MikeFleming
03-19-2013, 09:59 AM
Federal Judge Rules National Security Letters are Unconstitutional (March 15, 2013)
A federal judge in California has ruled that national security letters (NSLs) are unconstitutional. Judge Susan Illston ruled the gag order that accompanies NSLs violates the First Amendment; the gag order prohibits recipients from even acknowledging that they have received the request for information. The FBI uses NSLs to obtain information on US citizens without a court order. The only requirement for obtaining a NSL is a supervisor's certification that the information that is being sought is relevant to a national security investigation. The case in which Judge Illston made the ruling involves an unnamed telecommunications company that received a NSL in 2011 and challenged both the letter's authority and the legitimacy of its accompanying gag order, both of which are permissible challenges under the law. The Justice Department then countersued the company for violating the law by challenging its authority.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-survillance-tool-is-ruled-unconstitutional/2013/03/15/d4796396-8db9-11e2-9f54-f3fdd70acad2_story.html
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/nsl-found-unconstitutional/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/03/15/heres-the-judges-order-banning-the-fbis-secret-requests-for-companies-user-data/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/130615238/NSL-Ban
A federal judge in California has ruled that national security letters (NSLs) are unconstitutional. Judge Susan Illston ruled the gag order that accompanies NSLs violates the First Amendment; the gag order prohibits recipients from even acknowledging that they have received the request for information. The FBI uses NSLs to obtain information on US citizens without a court order. The only requirement for obtaining a NSL is a supervisor's certification that the information that is being sought is relevant to a national security investigation. The case in which Judge Illston made the ruling involves an unnamed telecommunications company that received a NSL in 2011 and challenged both the letter's authority and the legitimacy of its accompanying gag order, both of which are permissible challenges under the law. The Justice Department then countersued the company for violating the law by challenging its authority.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-survillance-tool-is-ruled-unconstitutional/2013/03/15/d4796396-8db9-11e2-9f54-f3fdd70acad2_story.html
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/nsl-found-unconstitutional/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/03/15/heres-the-judges-order-banning-the-fbis-secret-requests-for-companies-user-data/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/130615238/NSL-Ban