The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Current Events

Current Events Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 11-11-2009, 03:06 PM   #7
glatt
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud View Post
I guess they didn't comply with the gag order, huh? somebody's in trouble!
There was no gag order. Orders come from judges. This came from a US attorney. They were bluffing. The ISP knew they were bluffing and called their lawyers. The lawyers fought it and won and made it public. Yea lawyers!

The real question is how often does the Justice Department send secret subpoenas like this to ISPs and the ISPs believe they have to comply and keep the bullshit secret?

Quote:
The government added insult to injury by also inserting this language on the first page of the subpoena: "You are not to disclose the existence of this request unless authorized by the Assistant U.S. Attorney. Any such disclosure would impede the investigation being conducted and thereby interfere with the enforcement of the law."

The problem? The law doesn't require the recipient of a federal grand jury subpoena to keep the subpoena secret (which is why, typically, subpoenas often will "request" -- but not require -- a recipient's silence). There are certainly secrecy requirements for participants in the grand jury -- such as the jurors and the prosecutors -- but those requirements do not extend to witnesses (or potential witnesses such as a subpoena recipient). And although the SCA does provide the government with the option of obtaining a court order under 18 U.S.C. § 2705(b) requiring silence when the recipient's disclosure would have an adverse affect on an investigation, the government in this case did not obtain any such gag order.

In sum, without any legal authority to back up their purported gag demand, the government ordered Ms. Clair not to reveal the existence of the subpoena, a subpoena that as already described was patently overbroad and invalid under the SCA. This is exactly the kind of unjustified demand of silence that creates a fog around the government's often-overreaching surveillance activities.
glatt is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:53 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.