Justice Department Sues Telecom for Challenging National Security Letter

linky

Wow this is crazy. So by law you are allowed to challenge.
But since they challenged now the DOJ is going to sue because you challenged.
A serious WTF are you smoking moment.

I see this as nothing more than payback for not playing along.

And the whole NSL thing is IMO unconstitutional. There's no oversight of any kind. And then to top things off you can't talk about it.
What a seriously draconian piece of crap.

Last year, when a telecommunications company received an ultra-secret demand letter from the FBI seeking information about a customer or customers, the telecom took an extraordinary step — it challenged the underlying authority of the FBI’s National Security Letter, as well as the legitimacy of the gag order that came with it.

Both challenges are allowed under a federal law that governs NSLs, a power greatly expanded under the Patriot Act that allows the government to get detailed information on Americans’ finances and communications without oversight from a judge. The FBI has issued hundreds of thousands of NSLs and been reprimanded for abusing them — though almost none of the requests have been challenged by the recipients.

After the telecom challenged its NSL last year, the Justice Department took its own extraordinary measure: It sued the company, arguing in court documents that the company was violating the law by challenging its authority.

reply to post by grey580


It's constitutional to challenge the law? or not.

]In law, standing or locus stand is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law.

It will very interesting to see where this law sue ends to.

www.ask.com...(law)

I think that it will end on nothing but we will never know taking into consideration that blatant disregard for privacy in our country due to the anti patriot act.

Wow barely any responses.
wow.

They are retaliating because someone dared challenge their authority. Big Brother doesn't like it when you expose them for what they are. It will be very interesting to see how this goes in court.

Both challenges are allowed under a federal law that governs NSLs, a power greatly expanded under the Patriot Act that allows the government to get detailed information on Americans’ finances and communications without oversight from a judge. The FBI has issued hundreds of thousands of NSLs and been reprimanded for abusing them — though almost none of the requests have been challenged by the recipients.

The FISA requires that any information gathered dealing with an American citizen MUST first get the approval of a judge-issued warrant. Whomever wrote that article needs to go back and do some fact checking before blindly spurting out statements.

The Patriot Act is indeed very powerful, but there are checks in place to protect the privacy of the American citizen. Auditing of the system is done on an almost weekly check by workplace supervisors (or should be)... it was done vigorously in the office where I worked to ensure that none of us went to jail.

HOWEVER, that does not mean that the FBI or other 3-letter agencies do not have clandestine deals with telecoms that subvert FISA, and I have no doubts that is the case.

It is completely within the law for the telecom to deny the requests, and seeing the DOJ respond in such a manner is highly troubling, considering how the current AG seems to think himself above the law.