10 ms·
Yahoo Announces Public Disclosure of National Security Letters
- reustle 10y agoIt looks like they immediately removed them? From the bottom: > Note: The letters we released have been redacted to protect the identities of the FBI agents involved in the investigations, our own personnel, and the Yahoo users affected by the NSLs. The affected users received notice of the NSLs directly from us under our User Notice Policy.
- dlgeek 10y agoWhat? They're there, you just have to click the very first link. They just blanked out a section of the PDF.
- ergothus 10y ago"redacted" in this case meaning that certain specific information IN the material have removed/blacked out. The rest of the NSL contents are visible.
- bobbles 10y ago'redacted' implies only a segment of the content has been removed, not the entire docs.
- discardorama 10y agoDirect link to the NSLs: https://s.yimg.com/ge/tyc/Redacted_NSLs.pdf https://s.yimg.com/ge/tyc/Redacted_NSLs.pdf
- egwor 10y agothat includes the persons DOB. I wonder what would happen if the individual had used the wrong DOB when creating the request. Could (should?) yahoo say 'That doesn't match our records' and require a new request?
- ryanlol 10y agoThere is no connection made between the name/DOB/address combo and the email address. If Yahoo only found records matching the email address, then they'd still have to provide those.
- whamlastxmas 10y agoInteresting that NSLs don't get the content or subject line of emails. I was under the impression they could get every last scrap of data from anyone with one of these.
- rasz_pl 10y ago>FBI is now required to periodically assess whether an NSL’s >nondisclosure requirement is still appropriate, and to lift >it when not This is not an act of civil disobedience, FBI let them release this information.
- comex 10y agoNobody said it was.
- greglindahl 10y agoThe Internet Archive (helped by EFF) got one disclosed in 2008: https://www.eff.org/cases/archive-v-mukasey https://www.eff.org/cases/archive-v-mukasey https://www.eff.org/document/national-security-letter-internet-archive https://www.eff.org/document/national-security-letter-intern... Yahoo's claiming "This marks the first time any company has been able to publicly acknowledge receiving an NSL as a result of the reforms of the USA Freedom Act." -- which is kind of true, in that IA got one released before the reforms!
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- morgante 10y agoFor an even more technical truth, IA is not a company.
- cjak 10y agoTechnically correct, the best type of correct.
- woodman 10y agoTechnically it is, colloquially it isn't.
- dragonwriter 10y agoActually, IA is both a company and a corporation. Its legally a charitable non-profit corporation, but that's a specific kinds of company, not a not-a-company. So, your "technical truth" isn't.
- morgante 10y agoWell, I agree that IA is a corporation as that is a legal structure. Technically a "company" has to be commercial in nature, at least if you go by the dictionary definition. This is entirely too pedantic though, and it rather upsets me that people feel the need to down vote this.
- eps 10y agoThis makes zero difference. So apparently the same people, who gag you, sometimes at their discretion may remove the gag. The only thing the law requires is for them to consider doing that.
- MichaelBurge 10y agoThat's actually important. If maintaining the letters requires some nonzero effort, they'll want to weigh maintaining letters with other things they could be doing with their budget. I'm not sure if they have to be reapproved by a judge each time. If that's the case, then on average it seems like you'd have greater churn on the letters. And even if there's a near-100% approval rate while investigating, it seems harder to argue to a judge as the years go on. It won't help if Edward Snowden was the target of your letters, of course.
- rtpg 10y agoRight, and the companies can sue if they believe that the gag is no longer necessary. It provides a real legal argument for legal action, instead of nebulous moral arguments. Rule of law can help as well as hinder.
- insickness 10y agoThere should be an automatic expiration date, say 90 days, after which the FBI would need to get another gag order. As it is now, the FBI gets unlimited secrecy until proven secrecy is not necessary. Instead, the burden of proof of the necessity of secrecy should remain on the FBI.
- kriro 10y ago"""You are directed to provide records responsive to this letter electronically to the FBI within 21 business day(s) of receipt of this letter""" I wonder how the exchange takes place? There's no mention of encrypted mail or anything just an additional note that regular mail and non-secure fax are not secure enough. They also seem to have a template of sorts as indicated by the day(s) and the phrasing when it comes to accounting periods vs. 1st to 1st. I wonder if you can forge (or possibly man in the middle) such a request (there's no digital signature of the letter I suppose). You'd need to set up a fake agent persona with phone number and fake signature. For a criminal organization that doesn't seem to be an unreasonable afford.
- ryanlol 10y ago>I wonder if you can forge (or possibly man in the middle) such a request (there's no digital signature of the letter I suppose). You'd need to set up a fake agent persona with phone number and fake signature. For a criminal organization that doesn't seem to be an unreasonable afford. Using fake subpoenas to dox people on IRC seems to be a regular thing, I don't see why not NSLs. (Besides the fact that NSLs might actually receive some scrutiny, so they're probably the inferior choice there) Most people will just comply straight away.
- nxzero 10y agoStill amazed to this day that a guy created fake FBI Google listings, proxied the calls to the FBI, recorded the calls, told the FBI, and nothing happened.
- goostavos 10y agoWhoa, what? Link to this story?
- ymse 10y agoDDG dug up these: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3930/20140303/heres-how-a-hacker-used-fake-google-maps-listings-to-record-calls-of-fbi-and-secret-services.htm http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3930/20140303/heres-how-a-... http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/28/5458610/fake-google-maps-listings-recorded-calls-to-the-fbi-secret-service http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/28/5458610/fake-google-maps-l...
- venomsnake 10y agoI love how their demands are just repaste verbatim of the parts of the law that grants them authority.
- voxic11 10y agoNo need to give the judge a reason to throw it out on grounds its demands exceeded the requirements of the law.
- venomsnake 10y agoMy point was the opposite - that they always exercise their authority to the maximum. Not a single thought spared on restraint or precision.
- tonygrue 10y agoI had to do a double take on the third letter after reading the return address of Microsoft Way. At first I thought Microsoft was issuing NSLs. Turns out the FBI and Microsoft happen to be next door neighbors in Charlotte. I feel like Microsoft ought to consider giving up the street name.
- netsharc 10y agoAmazon and DHL in Germany occupy 2 halves of the same huge warehouse, obviously because Amazon uses them for delivery. Maybe there's some sort of cooperation with the two in Charlotte as well.
- justaman 10y agoThe worlds most popular operating system and a government's investigation organization. Yes.
- ComodoHacker 10y agoFun fact: these documents was properly redacted by Yahoo. Unlike some PDFs we've seen previously released by NSA (IIRC), which had just black rectangles drawn over the content.
- Inconel 10y agoWould you mind explaining the significance of this to me? What does properly redacted mean as opposed to drawing black rectangles over the content? Am I correct in assuming that if done improperly the content underneath can be reconstructed?
- misnome 10y agoIn the past there have been instances where e.g. the Microsoft Word highlight tool has been used to... highlight the paragraph in black, which obviously visibly hides the text but not removing it (unless only published as an image). Drawing a box directly onto a PDF without re-rasterizing it (or explicitly removing the text from the pdf data) achieves the same effect.
- Inconel 10y agoThanks for the explanation.
- rocky1138 10y agoThe fact that this is called the "USA Freedom Act" tells you everything you need to know.
- ramblenode 10y agoAm I mistaken or does it look as though these letters were typed on typewriters? Please tell me I'm wrong...
- jakub_g 10y agoLooks more like low quality / highly compressed scan but I might be wrong. Anyway, typewriter is not a bad idea, probably more secure than any computer with internet connection or USB port ;)
- em3rgent0rdr 10y ago"John A. Strong" - Special Agent in Charge. reminds me of Special Agent Force. :P
- DigitalJack 10y agoAre they actually written with a typewriter? I thought maybe a daisy wheel, but some of the pages are crooked which wouldn't happen like that in a daisy wheel printer.
- dragonwriter 10y agoA friction-feed daisy wheel printer can end up with crooked sheet from feeding irregularities, much like a typewriter.
- otterley 10y agoThey were most likely FAXed in, and the paper was misaligned when it was sent from the FBI office to Yahoo!.
- thinkMOAR 10y agoAnnounces disclosure, reads to me, 'giving government bit more time for another gag order or lawsuit' Just disclose it already.
- CDokolas 10y agoIt seems that the redacted text at the top left of every non-letterheaded page is probably "File No.NSL-XX-XXXXXX" (where the Xs stand for the actual numbers). The file/ref number is at the first page, under the FBI logo and is also mentioned at the end of the letter, for use instead of the letter's details. So, why redact it?
- Sephr 10y agoSemi-unrelated. I don't understand how the FBI can require companies to say "0-499" when companies could previously have said "0". It's already obvious that it means that they have received 1-499 (otherwise it wouldn't be an NSL-limited range in the first place), but what happens if you were to do something like the following? All you have to do in your initial transparency report (before receiving any NSLs) is to just straight-up say "We have received zero NSLs. If in the future we only indicate that we have received a possible range of NSLs, that means we have recieved at least one NSL". It's already obvious to most people, but would explicitly stating that to your users (before actually receiving any NSLs) be "pre-contempt"?
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y agoAnother issue: once you've received an NSL, can you, in future, report that you've received no NSLs for certain periods, or must you still use the 0-499 thing?
- dublinben 10y agoIANAL, but I believe you are allowed to offer either quarterly or semiannual updates to your NSL amounts. Anything more specific than that would not be allowed.
- dragonwriter 10y agoNo, because if you say zero and say that you will use a range if you have recurved an then disclosing a range itself violates the nondisclosure order of there particular NSL received. Explicitly arranging a coded signal to disclosure specific information in advance and then sending that signal doesn't evade laws that prohibit disclosing the information. There's no problem with the proper statement though, the problem is when you follow through with it.
- pdq 10y agoThis is called a warrant canary. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary
- ISL 10y agoDo the targets of the NSLs now have standing to file suits?
- hashkb 10y agoThis is a funny joke.
- kodablah 10y agoIs it? Have there been any suits/appeals dismissed based on a lack of standing due to an NSL being inadmissible? Or has there been any dismissal for other reasons (e.g. national security reasons) that might now be able to be revisited now that some NSLs are becoming public record?
- dublinben 10y agoIt would be impossible to prove that you are the subject of an NSL, because that information is never released publicly or acknowledged in court.
- sandworm101 10y agoAre real agents signing these? "Mr. Freese" and "John Strong" read like character names. Are these aliases?
- yompers888 10y agoA quick LinkedIn search shows a Donald Freese who seems to be fairly high-ranking in the FBI.
- sandworm101 10y agoBut he is still only a piece of paper away from being Doctor Freeze working alongside Captain Strong out to foil terrorists on behalf of SHIELD.
- yompers888 10y agoAnd Mr Strong https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/john-a.-strong-named-special-agent-in-charge-of-charlotte-division https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/john-a.-str...