US appeals court upholds gag orders on national security letters to firms like Apple
The FBI can indeed serve companies like Apple national security letters that come with a gag order, preventing them from telling customers, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Monday.
Two companies -- content distributor CloudFlare, and phone network CREDO Mobile -- earlier sued the U.S. government, arguing they should be able to tell customers about five national security letters (NSLs) they received between 2011 and 2013, Reuters reported. The firms said that gags violated their First Amendment rights.
NSLs are one of the more controversial aspects of the modern U.S. surveillance apparatus, since they avoid warrant requirements while letting agencies gain access to communications data. With gag orders, targets may never know they were being watched.
Writing on behalf of a 9th Circuit panel, Judge Sandra Ikuta said that gag orders fulfill a compelling government interest, while being sufficiently narrow and allowing for judicial review. On the latter point, she noted that legal changes passed by Congress in 2015 increased oversight.
Apple recently acknowledged receiving one NSL in 2016, the first it has admitted to since it started issuing transparency reports in 2013. The real number is likely much higher though, given the popularity of the iPhone and other Apple devices.
The company said it received between 5,750 and 5,999 national security orders in general during the second half of 2016, a sharp spike from 2,750 to 2,999 in the first half. The lack of precision is linked to U.S. government restrictions, preventing order numbers from being reported in batches below 250.
Two companies -- content distributor CloudFlare, and phone network CREDO Mobile -- earlier sued the U.S. government, arguing they should be able to tell customers about five national security letters (NSLs) they received between 2011 and 2013, Reuters reported. The firms said that gags violated their First Amendment rights.
NSLs are one of the more controversial aspects of the modern U.S. surveillance apparatus, since they avoid warrant requirements while letting agencies gain access to communications data. With gag orders, targets may never know they were being watched.
Writing on behalf of a 9th Circuit panel, Judge Sandra Ikuta said that gag orders fulfill a compelling government interest, while being sufficiently narrow and allowing for judicial review. On the latter point, she noted that legal changes passed by Congress in 2015 increased oversight.
Apple recently acknowledged receiving one NSL in 2016, the first it has admitted to since it started issuing transparency reports in 2013. The real number is likely much higher though, given the popularity of the iPhone and other Apple devices.
The company said it received between 5,750 and 5,999 national security orders in general during the second half of 2016, a sharp spike from 2,750 to 2,999 in the first half. The lack of precision is linked to U.S. government restrictions, preventing order numbers from being reported in batches below 250.
Comments
You'll surely need it.
California: 53
Texas: 36
New York: 27
Florida: 27
It is interesting to note that the population is determined by the Census, including illegal aliens. If you only counted legal residents, California would lose 6 representatives. But even then it would still have more representation than any other state. New York, Texas and Florida would each lose 1 representative and many states in the upper midwest and south would gain 1 representative.
Now, the company that was served the request in the first place - would respond to it - and then for the most part they would be done with it as far as they are concerned... this company is not acting as your solicitor - and has no interest in following up 3 years down the line....
Which is why I come back to the fact that yes, sometimes such gag orders are required as a matter of fact -- and are not new... [you don't actually tell the people you get a warrant to tap their phone - hey we are listening in on your phone] BUT there needs to be a time limit placed on them to force a periodic review on whether the investigation is ongoing or not and if it is not ongoing there is no longer a requirement to keep the information private anymore.
The other option, which is a more expensive option, is that in the case of a gag order / national letter etc. that a court must appoint a lawyer to represent your interests (and not the governments) [and pay the private lawyer's fees; since you are not given the option to] with respects to the letter, the gag order and potentially periodic review of the case.
So quit daydreaming about such nonsense and work to change things in Washington. It’s the only way.
Yeah, who needs that pesky first amendment? Or second amendment? Or fourth amendment? Or fifth amendment? Or sixth amendment? Or seventh amendment? Et fucking cetera.
That’s funnier than televised comedians. Holy cow.
No, the purpose of the courts, SCOTUS in particular, is to thwart the Executive and Legislative branches, including "The Will of the People", then they attempt to violate the rights of citizens. That role is "adversarial" in the sense that the E and L branches must justify themselves to the J branch, and if they fail to do so, the court overrides them. It doesn't mean that the courts "oppose anything proposed" by the other branches, and nothing in the OP even implies that to me. It just means that the courts keep them in check.
Of course, the courts fail at that task periodically, more often recently; the OP did say that, quite clearly.