15 ms·

A Decade-Old Gag Order, Lifted

737 points by mmastrac 11y ago

post_break 11y ago
So how do we see the attachment? Found the link, at the bottom of the article, hidden in the last sentence....... https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/merrill-v-lynch-unredacted-attachment-2004-nsl https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/merrill-v-lynch-unredact...
jacquesm 11y ago
Props to the man for sticking this out for so long. He first point blank refuses to comply, the FBI then withdraws the NSL but keeps the gag order in place and he then fights them for an additional decade to get the gag order lifted. That's tenacity. This reminds me of the Lavabit case, wonder why the one shut down their service and the other managed to simply reject the requests: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit
- tptacek 11y ago
  The Lavabit case was complicated by Ladar Levison's handling of the DOJ's request, and by the fact that his security architecture was "all-or-none" in a way that did not allow him to selectively disclose only the encrypted messages DOJ asked for. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7774823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7774823
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    I see. So he should have simply stonewalled at the very first request, not wait until it dealt with someone he wanted to protect. On the other hand the story above does not relate whether or not there were previous requests there is a passage that indicates that the operator of the service had knowledge of the person involved. "Nick wasn’t sure why the FBI was demanding the information, but he knew a little about the subscriber the FBI was apparently investigating, and he doubted that the investigation was a legitimate one. " He also wondered why the FBI did not involve a judge and in the Lavabit case a judge clearly was involved.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      To protect his users and avoid imprisonment, he would have had to fix both problems: not taunting and slow-rolling the DOJ, and doing that having designed a system that either (a) didn't give him the technical ability to decrypt messages or (b) allowed him to easily do that selectively. The real problem with Lavabit is that it was incompetently designed and made security promises it was flatly and obviously unable to keep. From the transcripts, it seems like Levison tried to represent to the DOJ that his system was stronger than it was, when it was clear to anyone technical that he could easily comply with DOJ's demands. Regarding judges: it may be that Levison happened after reform of the national security letter laws, so that simply as a result of timing, Levison's predicament had to involve a judge. However: even if that hadn't been the case, a judge would have been involved as soon as Levison (or Calyx) refused to comply.
      - jacquesm 11y ago
        I think he agreed with that perspective, otherwise he would not have shut it down, clearly it was not salvageable at that point. Still, in spite of the damage done and the technical flaws that was quite the holding action and I think quite a few companies would have folded and much earlier.
        tptacek 11y ago
        What was the point of his "holding action"? DOJ not only got what it wanted, but, as a result of Levison's hapless attempt to wriggle out of their request, they got Lavabit's TLS keys as well! Had Levison simply complied up front, he'd have held on to the keys, and been able to fold the site up gracefully, losing only the specific account DOJ targeted.
        jacquesm 11y ago
        Panic. When cornered people make strange moves. It's easy enough to look at this rationally after the fact but I'm trying to imagine being in the focal point of such a powerplay and I'm not sure I'd make every move by the book.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- yuhong 11y ago
  Which reminds me that in iMessage, Apple still has the keys but the forward secrecy is enough to exclude it from CALEA because of the "encryption" exception. This of course caused FBI to complain, which among other example of encryption made encryption backdoors a political issue again.
RankingMember 11y ago
I was hoping to see the item they show screenshotted in various states of redaction, but I don't see any link to it. Anyone see one?
- lambda 11y ago
  https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/merrill-v-lynch-unredacted-attachment-2004-nsl https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/merrill-v-lynch-unredact...
  - RankingMember 11y ago
    I meant the other one that they showed screenshots of in various states of redaction.
    - lambda 11y ago
      Isn't that the one I linked to? It's just the final unredacted version, but I don't know how interesting the redactions would be.
emiliobumachar 11y ago
Key quote: "According to the Justice Department’s inspector general, the FBI issued a staggering 143,074 NSLs between 2003 and 2005. And every NSL was accompanied by a categorical and permanent gag order." That's almost one per 2000 americans. I wonder how does this number compare to actual court orders.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  And that's just about 3 years, imagine how high the number must be by now.
- scrollaway 11y ago
  Another key quote: > I found it particularly difficult to be silent about my concerns while Congress was debating the reauthorization of the Patriot Act in 2005 and early 2006. If I hadn't been under a gag order, I would have contacted members of Congress to discuss my experiences and to advocate changes in the law. The inspector general's report confirms that Congress lacked a complete picture of the problem during a critical time: Even though the NSL statute requires the director of the FBI to fully inform members of the House and Senate about all requests issued under the statute, the FBI significantly underrepresented the number of NSL requests in 2003, 2004 and 2005, according to the report.
  - eric_h 11y ago
    Wow - it's astonishing that you can't even speak about NSLs with people who (or at least some of whom) have top secret clearance...
    - caseysoftware 11y ago
      Just because you're cleared in one area/agency doesn't mean you have access to anything of that level or lower. Clearances are entirely need to know. I'm not sure of the rules today, but 10 years ago clearances in some agencies/departments didn't even transfer to other agencies due to differing requirements. (I'm not saying that this system is good, just describing how it works.)
jimrandomh 11y ago
This is reporting that Nick Merrill, who was under a gag order restricting his ability to talk about a subpoena he received in 2004, is no longer gagged. It links to an editorial he wrote (anonymously) about that gag order, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032201882.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03... , in which he writes: > "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." This new article does not disclose who that subscriber was, but the article, and the earlier op-ed, seem to imply that the subscriber's identity alone is enough to suspect an abuse of power. We'll probably hear more about that in the near future, but I'd like to make a prediction. The most likely interpretation is that this was a critic of the FBI or of the US government as a whole, and that the subpoena - which seeks to unmask the subject's identity - would be a prelude to retaliation. The article goes on to describe how the FBI has materially misrepresented its use of National Security Letters to Congress, and that the practice of sending them has twice been struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. By all appearances, a significant chunk of the US law enforcement apparatus has simply gone rogue, stopped respecting Congress and the courts and is instead focused on increasing its own power.
- raquo 11y ago
  > By all appearances, a significant chunk of the US law enforcement apparatus has simply gone rogue, stopped respecting Congress and the courts and is instead focused on increasing its own power. I truly don't understand why nothing is done about that. Why doesn't anyone lose their job over this, let alone go to jail? I mean, I've gotten used to such indifference in Russia, but US seemed like the country that shouldn't tolerate shit like this.
  - cowardlydragon 11y ago
    We are Aldous Huxley's version of totalitarianism, where we are drugged and entertained into submission.
    - 11y ago
mjevans 11y ago
I am once again reminded that the ACLU and EFF are wonderful organizations that attempt to keep the legal system barely sane for everyone else.
- kpennell 11y ago
  Sad that the ACLU operated at a loss last year: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3247 http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary...
profeta 11y ago
now that the gag order is not in place, can we learn who the FBI was spying on? was it legitimate? if not, who approved it? this is a pointless victory unless we use it for accountability.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  They withdrew the request. And presumably the privacy of that individual is still important enough not to disclose these details.
- ars 11y ago
  > can we learn who the FBI was spying on? It seems to me that only that person themself should reveal that, or not, as they choose.
  - cpeterso 11y ago
    But do they even themselves know? Did the gag order prevent Nicholas Merrill from alerting the subscriber? Based on the redacted latter, it appears the subscriber's email address is about 23 or fewer characters. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/4610_001_redactednsl.pdf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/4610_001...
    - rhizome 11y ago
      That could be, but I did notice from the gradual reveals of the NSL that it seems like they have a minimum mark-size, like 1/2", even if (or especially if) it's just one letter.
blahblehbluh 11y ago
Almost all major internet companies have to deal with NSLs. For example: Facebook: https://govtrequests.facebook.com/country/United%20States/2015-H1/ https://govtrequests.facebook.com/country/United%20States/20... Google: https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US/ https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/U... Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/transparency https://www.dropbox.com/transparency More could be found at: https://www.accessnow.org/pages/transparency-reporting-index https://www.accessnow.org/pages/transparency-reporting-index
tracker1 11y ago
This is part of why the ACLU, EFF and NRA are the institutions I'm most in favor of donating to. The encroachment of civil liberties, increasingly intrusive actions from our own government and the like are getting pretty rediculous.
- peteretep 11y ago
  > ACLU, EFF and NRA I consider my neighbour being able to own an assault rifle as an encroachment of my civil liberties.
  - ItsDeathball 11y ago
    How does that even process? Sure, if your neighbor is firing off rounds in the street, that's an encroachment, but your neighbor simply owning a thing you morally disagree with in no way affects you. If your neighbor keeps an AR-15 in a locked cabinet and takes it down to the range for weekend target shooting, how would you even know? Edit: I really should have taken note of your spelling of "neighbour". This post was written under the assumption that both of you have a constitutionally protected right to bear arms.
    - peteretep 11y ago
      I disagree with my neighbour being able to keep anthrax-infected sheep on her property too, no matter that she tells me she's got a super safe pen for them, and really prefers the taste. Although admittedly I wouldn't know until she gets raided by the CDC or accidentally the whole nearby biosphere.
      - tracker1 11y ago
        Firearms don't walk out of a gun safe under their own power.
        peteretep 11y ago
        And yet somehow every gun that's ever been used in a mass homicide has found its way out of a gun safe.
Estragon 11y ago
The only plausible presidential candidate who'll put a stop to these kinds of abuses is Bernie Sanders. Be sure to vote for him in your Democratic Primary.
- cvwright 11y ago
  Isn't Rand Paul also making similar promises on the Republican side?
  - pheroden 11y ago
    He said plausible.
    - icelancer 11y ago
      Which makes neither of the candidates relevant.
- peteretep 11y ago
  If you don't think Clinton has the desire for privacy burned deeply in to her core, you haven't been following the news.
  - ionised 11y ago
    Her own privacy. Pretty sure she doesn't give a shit about the privacy of the average schmo in the street.
yuhong 11y ago
Full resolution image with text readable is at https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/styles/blog_main_wide_580x384/public/field_image/web15-blog-doc1-1160x768.jpg https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/styles/blog_main_wi...
duanesmithla79 11y ago
Gag orders are like ancient laws (e.g. no horses allowed in front of church); they just stay on the books until somebody notices.
kpennell 11y ago
Just a reminder to donate: The ACLU operated at a loss of 18 million last year: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3247 http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary... Donate: https://www.aclu.org/donate/join-renew-give https://www.aclu.org/donate/join-renew-give
samclearman 11y ago
This stuff is much worse than NSA data collection. Gag orders are evil, and secret courts are even worse. I really wish people would stop worrying about government surveillance - who cares what people know about you? - and start worrying about this instead.
shmerl 11y ago
A pity crowdfunding for Calyx ISP failed: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-calyx-institute#/ https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-calyx-institute#/ I'm still puzzled why so few people cared. In today's techno-social climate, it should go like hot cakes.
fhdaily 11y ago
http://www.fundinghunt.co/posts/J7uMAZRJhP79dEwbB/bill-gates-and-mark-zuckerberg-join-tech-moguls-to-fund http://www.fundinghunt.co/posts/J7uMAZRJhP79dEwbB/bill-gates...
bitwize 11y ago
A lot of people opine that instead of the Global War on Terra we should treat terrorism strictly as a concern for law enforcement. However, the LE attitude to the terrorism problem is "we can't wait until crimes have been committed to start making arrests; we have to identify and neutralize potential terrorists before they do something awful". And, absent a Minority Report pre-crime unit, this is where we end up: with the FBI aggressively and warrantlessly sniffing around, looking for a terrorist under every rock, and even falling on the wrong side of the sting/entrapment divide and goading people it thinks might be terrorists into participating in fake terror schemes to round them up. I don't have any ready solutions to the terrorism problem, but it seems as if leaving it to the military, intelligence community, or law enforcement each comes with its own set of severe drawbacks which undermine human rights.
golergka 11y ago
1) Journalists say that the identity of the FBI's target imply the abuse of power 2) Ten years later, all legal restrictions are removed 3) The identity of the person, which was supposed to prove that FBI's actions were abuse of power, is still not released Why?

737 points by mmastrac 11y ago

So how do we see the attachment? Found the link, at the bottom of the article, hidden in the last sentence....... https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/merrill-v-lynch-unredacted-attachment-2004-nsl https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/merrill-v-lynch-unredact...

jacquesm 11y ago

Props to the man for sticking this out for so long. He first point blank refuses to comply, the FBI then withdraws the NSL but keeps the gag order in place and he then fights them for an additional decade to get the gag order lifted. That's tenacity. This reminds me of the Lavabit case, wonder why the one shut down their service and the other managed to simply reject the requests: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit

tptacek 11y ago
The Lavabit case was complicated by Ladar Levison's handling of the DOJ's request, and by the fact that his security architecture was "all-or-none" in a way that did not allow him to selectively disclose only the encrypted messages DOJ asked for. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7774823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7774823
- jacquesm 11y ago
  I see. So he should have simply stonewalled at the very first request, not wait until it dealt with someone he wanted to protect. On the other hand the story above does not relate whether or not there were previous requests there is a passage that indicates that the operator of the service had knowledge of the person involved. "Nick wasn’t sure why the FBI was demanding the information, but he knew a little about the subscriber the FBI was apparently investigating, and he doubted that the investigation was a legitimate one. " He also wondered why the FBI did not involve a judge and in the Lavabit case a judge clearly was involved.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    To protect his users and avoid imprisonment, he would have had to fix both problems: not taunting and slow-rolling the DOJ, and doing that having designed a system that either (a) didn't give him the technical ability to decrypt messages or (b) allowed him to easily do that selectively. The real problem with Lavabit is that it was incompetently designed and made security promises it was flatly and obviously unable to keep. From the transcripts, it seems like Levison tried to represent to the DOJ that his system was stronger than it was, when it was clear to anyone technical that he could easily comply with DOJ's demands. Regarding judges: it may be that Levison happened after reform of the national security letter laws, so that simply as a result of timing, Levison's predicament had to involve a judge. However: even if that hadn't been the case, a judge would have been involved as soon as Levison (or Calyx) refused to comply.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      I think he agreed with that perspective, otherwise he would not have shut it down, clearly it was not salvageable at that point. Still, in spite of the damage done and the technical flaws that was quite the holding action and I think quite a few companies would have folded and much earlier.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        What was the point of his "holding action"? DOJ not only got what it wanted, but, as a result of Levison's hapless attempt to wriggle out of their request, they got Lavabit's TLS keys as well! Had Levison simply complied up front, he'd have held on to the keys, and been able to fold the site up gracefully, losing only the specific account DOJ targeted.
        jacquesm 11y ago
        Panic. When cornered people make strange moves. It's easy enough to look at this rationally after the fact but I'm trying to imagine being in the focal point of such a powerplay and I'm not sure I'd make every move by the book.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
yuhong 11y ago
Which reminds me that in iMessage, Apple still has the keys but the forward secrecy is enough to exclude it from CALEA because of the "encryption" exception. This of course caused FBI to complain, which among other example of encryption made encryption backdoors a political issue again.

RankingMember 11y ago

I was hoping to see the item they show screenshotted in various states of redaction, but I don't see any link to it. Anyone see one?

lambda 11y ago
https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/merrill-v-lynch-unredacted-attachment-2004-nsl https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/merrill-v-lynch-unredact...
- RankingMember 11y ago
  I meant the other one that they showed screenshots of in various states of redaction.
  - lambda 11y ago
    Isn't that the one I linked to? It's just the final unredacted version, but I don't know how interesting the redactions would be.

emiliobumachar 11y ago

Key quote: "According to the Justice Department’s inspector general, the FBI issued a staggering 143,074 NSLs between 2003 and 2005. And every NSL was accompanied by a categorical and permanent gag order." That's almost one per 2000 americans. I wonder how does this number compare to actual court orders.

jacquesm 11y ago
And that's just about 3 years, imagine how high the number must be by now.
scrollaway 11y ago
Another key quote: > I found it particularly difficult to be silent about my concerns while Congress was debating the reauthorization of the Patriot Act in 2005 and early 2006. If I hadn't been under a gag order, I would have contacted members of Congress to discuss my experiences and to advocate changes in the law. The inspector general's report confirms that Congress lacked a complete picture of the problem during a critical time: Even though the NSL statute requires the director of the FBI to fully inform members of the House and Senate about all requests issued under the statute, the FBI significantly underrepresented the number of NSL requests in 2003, 2004 and 2005, according to the report.
- eric_h 11y ago
  Wow - it's astonishing that you can't even speak about NSLs with people who (or at least some of whom) have top secret clearance...
  - caseysoftware 11y ago
    Just because you're cleared in one area/agency doesn't mean you have access to anything of that level or lower. Clearances are entirely need to know. I'm not sure of the rules today, but 10 years ago clearances in some agencies/departments didn't even transfer to other agencies due to differing requirements. (I'm not saying that this system is good, just describing how it works.)

jimrandomh 11y ago

This is reporting that Nick Merrill, who was under a gag order restricting his ability to talk about a subpoena he received in 2004, is no longer gagged. It links to an editorial he wrote (anonymously) about that gag order, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032201882.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03... , in which he writes: > "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." This new article does not disclose who that subscriber was, but the article, and the earlier op-ed, seem to imply that the subscriber's identity alone is enough to suspect an abuse of power. We'll probably hear more about that in the near future, but I'd like to make a prediction. The most likely interpretation is that this was a critic of the FBI or of the US government as a whole, and that the subpoena - which seeks to unmask the subject's identity - would be a prelude to retaliation. The article goes on to describe how the FBI has materially misrepresented its use of National Security Letters to Congress, and that the practice of sending them has twice been struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. By all appearances, a significant chunk of the US law enforcement apparatus has simply gone rogue, stopped respecting Congress and the courts and is instead focused on increasing its own power.

raquo 11y ago
> By all appearances, a significant chunk of the US law enforcement apparatus has simply gone rogue, stopped respecting Congress and the courts and is instead focused on increasing its own power. I truly don't understand why nothing is done about that. Why doesn't anyone lose their job over this, let alone go to jail? I mean, I've gotten used to such indifference in Russia, but US seemed like the country that shouldn't tolerate shit like this.
- cowardlydragon 11y ago
  We are Aldous Huxley's version of totalitarianism, where we are drugged and entertained into submission.
  - 11y ago

mjevans 11y ago

I am once again reminded that the ACLU and EFF are wonderful organizations that attempt to keep the legal system barely sane for everyone else.

kpennell 11y ago
Sad that the ACLU operated at a loss last year: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3247 http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary...

profeta 11y ago

now that the gag order is not in place, can we learn who the FBI was spying on? was it legitimate? if not, who approved it? this is a pointless victory unless we use it for accountability.

jacquesm 11y ago
They withdrew the request. And presumably the privacy of that individual is still important enough not to disclose these details.
ars 11y ago
> can we learn who the FBI was spying on? It seems to me that only that person themself should reveal that, or not, as they choose.
- cpeterso 11y ago
  But do they even themselves know? Did the gag order prevent Nicholas Merrill from alerting the subscriber? Based on the redacted latter, it appears the subscriber's email address is about 23 or fewer characters. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/4610_001_redactednsl.pdf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/4610_001...
  - rhizome 11y ago
    That could be, but I did notice from the gradual reveals of the NSL that it seems like they have a minimum mark-size, like 1/2", even if (or especially if) it's just one letter.

blahblehbluh 11y ago

Almost all major internet companies have to deal with NSLs. For example: Facebook: https://govtrequests.facebook.com/country/United%20States/2015-H1/ https://govtrequests.facebook.com/country/United%20States/20... Google: https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US/ https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/U... Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/transparency https://www.dropbox.com/transparency More could be found at: https://www.accessnow.org/pages/transparency-reporting-index https://www.accessnow.org/pages/transparency-reporting-index

tracker1 11y ago

This is part of why the ACLU, EFF and NRA are the institutions I'm most in favor of donating to. The encroachment of civil liberties, increasingly intrusive actions from our own government and the like are getting pretty rediculous.

peteretep 11y ago
> ACLU, EFF and NRA I consider my neighbour being able to own an assault rifle as an encroachment of my civil liberties.
- ItsDeathball 11y ago
  How does that even process? Sure, if your neighbor is firing off rounds in the street, that's an encroachment, but your neighbor simply owning a thing you morally disagree with in no way affects you. If your neighbor keeps an AR-15 in a locked cabinet and takes it down to the range for weekend target shooting, how would you even know? Edit: I really should have taken note of your spelling of "neighbour". This post was written under the assumption that both of you have a constitutionally protected right to bear arms.
  - peteretep 11y ago
    I disagree with my neighbour being able to keep anthrax-infected sheep on her property too, no matter that she tells me she's got a super safe pen for them, and really prefers the taste. Although admittedly I wouldn't know until she gets raided by the CDC or accidentally the whole nearby biosphere.
    - tracker1 11y ago
      Firearms don't walk out of a gun safe under their own power.
      - peteretep 11y ago
        And yet somehow every gun that's ever been used in a mass homicide has found its way out of a gun safe.

Estragon 11y ago

The only plausible presidential candidate who'll put a stop to these kinds of abuses is Bernie Sanders. Be sure to vote for him in your Democratic Primary.

cvwright 11y ago
Isn't Rand Paul also making similar promises on the Republican side?
- pheroden 11y ago
  He said plausible.
  - icelancer 11y ago
    Which makes neither of the candidates relevant.
peteretep 11y ago
If you don't think Clinton has the desire for privacy burned deeply in to her core, you haven't been following the news.
- ionised 11y ago
  Her own privacy. Pretty sure she doesn't give a shit about the privacy of the average schmo in the street.

yuhong 11y ago

Full resolution image with text readable is at https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/styles/blog_main_wide_580x384/public/field_image/web15-blog-doc1-1160x768.jpg https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/styles/blog_main_wi...

duanesmithla79 11y ago

Gag orders are like ancient laws (e.g. no horses allowed in front of church); they just stay on the books until somebody notices.

kpennell 11y ago

Just a reminder to donate: The ACLU operated at a loss of 18 million last year: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3247 http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary... Donate: https://www.aclu.org/donate/join-renew-give https://www.aclu.org/donate/join-renew-give

samclearman 11y ago

This stuff is much worse than NSA data collection. Gag orders are evil, and secret courts are even worse. I really wish people would stop worrying about government surveillance - who cares what people know about you? - and start worrying about this instead.

shmerl 11y ago

A pity crowdfunding for Calyx ISP failed: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-calyx-institute#/ https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-calyx-institute#/ I'm still puzzled why so few people cared. In today's techno-social climate, it should go like hot cakes.

fhdaily 11y ago

http://www.fundinghunt.co/posts/J7uMAZRJhP79dEwbB/bill-gates-and-mark-zuckerberg-join-tech-moguls-to-fund http://www.fundinghunt.co/posts/J7uMAZRJhP79dEwbB/bill-gates...

bitwize 11y ago

A lot of people opine that instead of the Global War on Terra we should treat terrorism strictly as a concern for law enforcement. However, the LE attitude to the terrorism problem is "we can't wait until crimes have been committed to start making arrests; we have to identify and neutralize potential terrorists before they do something awful". And, absent a Minority Report pre-crime unit, this is where we end up: with the FBI aggressively and warrantlessly sniffing around, looking for a terrorist under every rock, and even falling on the wrong side of the sting/entrapment divide and goading people it thinks might be terrorists into participating in fake terror schemes to round them up. I don't have any ready solutions to the terrorism problem, but it seems as if leaving it to the military, intelligence community, or law enforcement each comes with its own set of severe drawbacks which undermine human rights.

golergka 11y ago

1) Journalists say that the identity of the FBI's target imply the abuse of power 2) Ten years later, all legal restrictions are removed 3) The identity of the person, which was supposed to prove that FBI's actions were abuse of power, is still not released Why?