[cryptome] Give Me Your Data Without a Warrant

  • From: Александр <afalex169@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: CypherPunks <cypherpunks@xxxxxxxxxx>, cryptome <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 21:53:26 +0200

​*We knew that - didn't we?*
But most people are simply too lazy or too afraid to stand up against the
aggressor or at least to change their own internet behaviour, but often
believe they could bigmouth about "Nothing to hide ..." and get away with

In all times the dictators could trust in the laziness, ignorance and fear
of their sheeple.
While in Fortress Europe now martial law, kin liability and arrest for
thought or free speech have been imposed like under Nazi Germany, the
USofAmerica are leading us all into WWIII.

*Revealed: *
*FBI can demand web history, phone location data without a warrant*

The FBI can use national security letters (NSLs) to force companies to turn
over sensitive user data without a warrant, according to filings.

By Zack Whittaker <http://www.zdnet.com/meet-the-team/us/zack-whittaker/>
for Zero Day <http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/> | November 30, 2015 --
16:35 GMT (08:35 PST) | Topic: Security

The FBI can compel companies and individuals to turn over vast sums of
personal data without a warrant, it has been revealed for the first time.

In a case that's lasted more than a decade, a court filing released Monday
<https://yale.app.box.com/Nicholas-Merrill-SDNY-Decision> showed how the
FBI used secret interpretations to determine the scope of national security
letters (NSLs).

Nicholas Merrill, founder of internet provider Calyx Internet Access, who
brought the 11-year-old case to court after his company was served a
national security letter, won the case earlier this year.

National security letters are almost always bundled with a gag order,
preventing Merrill from speaking freely about the letter he received.

While it was known that national security letters can demand customer and
user data, it wasn't known exactly what.

In a statement on Monday, Merrill revealed the FBI has used its authority
to force companies and individuals to turn over complete web browsing
history; the IP addresses of everyone a person has corresponded with;
online purchase information, and also cell-site location information, which
he said can be used to turn a person's phone into a "location tracking

According to a release <https://yale.app.box.com/NSL-Attachment-Unredacted>,
the FBI can also force a company to release postal addresses, email
addresses, and "any other information which [is] considered to be an
electronic communication transactional record."

Merrill said in remarks: "The FBI has interpreted its NSL authority to
encompass the websites we read, the web searches we conduct, the people we
contact, and the places we go. This kind of data reveals the most intimate
details of our lives, including our political activities, religious
affiliations, private relationships, and even our private thoughts and

Federal district judge Victor Marrero described in his decision that the
FBI's position was "extreme and overly broad."

He also found that the FBI's overbroad gag order on Mr. Merrill "implicates
serious issues, both with respect to the First Amendment and accountability
of the government to the people."

Merrill is the first person who has succeeded in completely lifting a
national security letter gag order.

The Patriot Act expanded the reach of national security letters when it was
signed into law a month after the September 11 attacks in 2001.

More than ten thousand national security letters are issued by the FBI
every year, without a warrant or judicial oversight.

These letters have been surrounded with controversy for years, leading to
many unsuccessful attempts to litigate against them. Major companies,
including Google
have challenged national security letters, with little luck. Microsoft
recently challenged an order, which led to the FBI to withdraw the demand

In 2008, a US court found the National Security Letter statute, amended by
the Patriot Act in 2001, was unconstitutional.

In a separate case in 2013, the gag order provision was found to be in
breach of the First Amendment
The government appealed the ruling.

Other related posts: