4 ms·

My understanding is they are served simultaneously, so you do not have that luxury.

by otp124 8y ago

eganist 8y ago
If that were the case, the concept of a warrant canary would have died long ago in court. A gag order doesn't compel you to lie; it compels you not to talk about the topic in question. Removing a statement testifying to no NSL is in compliance with a gag order.
- otp124 8y ago
  Wow, did you downvote me for adding to the conversation? Here are sources that disagree with you and align with my previous comment. You should provide sources next time. > A judge does not have to approve the NSL or an accompanying gag order. https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters/faq https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters/faq > The letters come with a life-long gag order, so businesses that receive such letters are prohibited from revealing to anyone, including customers who may be under investigation, that the government has requested records of transactions. https://www.wired.com/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-lifted/#ixzz0wcPM40Dg https://www.wired.com/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-lifted/#ixzz0wcP... > NSLs are almost exclusively served in secret alongside an indefinite gag order, which prevents anyone from disclosing the contents of the letter to anyone. https://www.zdnet.com/article/national-security-letters-everything-you-need-to-know/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/national-security-letters-ever... > Since the first national security letter (NSL) statute was passed in 1986 and then dramatically expanded under the USA PATRIOT Act, the FBI has issued hundreds of thousands of such letters seeking the private telecommunications and financial records of Americans without any prior approval from courts. In addition to this immense investigatory power, NSL statutes also permit the FBI to unilaterally gag recipients and prevent them from criticizing such actions publicly. This combination of powers — to investigate and to silence — has coalesced to permit the FBI to wield enormous power and to operate without meaningful checks, far from the watchful eyes of the judicial branch. Not surprisingly, this lack of checks has contributed to a dramatic expansion in the use of these tools across the country. Indeed, for the period between 2003 and 2006 alone, almost 200,000 requests for private customer information were sought pursuant to various NSL statutes. https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters
  - jsight 8y ago
    I think that you are getting downvoted because people don't understand what you are trying to say. I don't understand it either. Yes, the NSL and gag order are effectively one and the same. However, the point of these "warrant canaries" is that they don't have to talk about the request to let people know that they have likely received one. They simply remove their existing statement that they have never previously seen one. The theory is that the government cannot compel you to continue to make a statement now that it is false and your removal doesn't technically constitute a disclosure of the NSL. AFAIK, this theory has never been tested in court.
- pas 8y ago
  > If that were the case, the concept of a warrant canary would have died long ago in court. Was it ever challenged? If not, you can't say anything about them. Probably FBI/NSA/et-al simply did not care if there was no real disclosure.
dannyw 8y ago
What I mean is: Before you have received any NSL, you are not bound by any gag order. (Because they come together). So, before you have received any NSLs, you can say you received 0 NSL. (I did not downvote you).
- pas 8y ago
  But then you are basically compelled to lie, otherwise you'd violate the gag order. If the gag order would only prohibit the disclosure of the contents, then businesses could simply show the list of NSLs received (basically the date and time of when they got it and when they complied with it).
  - nashashmi 8y ago
    Umm. So what I am understanding is that statement 1 "I have not received any NSL" is a true statement 100% of the way and they can say it for as long as they do not receive any NSL. The moment they recv an NSL, they cannot say statement 1 anymore. So they say something different... not sure what that is.
    - Uberphallus 8y ago
      They remove that statement. Basically people can know what happened running a diff between reports.

My understanding is they are served simultaneously, so you do not have that luxury.

by otp124 8y ago

My understanding is they are served simultaneously, so you do not have that luxury.

If that were the case, the concept of a warrant canary would have died long ago in court. A gag order doesn't compel you to lie; it compels you not to talk about the topic in question. Removing a statement testifying to no NSL is in compliance with a gag order.

otp124 8y ago
Wow, did you downvote me for adding to the conversation? Here are sources that disagree with you and align with my previous comment. You should provide sources next time. > A judge does not have to approve the NSL or an accompanying gag order. https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters/faq https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters/faq > The letters come with a life-long gag order, so businesses that receive such letters are prohibited from revealing to anyone, including customers who may be under investigation, that the government has requested records of transactions. https://www.wired.com/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-lifted/#ixzz0wcPM40Dg https://www.wired.com/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-lifted/#ixzz0wcP... > NSLs are almost exclusively served in secret alongside an indefinite gag order, which prevents anyone from disclosing the contents of the letter to anyone. https://www.zdnet.com/article/national-security-letters-everything-you-need-to-know/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/national-security-letters-ever... > Since the first national security letter (NSL) statute was passed in 1986 and then dramatically expanded under the USA PATRIOT Act, the FBI has issued hundreds of thousands of such letters seeking the private telecommunications and financial records of Americans without any prior approval from courts. In addition to this immense investigatory power, NSL statutes also permit the FBI to unilaterally gag recipients and prevent them from criticizing such actions publicly. This combination of powers — to investigate and to silence — has coalesced to permit the FBI to wield enormous power and to operate without meaningful checks, far from the watchful eyes of the judicial branch. Not surprisingly, this lack of checks has contributed to a dramatic expansion in the use of these tools across the country. Indeed, for the period between 2003 and 2006 alone, almost 200,000 requests for private customer information were sought pursuant to various NSL statutes. https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters
- jsight 8y ago
  I think that you are getting downvoted because people don't understand what you are trying to say. I don't understand it either. Yes, the NSL and gag order are effectively one and the same. However, the point of these "warrant canaries" is that they don't have to talk about the request to let people know that they have likely received one. They simply remove their existing statement that they have never previously seen one. The theory is that the government cannot compel you to continue to make a statement now that it is false and your removal doesn't technically constitute a disclosure of the NSL. AFAIK, this theory has never been tested in court.
pas 8y ago
> If that were the case, the concept of a warrant canary would have died long ago in court. Was it ever challenged? If not, you can't say anything about them. Probably FBI/NSA/et-al simply did not care if there was no real disclosure.

dannyw 8y ago

What I mean is: Before you have received any NSL, you are not bound by any gag order. (Because they come together). So, before you have received any NSLs, you can say you received 0 NSL. (I did not downvote you).

pas 8y ago
But then you are basically compelled to lie, otherwise you'd violate the gag order. If the gag order would only prohibit the disclosure of the contents, then businesses could simply show the list of NSLs received (basically the date and time of when they got it and when they complied with it).
- nashashmi 8y ago
  Umm. So what I am understanding is that statement 1 "I have not received any NSL" is a true statement 100% of the way and they can say it for as long as they do not receive any NSL. The moment they recv an NSL, they cannot say statement 1 anymore. So they say something different... not sure what that is.
  - Uberphallus 8y ago
    They remove that statement. Basically people can know what happened running a diff between reports.