As the FBI explains, the Patriot Act lets a recipient challenge an individual NSL, but not the fundamental NSL law. The Electronic Frontier Foundations’ Matt Zimmerman, who is representing the telecom, finds the 1984 logic behind the whole enterprise incredible. “It’s a huge deal to say you are in violation of federal law having to do with a national security investigation. That is extraordinarily aggressive from my standpoint. They’re saying you are violating the law by challenging our authority here.”
The telecom released the information to the Wall Street Journal, violating the gag order, and challenged the belligerent authority of the FBI for violating the First Amendment rights to Free Speech.
But how is the FBI using its inviolable authority? A 2007 audit by the Justice Department Inspector General uncovered many instances of abuse in the over 300,000 FBI uses of NSLs. For example, they paid millions to AT&T and Verizon to assign their employees to work inside the FBI and give them telecom database access, thereby gaining access to customer records without so much as paperwork or an NSL.
Despite the terrible temptation to tyranny and abuse of such a “Patriotic” law, temptations to which the FBI has in fact succumbed, very few have challenged its authority according to the challenge process it sets out. There have been only four challenges to the gag-order, and exactly zero to the fundamental legality of the NSL. Until now.
That the FBI is suing the telecom courageous enough to challenge its authority is drastic. “It was eye-opening to us that they followed that approach,” said Zimmerman.
He also said that the FBI is “asking for association information — who do you hang out with, who do you communicate with, [in order] to get information about previously unknown people.”
“That’s the fatal flaw with this [law],” Zimmerman says. “Once the FBI is able to do this snooping, to find out who American are communicating with and associating with, there’s no remedy that makes them whole after the fact. So there needs to be some process in place so the court has the ability ahead of time to step in [on behalf of Americans].”
Let’s hope this case makes it to the court.
As Americans we have rights to cherished freedom that millions of Americans have fought and died for. With those rights come responsibilities to stand up for those rights whether in war on the battlefield or in the courts. It’s a proven fact that the FBI is egregiously violating and abusing these laws to harm innocent Americans. I know because three people in my family are dead. This is because most companies don’t have enough character to stand up for what is right by challenging the illegal conduct of the FBI.
These companies and their legal teams are a sorry excuse for Americans. All the cherished rights their forefathers fought and died for, they allow the FBI to wipe away with a piece of paper called an NSL and they don’t have the guts to even question this conduct. They are allowing the FBI to eliminate the U S Constitution and alter our form of government to create tyranny.
Our founders mentioned the term, “enemies both foreign and domestic” because they knew the limitations of man. If they thought our government would always be wise and honorable men they wouldn’t have made the separation of powers and checks and balances. The people are also a check and balance under Article III to petition our government. That is not only a right – it is a responsibility to your fellow man and future generations.
Hello,
I came across this article while searching for credible information on the Patriot Act. I was pleased to find it, and was all set to use it as a source document for some press release articles and blogs – until I started reading it.
I was extremely disappointed to find that this is a poorly written piece with many grammatical errors, with the author switching tenses within the same sentence, among other things.
Could you please give me some background on this site (i.e. who created it, who writes for it, etc)?
Thank you,
Geralyn Mulholand
Thank you for pointing out the verb tense inconsistency and the other grammatical errors, Ms. Mulholand. I hope the article is now in a format you can use.