RE: Administration Asks Appeals Court To Compel ISP Searches

["Chris Ranch" <CRanch () Affinity com>]

On May 31, 2005 12:39 PM, Jason Frisvold wrote:
> On 5/31/05, Chris Ranch <CRanch () affinity com> wrote:
> > Looks like they want us to turn over customer info without the 
> > subpoena, but simply with a phone call (or whatever) from an 
> > investigator.  I would hope that would be just for specific 
> accounts, 
> > and not the entire customer list.  In any event, now we're going to 
> > have to at least confirm the investigator's identity, whereas 
> > currently the sub carries sufficient authority.
>
> Ugh..  Ok, so it's a "Hi, I'm an FBI Agent.  Gimme info on 
> Joe Blow and Mary Jane" and I'm supposed to jump and give out 
> that info...  No questions asked...

I just reread the article, and realized I got it wrong.  There is some
paperwork: "The ruling came in a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties
Union and an Internet access firm that received a national security
letter (NSL) from the FBI demanding records."

So, the NSL isn't judge or grand jury authorized, just the FBI
investigator.

> I'm not so opposed to the "don't tell anyone" part.  When we 
> receive a subpeona for a criminal case (as opposed to a civil 
> case), the subpeona usually states that the subpeona and 
> information being requested can't be discussed by anyone.  
> Whereas a civil case allows us to tell the customer if we want to.

That's a good question.  Has anyone seen an NSL, and/or know if we're
gagged?

> My problem would be the handing over of information to what 
> is essentially an unknown party..  That wonderful law would 
> allow a terrorist or other crook to impersonate an 
> investigator and gather information..

Do you double-check sups back to the signing judge?  Does anyone?  

Chris
Affinity Internet, Inc.