Gregory T. Nojeim, Senior Counsel and Director of the Project on Freedom, Security & Technology at the Center for Democracy & Technology
The Washington Post reported yesterday that the FBI abused its authority to issue National Security Letters (NSLs) and that this abuse permitted it to illegally obtain more than 2,000 telephone call records from 2002-2006. This disclosure, made while Congress contemplates Patriot Act legislation that could rein in use of NSLs, should prompt a re-examination of the approaches taken in the pending bills.
A national security letter is a simple form document issued by the FBI and other agencies of the government to obtain telephone call records, email to/from information, and other records about communications, as well as financial, credit, and other records, without any prior judicial authorization. NSLs are served on the business entities that hold the records and the businesses that receive NSLs must comply or challenge them in court, and with limited exceptions, are barred from disclosing to anyone that they have received or complied with the demand for records.
The Patriot Act removed most of the legal restraints on issuing NSLs, including the requirement that the NSL seek information that pertains to a spy, a terrorist or another agent of a foreign power, and the requirement that agents articulate a factual basis for seeking records with an NSL. But it left in place the very minimal requirement that the NSL be issued only to seek information relevant to an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. Rather than comply with this minimal requirement, FBI officials issued "exigent letters" to obtain information that should have been sought with NSLs even when no investigation had been opened, and in some cases, even though the information was not sought in an emergency situation. "Exigent letters" were a creation of the FBI and have no basis in law.
After this and other abuses were disclosed in a DOJ Inspector General report issued in March 2007, the FBI put in place administrative changes it said were designed to prevent a recurrence. Those changes included internal review by lead attorneys in FBI field offices of NSL requests. However, The Washington Post article reveals that officials who sanctioned the illegal exigent records included senior officials of the FBI - managers as high as Assistant Director of the FBI. It is not likely that an attorney in an FBI field office will be able to stop illegal activity sanctioned by his boss's boss. That the abuses went this high up the chain of command at the FBI had not been previously revealed.
Congress is currently considering legislation to reauthorize three expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act. Both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have reported legislation, but neither bill has come to a vote. While the Senate bill does little to rein in NSLs, the House bill would actually make a difference by focusing NSLs more on terrorists and spies, rather than on records about everyone else. Neither bill, though, explicitly addresses and precludes exigent letters. Each requires a statement of specific facts (the House bill also requires that those facts be "articulable") showing reasonable grounds to believe that the information is either relevant to an investigation (Senate bill) or is relevant and pertains to an agent of a foreign power (AFP), someone in contact with or known personally to such AFP, or is relevant to the activities of an AFP who is under investigation (House bill).
In theory, a requirement that agents articulate the facts that form the basis for seeking records with an NSL should stop the practice of issuing NSLs without any factual basis and without having opened the investigation that is a pre-requisite to issuing the letter. However, for such a limitation to be effective, agents must comply with the law. That they failed to do so over a five-year period following 9-11 does not inspire confidence that they will do so in the future, regardless of whether the law is more exacting. Self-policing doesn't work.
Another approach, which Senator Feingold included in the bill he introduced to reform the Patriot Act, would make a difference. Feingold's Justice Act (S. 1686) put sensitive records beyond the reach of NSLs. They could be sought only with criminal authorities subject to all of the checks and balances that come with criminal prosecutions, or with prior judicial authorization for intelligence-related investigations. Congress has so far rejected this approach. It should either be re-considered in light of these new disclosures, or an alternative should be adopted to preclude unlawful issuance of NSLs to seek sensitive personal information.
[Image via Security, Privacy and the Law.]
Event Security Services
Event Security Services
Great piece of information!
Great piece of information! May I reference part of this on my blog if I post a backlink to this webpage? Thanks.
VPN service
onlines education jobs
Yep, it's a great game. It even has a level editor, check out some of the user-made levels/worlds (they're on the game's forum), some of them are as good as the official levels/worlds. onlines education jobs
There are over 200 U.S. laws
There are over 200 U.S. laws and violations mentioned in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 and the Patriot Act that can subject property to civil asset forfeiture.” Under federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. Government is only required to show “A preponderance of Evidence” to civilly forfeit assets. Passage of Rep. Henry Hyde’s bill HR 1658, the “Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000” effectively eliminated the “statue of limitations” for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture. The statute now runs five years from when police allege they “learned” an asset became subject to forfeiture.
----------------------------------------------------------------
span thousands 200 U.S. laws
http://www.ileatherworld.com/tribute/designer-leather-jackets-for-women.... Act of 2000 and the Patriot
http://www.ileatherworld.com/tribute/hooded-bomber-jacket.html Under federal
http://www.ileatherworld.com/tribute/armored-motorcycle-jacket.html Henry Hyde’s bill HR
National Security Letters Used As a Political/Economic Weapon
U.S. Government could use National Security Letters under the Patriot Act—As A Political or Economic Weapon.
Currently in the name of fighting terrorism, U.S. Government can use National Security Letters to search a Citizen’s private information and records without having to provide specific facts—that the person’s information sought pertains to a foreign power or agent of a foreign power. Government can impose National Security Letters without probable cause on your employer, your business client(s) credit card providers, even your relationships. After you receive a National Security Letter, under current law you can’t tell anyone. National Security Letters if used by a tyrannical U.S. Government, could be very threatening to Americans when you consider methods used by other governments. For example in Nazi Germany, the Gestapo routinely targeted and damaged business people and companies that refused to support the Nazi Government by—interrogating their customers—about them. Not surprisingly targeted business people and companies found it difficult to make a living after their frightened customers and clients distanced themselves after Gestapo interrogation. Some German corporations with ties to the Reich government used the Gestapo to scare off their business rivals’ associates and customers—to take their business. A corrupt U.S. Government could as easily use National Security Letters in the same manner and to intimidate Americans exercising First Amendment Rights.
It is problematic federal agencies will use National Security Letters where probable cause does not exist—to circumvent the Fourth Amendment, to glean information from private records having nothing to do with terrorism to prosecute criminal and civil cases e.g., asset forfeiture.
There are over 200 U.S. laws and violations mentioned in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 and the Patriot Act that can subject property to civil asset forfeiture.” Under federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. Government is only required to show “A preponderance of Evidence” to civilly forfeit assets. Passage of Rep. Henry Hyde’s bill HR 1658, the “Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000” effectively eliminated the “statue of limitations” for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture. The statute now runs five years from when police allege they “learned” an asset became subject to forfeiture.
Congress needs to pass legislation that prevents Government using National Security Letters to investigate Americans without first demonstrating a clear standard of probable cause.
Post new comment