Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday January 12 2017, @11:11PM   Printer-friendly
from the standing-up-to-the-man dept.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has announced that Cloudflare is one of its clients in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of National Security Letters:

We're happy to be able to announce that Cloudflare is the second courageous client in EFF's long-running lawsuit challenging the government's unconstitutional national security letter (NSL) authority. Cloudflare, a provider of web performance and security services, just published its new transparency report announcing it has been fighting the NSL statute since 2013.

Like EFF's other client, CREDO, Cloudflare took a stand against the FBI's use of unilateral, perpetual NSL gag orders that resulted in a secret court battle stretching several years and counting. The litigation—seeking a ruling that the NSL power is unconstitutional—continues, but we're pleased that we can at long last publicly applaud Cloudflare for fighting on behalf of its customers. Now more than ever we need the technology community to stand with users in the courts. We hope others will follow Cloudflare's example.

16-16082 Notice to Court Concerning NSL


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by NewNic on Friday January 13 2017, @12:49AM

    by NewNic (6420) on Friday January 13 2017, @12:49AM (#453131) Journal

    Exactly right.

    The NSL is at its core, a threat to ruin the recipient's life if they don't cooperate. The FBI can drag someone into court and keep them there, even with bogus charges, draining their savings and any hope of future employment. That's ultimately the reason people comply with NSLs.

    It's not because NSLs are supported by constitutional laws (as far as I can tell, SCOTUS hasn't ruled on their constitutionality), instead it's because the FBI and other agencies wield a very big stick.

    --
    lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=2, Informative=2, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by dry on Friday January 13 2017, @07:17AM

    by dry (223) on Friday January 13 2017, @07:17AM (#453199) Journal

    It's not because NSLs are supported by constitutional laws (as far as I can tell, SCOTUS hasn't ruled on their constitutionality)

    This is one thing scary about America, just how easily SCOTUS can massively redefine rights. Some do need interpreting, what's a reasonable search is an example. Others are written in pretty plain English and the language hasn't changed enough that "Congress will not" or "the Right to Bear Arms will not be Infringed" has changed. Instead of saying, "the Constitution says this, don't like it, amend it" and perhaps stay their decision for a year to give government time to amend if it's that important.
    I can't see how an honest court could rule that NLS letters are Constitutional but I bet some of these Judges will find a way.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @09:15PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @09:15PM (#453463)

      It's not because we have a SCOTUS, it's because they're appointed for life and there isn't anything that you can do to remove them if they're incompetent.

      Ultimately, how laws are read and interpreted is going to be set by the judicial system, there's no way around it. But, the fact that many of these people sit on the bench for decades completely removes them from any meaningful comprehension about what the unintended consequences are.

      A better system would be for them to be appointed for a shorter period of time like say 10 years, that way, you don't have the long term problems associated with incompetent Presidents nominating incompetent justices like Thomas and Scalia.