Federal Judge Rules National Security Letters Are Unconstitutional

[Octafish]

Source: Staff Infozine

Court Finds NSL Statutes Violate First Amendment and Separation of Powers

San Francisco, Ca - infoZine - A federal district court judge in San Francisco has ruled that National Security Letter (NSL) provisions in federal law violate the Constitution. The decision came in a lawsuit challenging a NSL on behalf of an unnamed telecommunications company represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

In the ruling, Judge Susan Illston ordered that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) stop issuing NSLs and cease enforcing the gag provision in this or any other case. The landmark ruling is stayed for 90 days to allow the government to appeal.

"We are very pleased that the court recognized the fatal constitutional shortcomings of the NSL statute," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. "The government's gags have truncated the public debate on these controversial surveillance tools. Our client looks forward to the day when it can publicly discuss its experience."

The controversial NSL provisions EFF challenged on behalf of the unnamed client allow the FBI to issue administrative letters -- on its own authority and without court approval -- to telecommunications companies demanding information about their customers. The controversial provisions also permit the FBI to permanently gag service providers from revealing anything about the NSLs, including the fact that a demand was made, which prevents providers from notifying either their customers or the public. The limited judicial review provisions essentially write the courts out of the process.


Read more: http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/55298/

[In_The_Wind]

1. Thank you ~ Judge Susan Illston!

[RC]

2. About time.

They have been doing this for how many years now?

[Solly Mack]

3. K&R

[another_liberal]

4. It's about damn time!

Enough of this "Big Brother" is watching crap! Make the bastards get a warrant if they want to eavesdrop on our private conversations. If they can't get a judge to give them a warrant, chances are very damn good they either didn't need it or they were seeking it for illegitimate reasons.

[loudsue]

5. And yet ANOTHER really good reason to CONTRIBUTE to the EFF! They need our help and support

in keeping the internet free from oppressive government or corporate interference and to keep big brother from running amok.

[mountain grammy]

7. Right on!

[24601]

6. I'm going to address activist judges because some (albeit not many on DU) will criticize her for

being an activist judge since she is essentially striking down (provisions from) an act of congress.

So my hypothesis is that an activist judge (or justice) results from acts of commission or acts of omission.

Most common description: A judge who legislates from the bench and makes new law.

2nd most common: A judge who strikes down a law passed by Congress.

Least recognized but just as significant: A judge who upholds an unconstitutional law.

So, the lens through which a judge/justice is activist or not should be what he/she does vis a vis the Constitution.

[Savannahmann]

8. Awesome

It's about time that someone recognized the Constitution while dealing with these damned things.

[eppur_se_muova]

9. K&R, this needs more attention!

Another small step back from the path to a total police state that Bu**sh**/Cheney engineered after 9/11 is worth celebrating.

[cstanleytech]

10. I hope this survives a SCOTUS challenge assuming it gets that far. nt