legal process, but still.
headline in teh not too distant future:
“Airline industry in serious decline due to lack of qualified passengers.”
/s
Dontcha know, they (the airlines)want to create some sort of pre-screened frequent flier catagory that lets you zip through security, for a fee of course.
DNA Database? What DNA Database!?
Ah, so. I understand and agree.
Those agents are simply going to have to get used to doing the paperwork again. And the AUSA’s are going to have to allocate more time for FBI agents.
And we’re going to have to appoint some supervisors that are true SOB’s to make sure this is doen right every time. FBI agents seem a stubborn lot, there will be resistance to taking a 15 minute job and turning it into two days and a meeting.
Boxturtle (But I think most agents are professionals, it might not be as hard as we think)
from your link -
shorter: “my name is David Addington and I am getting more sloppy and desperate by the minute”
looks like there’s a new post upstairs
Me either – but phrasing it like this might start to make sense to the ‘fiercely independent hunters’ up here in the frozen north.
Instead of THINKING about whether or not they are the correct device
And the FISC avoidance goes beyond that even, doesn’t it? It was a matter of thinking about a device to get around a court telling them no – a device to blatantly and boldly say “screw you – you can’t do anything to us” to the courts.
Because they can’t.
When the whole department is so completely corrupt, the courts really can’t do anything.
It seems that acting strictly to the letter of the law is a historical aberration. The backlash from the Church hearings lasted, what, thirty years. Now they are just reverting to historic norms.
The House is on the right track. The “PATRIOT” (Enabling) Act must be totally gutted. Next, the “no-fly list” must be eliminated. There is NO valid reason for it. Hell, it is irrelevant what your actual name is as well. ALL that matters is: Do you have a weapon or access to a weapon in luggage? If you don’t, then you are NO danger to the aircraft or the passengers and should be able to fly (the only exception being if you are on the FBI’s most wanted list).
I HATE the fact that I have to give up so much personal information to corporations and the dictator guvmnt of BushCo just to travel, as is my natural right as an free American citizen. The ONLY thing the airlines need to know is that I paid for a ticket and I have no weapons on me capable of being used to take over or down the aircraft. End of story.
Well, if you’re actively trying to achieve the status of tyrant, or despot, then flouting the rules is the name of the game! And what else would you call the theory of the unitary president?
The FBI is providing value added data to downstream consumers.
I have a major problem with ALL the infringements on any/all of the Amendments: 1st, 2nd, 4th, etc. ANY infringement is too much and unacceptable. As far as I’m concerned, if they (the government and/or its agents/agencies) don’t like a basic right, THEN GET AN AMENDMENT PASSED TO CHANGE IT!
I wont give up my guns, I wont give up my free speech, I wont give up my protections against illegal searches and seizures, I wont give up my right not to self-incriminate (illegal wiretaps and NSLs violate not only free speech/free association rights and illegal search and seizure protections, but also, by their nature, the right not to self-incriminate).
In response to tbsa @9 –
What’s this “No Buy” list? Is it posted somewhere? Any connection with the July 17, 2007 Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq?
Sorry to be unable to link. This Exec. Order turns up, sans number, on the White House website via google on “Executive Order July 17, 2007.”
If your property is blocked pursuant to this Exec. Order, your money is no good. The EO nixes your buying even an aspirin or a can of baby formula.
Due process? How quaint. Per the EO, Section 5, blocking is secret. You learn about it afterward.
If there are implementing regulations by now, does anyone have a citation? My congresscritter wanted to see the regs before taking any stand on the EO’s constitutionality. Cart before horse, of course.
BTW, the money of anyone who helps you out, even by giving you the aspirin gratis, can be blocked, too. Section 1 (B)(iii)(b).
So getting a lawyer to challenge blocking, or even challenging pro se (hey, you need copies, phone service, a way to get to court, etc.) looks undoable.
oh yeah. it’s been noticed. we’re among the 100’s standing in line like cattle, poked & prodded along and feeling lucky to qualify for those nice 15″-wide seats.
We noticed something fishy immediately as the system was geared up, and one of the 1st to be shooed away as a potential safety risk was (((((Sen. Ted Kennedy))))).
Some incompetent wag just had to play a joke with his/her newly acquired power. Stupid stupid prank, but very revealing about the rot spreading within the system.
LHP, I commend you. Your writing is so clear, even we non-lawyers have a chance to understand the nearly impenetrable maze of these subjects. Brava!
We hope you and littleprop are doing well!
Most FBI agents are professionals, but they think folks like me are persnickety “make work” Sister Mary Elephant types.
I woulda made a kickass nun.
Wouldn’t this be the difference between legal and illegal? After all, my information is not theirs to give away…or is it? They do tend to become vendors of my information when they sell it to people to populate a database for advertising purposes. I suppose, as long as there is no law against the possessors of my personal information pedaling it, or making my confidential information mine until or unless I otherwise agree, banks, telecoms, etc. can do whatever they want? This is all getting very confusing!
I disagree. Many agents may have ONCE been “professionals” but the entire system has been so corrupted by this point that NONE of them can be trusted. They are ALL tainted, they are ALL polluted. The entire system needs to be purged (literally) and a new generation of agents deeply versed in the Constitution needs to be brought in to replace the diseased tissue running throughout the FBI.
;->
There’s more to it than that. There is a policy within the FBI that says that if agent X is the affiant on a warrant application, and the judge turns down the warrant request, then Agent X can never testify in court. It also means that Agent X’s career is now effectively stalled.
It is sometimes VERY hard to get an agent to sign his own damn affidavit. Add to that the idea that FISA warrants are strange alien things to most agents and the avoidance impulse just goes through the roof.
You are talking about asking a guy to possibly kill his own career.
Most excellent points, Mary.
We, the people have had institution after institution fail us.
Congress,
the Courts (although I expect some here, to disagree with me on this point)
the Military
The intelligence agencies (ALL of them)
The legal enforcement ‘arms’ of government … inluding the FBI, and the Justice Dept. as a whole
Etc.
As well a non-governmental ‘institutions’ such as the ‘press’(or media)
State-based (as in the fifty) ‘institutions’ such as education, regulation of the insurance ‘industry’, maintinance of critical infrastructure etc.
To anyone for whom not ‘getting it’ means not losing a comfortble, secure and well-paying Gummit or elitist ( read talking-head etc.) ‘job’, that is, all of us ‘civilian’ people, it must be painfully obvious that the political-class, as a whole, does not care that they didn’t even READ the Patriot Act or care to know about Directive 51 …
We are on the cusp of possible ‘change’. Presumably Obama is smart enough and possibly wise enough to realize that if he does not ACTUALLY do fundamentally different things as President, than have of late, since Reagan, his predecessors, then he will have effectively ended his political career. By the same reasoning the GOP should be following the Whigs and the dodo bird into extinction. If the Dems fail, yet again, to stand for what matters, then they too, should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
I think Gore Vidal correct in his concern that it shall take us two generations to right the wrongs … perhaps longer, and given the impending environment consequence facing our species, it may be too long.
However, if we, the people , do not insist upon accountability and consequence for those who have perpetrated such deliberate destruction, as well as those who aided and abbetted them, then ‘they’ will be back with a vengence, guaranteed …
We have the tools, in the Constitution, the question is; Do we have the will?
We shall not be able to count on much help from the above innumerated ‘institutions’ unless those within such institutions realize that THEIR futures are on the line.
Right now, ‘they’ feel secure, safe, and superior …
How do we feel?
Littleprop and I are doing really well. House hunting for our post divorce abode and we just scored Prom dress, shoes etc for her 8th grade graduation prom.
My cute little punky brewster type kid is suddenly a glamorous princess, with really nice legs–when did that happen?
I know many agents that I would not only trust with my Constitution, I would trust with my life. And getting rid of seasoned agents to replace them with greenhorns would be a recipe for disaster.
You blinked. I turned around and my daughter went from ten to twenty.
That’s so sweet! Enjoy! Congrats to Littleprop and to you too, MommaProp!
yep.
check out what charter cable is rolling out in my neck of the woods:
I read this to mean that the tracking will require the use of a cookie. At least with Firefox, it’s pretty trivial to disallow cookies from any given domain, thank goodness. But, it’s still outrageous that this is being made the default for their customers, most of whom won’t know how or perhaps even bother to extricate themselves.
Usually the best way to contact an author is through the publisher, particularly for any kind of promotional event. Wiley is Iglesias’ publisher for this book.
Just a drive-by, since I’m heading out to the airport- here are the book event places/dates for David Iglesias scheduled by Wiley for the promotion of In Justice:
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/…..9&y=5
nope. blocking the ads will require a cookie – the tracking will continue regardless. that, at least, is the word here. i’ll try to find out more when i call to disconnect my service.
Wow, I hope there is a widespread subscriber revolt brewing. That’s almost beyond belief.
What ISP are you going to use? I want to dump verizon.
Selise, here’s a little good news anyway.
bilbo – yep. that’s why i think i should cancel my service instead of waiting it out. it’s the best way i have to send a message.
tw3k – i’ve still got my speakeasy account, i’ll just go back to that at least for now – i only signed up with charter this year because there was a fantastic deal that included basic tv (local and c-span1&2) for $5.99/mo. speakeasy is pretty expensive though… not really sure what the best option is.
bilbo – good for markey. i think it helps that this charter “test” is in MA, as is he – he’s bound to hear for pissed off local folks. in fact, now that i think about it, i should call my congress critter’s office too to complain about charter.
Selise, you’ve probably seen this NYT piece already, but just in case:
Charter Will Monitor Customers’ Web Surfing to Target Ads
Some of the reader comments are also edifying.
or The Freenet Project
how does that work? is it like a VPN in that charter won’t have access to the content of email/files/etc?
yeah, i linked to that one yesterday, but i hadn’t read any of the comments.
looks kinda like a web-based encrypted peer-to-peer network.
need to give it a try later.
I play with freenet now and again – it can be slow-ish, which is the cost of privacy protection/anonymizer systems.
Another thing to consider is Tor from our GOOD friends at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. It too is often relatively slow but traffic is encrypted from your computer to the 3rd computer in the string of anonymizers from which the packets then are decrypted and sent along their way to the destination. Reply packets are then encrypted backwards to you. The end site cannot determine where you actually are and your ISP cannot determine what sites your are surfing.
78 – this is deep EPU, but I think we are talking about two different things. It is my understanding that in at least one instance, agents went to FISC with a request for an order that was turned down by the FISC. The court ruled that FBI could not get access to what FBI wanted, bc it would violate the First Amendment to allow the invasions FBI wanted to undertake.
So FBI just took that ruling – that the First Amendment prevented them for accessing that information – and went around the court with NSLs to get the information anyway.
So what I was trying to say in response to your point about often FBI might use unrestricted access to NSLs with no oversight and no boudnaries – because it is just easier than sitting down and trying to figure out how to do it right, was that yes, that may be the case but in some cases the use of NSLs was specifically to defy a FISC court order that FBI was not entitled to collect the information they wanted.
I do understand the point, too, about people who have applications turned down having career issues, but I think that was probably much more true years ago than it is today. For that matter, the Townsend tie to the huge FISC investigation into untruthful FBI affidavits and what has been alleged to be her key role didn’t seem to hurt her much. Show one lawyer in particular who has been punished in any way whatsoever for any of the many lies to the courts and the people during the Bush administration.
Falsified translations, destruction of evidence, wrongful invocations of privilege to cover up criminal activity, wrongful solicitation of and participation in criminal activity, etc. – as long as you own a pair of Bush underoos, you walk bc the Bush DOJ won’t prosecute their own.