4 ms·

This 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 fo

• MichaelBurge 10y ago
  That'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 ago
  Right, 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 ago
  There 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.