What is Digg?60 Comments
- fuzzmeister, on 08/28/2008, -3/+31It's about time that judges started to review the constitutionality of parts of the Patriot Act. While I certainly understand the need for enhanced national security, the concept that the FBI can arbitrarily force you go hand over information and then prevent you from protesting or even talking about the order is just absurd.
- her0savestheday, on 08/28/2008, -1/+18***** that, this country doesn't need more security. This country needs a foreign policy that doesn't involve arming and training radical religious extremists who then grow to loath us later. This country needs to cease overthrowing secular democracies. This country needs to spend less on defence and security and more on education and infrastructure. This country needs to spend more time fixing itself and less time bombing poor brown people back into the stone age. The LAST thing this country needs is more defence and security.
- Rikkochet, on 08/28/2008, -2/+17I remember a story a prof told me back in college...
The FBI has frequently abused the Patriot Act to get records in secret and then slap a gag order on the record holder to prevent them from telling anyone it happened.
As it turns out, librarians are a pissy bunch.
At least one case existed where a librarian put up a sign at the library entrance that said "The FBI have not been here today".
Maybe some days they take it down... They argue that's not violating the gag order.
Dunno if it's true. Probably an urban legend, but it always gives me a laugh. - zenithmbr, on 08/28/2008, -1/+11Think about how absurd this is. No matter what kind of business you were to own, think about having the FBI coming in and asking for all kinds of info about your customers and then telling you that you're not allowed to say anything about it. This is ridiculous and violates every principle that the founding fathers ever stood for. What happened to freedom in this country?
- Atsuke, on 08/28/2008, -1/+10How many terrorists has that so called "Patriot Act" caught in the United States?
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/29/2008, -1/+9not a single real terrorist
but it has given the administration all it needs to milk even more authoritarian power through extortion, implied or actual. - elementop, on 08/29/2008, -0/+7The problem is, that's what a lot of things done in the name of "security" lately have been: fishing trips.
- justinlarsen, on 08/29/2008, -1/+7I am glad at least some Judges remember the oath they took
- RetlawST, on 08/29/2008, -0/+6Have you ever checked out a Koran so you could try to understand some of our enemies belief systems? Did you know that this could flag you for terrorist activity? The more you know, I guess.
- inactive, on 08/29/2008, -0/+5Freedom of Speech is like the last constitutional right we have and we only have that because it's hard to shut EVERYONE up. Thanks fascist republicans!
- HonoredMule, on 08/29/2008, -0/+5When you run a fish pond by the fish and for the fish...you're not supposed to be fishing.
- wyndl, on 08/29/2008, -0/+5that has got to be one of the most naive rationalizations for censor that i've ever seen. give people the ability to abuse and they will. why would you think that the gov or police are anything other then human?
- Mononuclear, on 08/29/2008, -1/+5the answer to that question would threaten national security so I am afraid you can't know.
- jflaker, on 08/29/2008, -0/+4They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
One thing to not about government
Once taxed, you will ALWAYS be taxed
Once they have your money, good luck in getting it refunded
and Once they remove freedoms, you will never see it again. - TheSabre, on 08/28/2008, -2/+6Keep in mind also that as of about a year ago, the FBI completely reworked how it handles NSLs. Their new policies were presented to Congressional oversight committees and were given a thumbs up. But yes, back in 2004 when all this happened, the FBIs handling of NSLs was not quite kosher.
- RetlawST, on 08/29/2008, -0/+4Hai. I'm an unsubstantiated claim. I'm usually in the form of a generalized hyperbole. More often than not, I insult people because I believe belittling people is the best way to show my superior intelligence.
- inactive, on 08/29/2008, -0/+4You republicans have helped take away every other constitutional right in the name of Jesus and terrorism
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/29/2008, -0/+4Bushco killed it
- inactive, on 08/29/2008, -0/+3lol
- inactive, on 08/29/2008, -0/+2Butt ***** Soulja Boy?
Dude, if you are gay for him that's fine, but you really don't need to shout it out. - Jowsley, on 08/29/2008, -0/+2That was the point I was trying to get across.
- cquinnd, on 08/29/2008, -0/+2http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
How can you go to your closest federal courthouse to present a case when you are not allowed to discuss why you would need to present a case in the first place? - TheSabre, on 08/29/2008, -1/+2"Stop ***** quoting me on every Digg article about the government."
- Ben - TheSabre, on 08/29/2008, -0/+1Just in case you didn't know, anyone served with an NSL can simply choose to not comply by going to your closest federal courthouse and give a valid reason (i.e. privacy of your customers, etc.). It's not mandatory. It's not a subpoena. If you don't comply, they'll probably subpoena you anyway, but an NSL is nothing more than "Please make our job easier and help us out" request.
- TheSabre, on 08/29/2008, -0/+1I hope you're being satirical in your comment, but if you're serious, would you be able to post that without your "goddamn freedom of speech"?
- PopcornDave, on 08/29/2008, -0/+1Yeah but Pelosico let them do the hostile takeover.
- TheSabre, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1The FBI clearly states that you can go to a court to challenge an NSL if you believe it is unreasonable or oppressive. Although I was mistaken, it must be a US District Court. I'm sure going to a judge to petition your challenge is not blocked via gag order. I'm pretty certain the gag order only applies to media/public release. The Michael Jackson molestation case was under a gag order, does that mean the lawyers weren't able to speak to their clients in court?
One thing I am not sure of right now is whether or not this challenge ability was added after the NSL rework in 2007. It may be a new provision and the original author of that article in 2004 may have indeed been prohibited. Again the NSL process has changed drastically since then. They can no longer be sent out by any Joe Agent working on a case, they have to be approved at a much higher level. That was part of the problem before; there was no internal oversight. - inactive, on 08/29/2008, -0/+1lol
- Midtowner, on 08/29/2008, -0/+1I don't see how the gag order isn't unconstitutional as prior restraint. To not be unconstitutional prior restraint, there would have to be some sort of compelling governmental goal as to that particular order and the gag order would have to be narrowly tailored in order to do just the minimum insofar as restricting the speech.
Here, I think the Judge's question cuts to the heart of the issue -- she wants to know whether terrorists would ever actually be be able to use the knowledge that these NSAs were issued to their benefit. That's the issue here -- whether there's a compelling governmental goal. Divining as much as possible from the question, I would have to guess that the judge isn't buying the FBI's argument. - cquinnd, on 08/29/2008, -0/+1"The FBI has not been here today"
The way you describe it comes across as an urban legend, but it appears to have some truth to the story.
http://archive.mailtribune.com/archive/2005/0303/l ... - LilBambi, on 09/07/2008, -0/+1It didn't start with Bushco and Pelosico ... this was about 100 yrs in the making.
- cquinnd, on 08/31/2008, -0/+1That would depend on the specifics of the gag order, In this case it appears that the gag orders themselves may be overreaching in scope, at least inasmuch as nobody has been able to come forward with details about to what the gag order applies, beyond the article I have linked.
- TheSabre, on 08/29/2008, -0/+1[Citation needed]
- HonoredMule, on 08/29/2008, -0/+1I think it was just a little too subtle.
- inactive, on 08/29/2008, -1/+1I blame the people of the United States of America for this problem. This behavior was not tolerated 30 years ago. If handed a gag order people would have torn it up right in front of their faces; or at very least, told everyone they knew every detail and stand on the corner with a bullhorn. Sure, some might be arrested... but when the majority of people don't back down like predictable cowards, then it gets pretty difficult and expensive to maintain. If they want to twist and taint the law to the point of allowing this behavior, then they should expect people at some point to revolt against it. In this case, the F.B.I. requires the assistance of every day people to facilitate twisting these laws.
If it was for a legitimate national security concern, then it totally makes sense to keep it secret. If not, it should be posted on Digg and many other sites right away in my opinion. - ianuk11, on 12/26/2008, -0/+0nice
http://ukcasinos.weebly.com/ - discofreak, on 08/29/2008, -3/+3I couldn't agree more.
- bkkenny, on 08/28/2008, -2/+1Oh come on, they could have put that last paragraph on the same page!
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A panel of federal appeals court judges pushed a U.S. government lawyer on Wednesday to answer why FBI letters sent out to Internet service providers seeking information should remain secret.
A panel of three judges from the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on whether a provision of the Patriot Act, which requires people who are formally contacted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for information to keep it a secret, is constitutional.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in 2004 on behalf of an undisclosed Internet service provider against the U.S. government challenging the so-called National Security Letters (NSL) as well as gag orders placed on the recipients.
The appeals courts on Wednesday questioned a lawyer representing the U.S. government on whether the FBI violated free speech rights in placing the gag orders.
The government argues they are in place for national security concerns, such as keeping terrorists from learning what they are investigating.
"You can't tell me that any terrorist is going to make anything out of the fact you issued NSLs to AT&T and Verizon," said Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor, using a hypothetical example.
U.S. Assistant Attorney General Gregory Katsas said the FBI "assesses the need for secrecy in each particular case."
Between 2003 and 2006 nearly 200,000 national security letters were sent out. Of those about 97 percent received gag orders.
ACLU lawyer Jameel Jaffer said the gag order had prevented the small Internet service provider the ACLU was representing from speaking out "against an FBI investigation that he believes is illegitimate."
The government is appealing a lower court ruling that said the gag order violated the First Amendment guarantee of free speech and was unconstitutional.
The judges will rule on the issue in the coming months. - zenithmbr, on 08/28/2008, -2/+1you make me sad
- inactive, on 08/28/2008, -2/+0wooooooooooooo
- tummyroad, on 08/28/2008, -4/+0This is the typical type of behavior we have come to expect from modern American society. It is the typical result of a fractured society hell bent on over-reacting to what is in reality a minimal threat. Not to mention the fact that it is run by an administration famed for its lack in competency. Finally, how come they be messin with all by ***** dogs from da hood. I was like, yeah man but you dont gotta be such an ***** all the time and then he was like yeah but the holocaust didnt happen and than i was like yeah but man you just said you was like a massive nazi jew negro with all the things you *****. How come you is callin themz like aluminium masses not disabled crips you ***** you not get with the program or my highway or the way of dem *****. Damn FBI. And I fry my own chicken. Ban me for that, bitch.
- Jowsley, on 08/28/2008, -6/+2When you're going on a fishing trip, you don't want everyone else to know the spots that you plan to fish.
- inactive, on 08/29/2008, -6/+1dude, you're ruining digg
- tummyroad, on 08/29/2008, -6/+0I did not write any of thses comments like honest PLZ DOPNT DELETE ME!
PLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ - inactive, on 08/29/2008, -7/+1This account is hacked, I am no skript kiddie, i am teh pro best haxxxxxor
- inactive, on 08/29/2008, -6/+0DUDE, DIGG!!!!!!!!!!
-
Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is