4 ms·
National Security Letter: loophole?
It's been widely publicized that if one receives a national security letter (NSL) one is prohibited by law to reveal that fact. So if you receive an NSL and someone later asks you if you have, you are not allowed to say yes.
Are you allowed to say no?
Along the same lines, if someone who hasn't received an NSL is asked whether they have, are they allowed to say yes?
I presume someone who hasn't received an NSL is allowed to confirm that they haven't ... Or are all citizens required by law to answer "I'm not allowed to answer" if asked, even if they haven't received an NSL?
If we all agree to answer "I can't answer" if we have received one, and "no" (or "yes") if we haven't, then would that (a) be against the law and (b) be a way around this issue?
Just asking a hypothetical legal question of course, not suggesting anyone do anything of the sort...
- Uhhrrr 13y agoI remember reading about a service provider who put up such a dead man switch - a web page saying they hadn't been served an NSL, which they would presumably take down once served. Here we go: http://brokenhut.livejournal.com/285348.html http://brokenhut.livejournal.com/285348.html
- dangrossman 13y agoTitle 18 Section 2709 (c) of the US Code: > ...no wire or electronic communications service provider, or officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall disclose to any person (other than those to whom such disclosure is necessary to comply with the request or an attorney to obtain legal advice or legal assistance with respect to the request) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained access to information or records under this section. The request shall notify the person or entity to whom the request is directed of the nondisclosure requirement... How you disclose is irrelevant. If you tell everyone in advance "I will throw rotten eggs from my roof if I receive an NSL", receive an NSL, then start throwing rotten eggs from your roof, you're going to be sanctioned. Let's boil it down to this: would a reasonable judge think you are complying with the spirit of the nondisclosure agreement? He's not going to compute a mathematical proof about information transfer to answer that question.
- plg 13y agoSo it seems to me that any citizen who answers the question "have you received an NSL" differently, before vs after they receive an NSL, can be found in violation. So by extension, if you are EVER asked this question before you have received an NSL, you had better remember your answer, because after you receive an NSL if you don't give the identical answer, you can be found in violation???
- plg 13y agoAnd so what happens if you answer "no" if asked, before you receive an NSL, whether you have received one... Are you then required by law to answer "no" again? Because if you change your answer, then that's a bit flip and you have transmitted information? What if you answer "yes" before? Are you required to answer "yes" after ?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- Spoom 13y agoA judge isn't stupid. They'll see through any trickery that has the result of disclosing the NSL. If you have to lie to avoid disclosing, the law requires that you lie.