3 ms·
My point is that the NSL is supposed to be secret, not just for its contents, but the existence of the letter. So, dragging a CEO off publicly would almost cert
by jonlucc 10y ago
My point is that the NSL is supposed to be secret, not just for its contents, but the existence of the letter. So, dragging a CEO off publicly would almost certainly expose the existence of the NSL.
- AnimalMuppet 10y agoIt might expose the existence of an NSL, but not of that NSL. That is: I'm Joe Terrorist. I use, say, GMail. Google gets a thousand NSLs. On at least one of them, they tell the NSA/FBI/CIA/whoever to get lost. Five Google execs get arrested. I, Joe Terrorist, may guess that the arrest is over NSLs. I have no idea whether I am named on one of the NSLs in question, or whether I was on one of the NSLs that Google complied with, or whether I'm still completely under the radar. It might serve to remind me "oh, yeah, that's right, any of those companies can get an NSL and report everything they know about me", but if I'm at all a competent terrorist, that's something I already knew and should be continually remembering.