Bruce Schneier | |||||||||||||||
Schneier on SecurityA blog covering security and security technology. « APEC Conference in Sydney Social Engineered | Main | The No-Fly List Catches an Actual Terrorist » September 7, 2007Federal Judge Strikes Down National-Security-Letter Provision of Patriot ActArticle, ACLU press release, some legal commentary, and actual decision. From the article: The ACLU had challenged the law on behalf of an Internet service provider, complaining that the law allowed the FBI to demand records without the kind of court supervision required for other government searches. Under the law, investigators can issue so-called national security letters to entities like Internet service providers and phone companies and demand customers' phone and Internet records. Note that judge immediately stayed his decision, pending appeal. EDITED TO ADD (9/9): More legal commentary. Posted on September 7, 2007 at 10:05 AM • 16 Comments • View Blog Reactions To receive these entries once a month by e-mail, sign up for the Crypto-Gram Newsletter. This is nearly an off-topic, but I think we can draw some security-related conclusions from this piece of news: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090602545.html In shorth, Comcast has cut off their Internet service to customers who have been downloading "too much" information. Comcast decision and the way they try to explain it to the journalists are very similar to what politicians and bureaucrats often do when dealing with security issues. One great example: "Companies have argued that if strict limits were disclosed, customers would use as much capacity as possible without tipping the scale, causing networks to slow to a crawl." Oh, yes, I love that one. So, in order to prevent people from downloading "too much" data, they simply don't tell people what "too much" is. Luckily, there are a few sensible people out there: "Some AT&T customers use disproportionately high amounts of Internet capacity, "but we figure that's why they buy the service," said Michael Coe, a spokesman for the company." Please remember that those guys at Comcast might one day be in charge of deciding whether to give your Internet usage records to the FBI. What will be their answer? Posted by: Manuel Delgado at September 7, 2007 11:17 AM As far as I can see, the decision doesn't really hobble the present production of NSLs on an industrial scale. It just says that Congress did not have the power to put NSLs beyond judicial review. That's a step in the right direction, but it's a baby step at best. The post-911 change in the law governing NSLs that turned them from a worry into a major civil rights menace was the streamlining of the authorization process. Prior to the Patriot Act, a senior FBI official -- the Director, or one of the Deputies -- had to sign off on each NSL. A field agent had no authority to write one, and had to go through extremely constricted channels to obtain one. The Patriot Act gave NSL rubber stamps to field agents, who have been busily beavering away ever since, generating NSLs for fun and profit --- about 48,000 per year between 2003 and 2005, which is an average of 5 NSLs/hour (counting evenings and weekends). Presumably there's a Word macro somewhere that streamlines the process to the one-keypress level. No judge can fix this idiocy. At best the worst abuses can be curbed, or at least those inflicted upon ISPs and telcos that have the spine to appeal, rather than fold. Most will certainly fold. Under the current legal regime, that means that the Feds will be secretly poking through our communications at the unregulated whim of field agents at rates too high to effectively monitor them for legality. If NSLs are to be tolerable at all in a democracy -- and I would dispute this -- at a minimum, the process for obtaining them has to be restored to the pre-2001 level of constriction. If a judge isn't going to sign off on what is, effectively, a warrant, then we should demand that accountability flow at a minimum to the Director of the FBI. Joe Field Agent should not have this scary level of power. Posted by: Carlo Graziani at September 7, 2007 11:33 AM It seems that there is at least one US judge who has read and understood the constitution. Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel -- Samuel Johnson Posted by: Nomen Publicus at September 7, 2007 11:36 AM "He said when "the judiciary lowers its guard on the Constitution, it opens the door to far-reaching invasions of liberty." " So normally judges and justices are busy guarding our liberty, eh? Heh, that's rich. Which dozen or so of hundreds of thousands of example cases from years 1800 through 2006 shall we site as the most egregious affirmations of reductions in liberty? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The answer is You. Posted by: Eternal vigilance at September 7, 2007 11:41 AM
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." -- Samuel Johnson "I beg to submit that it is the first." -- Ambrose Bierce Posted by: Nick Lancaster at September 7, 2007 12:06 PM Thank you Judge Marrero! I'm glad to see we have at least one judge who is not asleep at the wheel. Posted by: Josh J at September 7, 2007 12:07 PM I am glad some judge has shown some wisdom. It has been sad to witness the downfall of over 200 years of liberty and civil right within a couple of years. OT Just wondering, i am not American. So I am a bit confused: is this a satire? Posted by: Rs at September 7, 2007 12:15 PM "All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling for idiots, and a compassion for them, on account of personal experience and heredity." "It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." - Mark Twain Posted by: derf at September 7, 2007 1:55 PM @Rs: "is this a satire?" Only the part about clown suits. I have no doubt that the author is very serious about the rest of it. Posted by: Scott at September 7, 2007 3:44 PM Deep down, Bush, Cheney, and Rove realize that the judiciary acts as a check on abuses in the other branches. That's why they have systematically packed the federal bench with appointees chosen in accordance with the only criterion they value-- unquestioning loyalty to the Unitary Executive, the Majority Party, and their favored donors. Judge Marrero obviously was not a Bush appointee. But fear not-- this is only a temporary setback. When the time comes, Cheney will call his duck-hunting buddy Tony and outline an appropriate majority ruling for Chief Justice Roberts to deliver. Then America will be safe again. No liberal judge who hates America will ever surrender this country to terrorists! Posted by: George at September 7, 2007 10:39 PM Marrero was nominated by Pres. William J. Clinton and confirmed in October 1999. Posted by: Nick Lancaster at September 8, 2007 5:02 AM I like that Mark Twain quote... fitting Posted by: Al at September 8, 2007 8:10 AM Sadly, it is unlikely to do much good, when the same guys breaking the laws are the guys who are supposed to enforce them. All executive branch. Posted by: DougC at September 9, 2007 7:51 PM Post a comment
Powered by Movable Type. Photo at top by Steve Woit.
Schneier.com is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of BT. |
|
Comments