Google Ordered To Comply With FBI's Secret NSL Demands

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Who cares about the constitutionality of warrantless National Security Letter requests...full speed ahead! :eek:

NSLs are controversial because they allow FBI officials to send secret requests to Web and telecommunications companies requesting "name, address, length of service," and other account information about users as long as it's relevant to a national security investigation. No court approval is required, and disclosing the existence of the FBI's secret requests is not permitted.
Click to expand...
 
My next question would be what are the steps to labeling something as related to national security?

Where does one draw the line there? How easy is it to have something labeled as national security.
 
This isn't going to stop until federal officials are sent to prison for life for continually violating the law, the Constitution, and the orders from judges who actually try to uphold them from time to time.
 
Maybe in the future the US and China could form a union.
 
It'll only become a problem when the FBI gains too much power and pisses someone off.
 
Glad to see our checks and balances are still working.


Posted from Hardforum.com App for Android
 
Meh. They aren't looking for speeders or anything else I remotely care about. As long as these requests only pertain to threats of national security, have at it.
 
TheResidentEvil said:
Part of a national security investigation. wont really apply to anyone on here
Click to expand...

I read a quote once, which I will now horribly mangle in an attempt to recall the concept behind it.

unknown said:
The problem with the law is that you spend most of your time defending criminals and scum. It's against these people that laws are first leveled. We create broad laws to capture the bad guys, but these same laws entangle you and me.
Click to expand...

Or, put more simply, the famous poem from Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
Click to expand...
 
IRSmurf said:
Meh. They aren't looking for speeders or anything else I remotely care about. As long as these requests only pertain to threats of national security, have at it.
Click to expand...

The problem is, without checks and balances, this could easily be misused. By having a judge sign off on it, it's at least part of that check/balance to make sure "ok, I see, this is a terrorist suspect - you've laid out your evidence".

By blindly allowing them to do whatever they want, they'll eventually start to abuse the system. It's happened before.

Look at Senator McCarthy in history - do you think he wouldn't have mislabeled people to abuse the power?
 
Spidey329 said:
The problem is, without checks and balances, this could easily be misused. By having a judge sign off on it, it's at least part of that check/balance to make sure "ok, I see, this is a terrorist suspect - you've laid out your evidence".

By blindly allowing them to do whatever they want, they'll eventually start to abuse the system. It's happened before.

Look at Senator McCarthy in history - do you think he wouldn't have mislabeled people to abuse the power?
Click to expand...

There are people who care, there are people who might care given the right motivation...and there are people who will never, ever care even when devastation is staring them in the face.
 
Spidey329 said:
Look at Senator McCarthy in history - do you think he wouldn't have mislabeled people to abuse the power?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but I do know he protected us from a lot of communist scum.

I for one welcome our new communist overlords who will protect us from "extremism" in the name of national security.
 
Kuraudo said:
I don't know, but I do know he protected us from a lot of communist scum.

I for one welcome our new communist overlords who will protect us from "extremism" in the name of national security.
Click to expand...

No he didn't. He violated law to push his agenda, and was forced out of office in shame.
 
Wasn't there an article that once said the FBI was spending more time investigating piracy charges brought on by the RIAA and MPAA than chasing serial rapists?

I'm sure with enough pressure piracy will be a basis for national security.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
No he didn't. He violated law to push his agenda, and was forced out of office in shame.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that he violated the law and grossly overstepped his bounds, but it deserves mention that declassified FBI documents have vindicated a lot of his claims. His means were beyond the pale, and deserved to be forced out in shame for them, but his motivation wasn't the paranoid delusion it's been made out to be.
 
"A New World Order!"

Our two party system is fucked. Can't trust the far right or left.
 
Mini-Me said:
I agree with you that he violated the law and grossly overstepped his bounds, but it deserves mention that declassified FBI documents have vindicated a lot of his claims. His means were beyond the pale, and deserved to be forced out in shame for them, but his motivation wasn't the paranoid delusion it's been made out to be.
Click to expand...

Well, sure. The point is that sidestepping the law and abusing your power is never justified.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Well, sure. The point is that sidestepping the law and abusing your power is never justified.
Click to expand...

Agreed*, and I don't mean to detract from that. I think I just read a little too much into the word "agenda."

*With the "abusing your power is never justified" part, that is...now, sidestepping the law, that depends on context. ;)
 
(I should probably clarify that last comment, come to think of it: I was just being careful to avoid the "sidestepping the law" language, because it's broad enough to apply to a lot of things ordinary people do every day, as well as things heroic people do in situations where the law itself is an atrocity.)
 
IRSmurf said:
Meh. They aren't looking for speeders or anything else I remotely care about. As long as these requests only pertain to threats of national security, have at it.
Click to expand...

Well, there needs to be a system in place to determine whether something is justifiable which is why we have stuff like requiring a warrant. It's no different than the cops wanting to search a home, they can do it for the sake of catching and prosecuting a criminal. But you need a system to ensure that said search for example is justified.

So you need something there to determine whether it's justified before allowing the authorities to get all the stuff they want or do what they want.
 
There are 2 things right off the top, that I cand already see is a problem. One, there's no bounds like people mentioned. With no bounds, they can declare jaywalking a national security. Two, it's forbidden to be disclosed. So really, they could be using it for god knows what, then using it for other things. The fact that it's undisclosed can also mean, that if they wanted to, and I'm sure it'll happen, they can choose who they want to go after or not go after.

Sooooo many things can go wrong here, it's not even funny.
 
IRSmurf said:
Meh. They aren't looking for speeders or anything else I remotely care about. As long as these requests only pertain to threats of national security, have at it.
Click to expand...

So many American's are blind to their own country's recent history.

It's important to remember that any power which you grant to an administration that you trust and approve of WILL eventually be inherited by one which doesn't trust you, or approve of you.

Would you give powers like this to someone like Joe McCarthy? Or Lyndon Johnson? Or Richard Nixon?

McCarthy saw enemy communists behind every tree. Johnson was one of the most vicious and contemptible people to ever hold the office. Richard Nixon would have had a field day, filed under the auspices of "national security" it would have saved him the embarrassment of WaterGate.

The people in office have given themselves a golden gun over the last decade since 2011.
 
Serpent said:
There are 2 things right off the top, that I cand already see is a problem. One, there's no bounds like people mentioned. With no bounds, they can declare jaywalking a national security. Two, it's forbidden to be disclosed. So really, they could be using it for god knows what, then using it for other things. The fact that it's undisclosed can also mean, that if they wanted to, and I'm sure it'll happen, they can choose who they want to go after or not go after.

Sooooo many things can go wrong here, it's not even funny.
Click to expand...

Answer me this one question. Why was the role of the judges in obtaining search warrants stripped from those same judges for the first time in the entire 237 years of this country's existence?

IF there is national security emergency, are you telling me that the Federal investigators cannot find access to a judge at a moment's notice?

And if they cannot obtain such access at a moment's notice, why didn't the government just appoint a judge to serve each region of the country for that specific purpose only. Wouldn't that be more in keeping with the foundations of this country and it's constitution?

237 years of history and pragmatism deemed an inconvenience with the drop of a hat. That was a win for the terrorists, as well as a win for the people within government with impure intentions and motives.
 
TeeJayHoward said:
I read a quote once, which I will now horribly mangle in an attempt to recall the concept behind it.
Click to expand...
Found the original quote. It's actually someone's sig here on the [H].

Henry Louis Mencken said:
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
Click to expand...
 
Stuff like this doesn't happen unless a company like Google collects and stores the data to begin with. It's Google's fault for making their vault of stored information about you so valuable looking.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Stuff like this doesn't happen unless a company like Google collects and stores the data to begin with. It's Google's fault for making their vault of stored information about you so valuable looking.
Click to expand...

Thank you, in all my years I had never actually looked to see how the ignore list works.
 
Lith1um said:
Answer me this one question. Why was the role of the judges in obtaining search warrants stripped from those same judges for the first time in the entire 237 years of this country's existence?

IF there is national security emergency, are you telling me that the Federal investigators cannot find access to a judge at a moment's notice?

And if they cannot obtain such access at a moment's notice, why didn't the government just appoint a judge to serve each region of the country for that specific purpose only. Wouldn't that be more in keeping with the foundations of this country and it's constitution?

237 years of history and pragmatism deemed an inconvenience with the drop of a hat. That was a win for the terrorists, as well as a win for the people within government with impure intentions and motives.
Click to expand...

I'm lost. It happens when I don't read a topic for a while. What are you trying to say, exactly? I'm not sure from this post and my hazy memory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top