4 ms·

I also learned a lot and some of the employees made great points. I’m wondering, can the US government legally issue a National Security Letter to an individua

I also learned a lot and some of the employees made great points. I’m wondering, can the US government legally issue a National Security Letter to an individual employee that forces them to comply and spy for them? If they can, does this also mean the employee has no legal recourse since NSLs must be kept secret?

cjbprime 7y ago
Arguably all of this has already happened, with the Lavabit case.
dodobirdlord 7y ago
> If they can, does this also mean the employee has no legal recourse since NSLs must be kept secret? No, because that would be unconstitutional. But the proceedings of objecting to a NSL similarly must be kept secret. There wouldn't be any point to the secret component of a NSL if the recipient could object and hash out the merits of the request in public court records.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- pinkfoot 7y ago
  So how would anyone ever know that the objection was 1) heard, and 2) upheld?
  - K0SM0S 7y ago
    Welcome to the wonderfully paradoxical task of organizing and controlling secret services and jurisdictions in an otherwise democratic state. Most countries do it by subordinating secret agencies to a military division of sorts, wherein martial courts and security access is already structural. Others choose a more 'civilian' approach subordinated to a parallel chain of command within the citizen government/legislation/judiciary — closer to police, interior dpt / homeland security, etc. (in such cases, army intelligence is usually quite distinct from civilian surveillance). Which approach is favored historically by a country typically depends on pre-existing constitutional models and principles — notably how the army features relatively to the ultimate civilian chain of command, and how the latter is accountable to the (sovereign) public in the event of treason. None of this applies in authoritarian regimes where the ruling caste or figure(s) usually answer to no principle (no courts for them, only 'advisors' for they sit above the law) and secret service is almost always directly answering to them, as part of the active coercion of the people (fear of the "enemy within", etc).
jsjohnst 7y ago
> can the US government legally issue a National Security Letter to an individual employee that forces them to comply and spy for them? I don’t have a link I can share at the moment to prove this (I’ll update this comment if I find one), but at least in the case of an employee with a security clearance, it is my understanding they can be forced to comply with a US Government order without the ability to inform anyone at their employer (including corporate legal staff). I’m not clear if this order would have to come as an NSL or via another channel.

cjbprime 7y ago

Arguably all of this has already happened, with the Lavabit case.

dodobirdlord 7y ago

> If they can, does this also mean the employee has no legal recourse since NSLs must be kept secret? No, because that would be unconstitutional. But the proceedings of objecting to a NSL similarly must be kept secret. There wouldn't be any point to the secret component of a NSL if the recipient could object and hash out the merits of the request in public court records.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
pinkfoot 7y ago
So how would anyone ever know that the objection was 1) heard, and 2) upheld?
- K0SM0S 7y ago
  Welcome to the wonderfully paradoxical task of organizing and controlling secret services and jurisdictions in an otherwise democratic state. Most countries do it by subordinating secret agencies to a military division of sorts, wherein martial courts and security access is already structural. Others choose a more 'civilian' approach subordinated to a parallel chain of command within the citizen government/legislation/judiciary — closer to police, interior dpt / homeland security, etc. (in such cases, army intelligence is usually quite distinct from civilian surveillance). Which approach is favored historically by a country typically depends on pre-existing constitutional models and principles — notably how the army features relatively to the ultimate civilian chain of command, and how the latter is accountable to the (sovereign) public in the event of treason. None of this applies in authoritarian regimes where the ruling caste or figure(s) usually answer to no principle (no courts for them, only 'advisors' for they sit above the law) and secret service is almost always directly answering to them, as part of the active coercion of the people (fear of the "enemy within", etc).

jsjohnst 7y ago

> can the US government legally issue a National Security Letter to an individual employee that forces them to comply and spy for them? I don’t have a link I can share at the moment to prove this (I’ll update this comment if I find one), but at least in the case of an employee with a security clearance, it is my understanding they can be forced to comply with a US Government order without the ability to inform anyone at their employer (including corporate legal staff). I’m not clear if this order would have to come as an NSL or via another channel.