Could purpose of Google, Yahoo, MSN subpoenas be to find websites

[yurbud]

that people are going to rather than who is going?

That would be a more effective way to limit dissent since it would require less effort, but it would still never be successful because so many of us cross post snippets of stuff or have similar reactions at nearly the same time that they wouldn't be able to silence the ideas just some of those who post them.

[Berserker]

1. No

It's easy to find websites. They want to track us bad people that don't agree with everthing they say and do.

[yurbud]

6. grab people randomly off the street, they'd have better than 50/50 odds

of catching someone who doesn't like them.

[MissWaverly]

2. Brilliant

I remember that they counted up exactly how many people had gone to see Michael Moore's 9-11
they would know who attracted the most attention, ie Gore speech, etc. and they would
have number of hits, then they would hand the tapes over to NSA to restore the addresses
of those doing the searches.

[yurbud]

8. odd thing happened when I forwarded Gore's speech: yahoo addresses

bounced.

All others went through.

[MissWaverly]

20. what a co-in-ci-dence

as Bush would say, don't you think it's amazing that Bush had the information gathering
ability to know how many attended Michael Moore's 9-11, but did not have the resources to know Hussein's resources or that Curveball was lying.

[elehhhhna]

3. ALL OF THE ABOVE.

Theives thnk you're stealing from them. Liars think you're lying to them. Plotters think you're plotting against them. The effers are in the last throes of paranoia.

WTF do they need illegal spying for when GD BinLaden & Al Zarkwheiererereiei put out video press releases? duh.

STOP THE BA NOW!

[bonito]

4. I think this will answer your question

Its all interesting, but toward the bottom you will find the link between the subpoenas and the nsa spying. edit for link. http://agonist.org/story/2006/1/20/3467/46806

[yurbud]

11. a problem with the agonist analysis--do they have ANY serious terror

charges based on any real info?

[bonito]

13. Probably not terror info

But I bet it's politically motivated, trying to get any thing on any advisory of the administration for arm bending.

[rumpel]

5. Here is what zdnet says

FAQ: What does the Google subpoena mean?
By Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com
Published on ZDNet News: January 20, 2006, 4:00 AM PT

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6029042.html

Preparing to defend a controversial Internet pornography law in court, the Justice Department has demanded search logs from Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and America Online.
The department asked the search giants to hand over millions of records involving what search terms people have used on the sites and what Web sites are accessible via the search engines.
On one level, the situation involves a straightforward question of whether the department's demands are too onerous and therefore not permitted under federal law. On another, the dispute raises novel questions about search engines' privacy protections and the relationship that four tech giants have with the federal government.
What does it all mean, and what happens next? Read on.

[rumpel]

7. What happened between June 1, 05 and July 31, 05 that seems to be key

[jimshoes]

10. Could be some incriminating

communications that the cabal is desperate to scrub from cyberspace. Whatever you do dear folks that run Google, do not give the crooks the keys to the vault!

[jazzjunkysue]

15. That's my vote. Part of a coverup: "Who's ready to blow the whistle

on us?" Can't wait for that other shoe to drop.

[yurbud]

12. what were we talking about HERE then?

[shraby]

14. That's when Matt Cooper and Judy Miller were

in the spotlight.

[Rosemary2205]

9. Who knows

according to Google owners the gov't isn't asking for any information that would identify who is searching only what is searched. But Google also says the request for information also shows the government has no clue on how search engines work.

[rumpel]

16. The underlying case is ACLU v. Gonzales, No 98-CV5591 Patriot Act

related complaint regarding libraries.

here is the info

http://www.bespacific.com/mt/archives/009026.html

Gonzales wants to use the argument of child protection to make his case.

[rumpel]

17. delete duplicate post

[rumpel]

18. Folks this is an important Patriot Act issue! Media again misleading the

importance of the underlying case!

If Gonzales wins argument, this statute will have a set precedent.

I did not know until I checked it out.

This is from the redacted ACLU complaint:

STATUTORY LANGUAGE AT ISSUE
1 1. In its current form, as amended by the Patriot Act, Section 2709 authorizes the
FBI to issue NSLs ordering "electronic communication service providers" (ECSPs) to disclose
"subscriber information," "toll billing records information," and "electronic communication
transactional records" upon a certification that the information sought is "relevant to an
authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence
activities." Pub. L. 107-56, Title V, 9 505(a), 115 Stat. 365 (Oct. 26,2001) (codified as 18
U.S.C. 9 2709).

12. An "electronic communication service" is "any service which provides to users
thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications." Id. 5 25 lO(15).

13. Section 2709 does not require the FBI to meet a probable cause or individualized
suspicion requirement of any kind before issuing an NSL.

14. Section 2709 does not require the FBI to obtain judicial authorization before
issuing an NSL.

15. Section 2709 does not specify any means by which the recipient of an NSL can
challenge the letter's validity,

16, Section 2709 does not require the FBt to provide prior, contemporaneous, or postdeprivation
notice to & individual whose information is demanded pursuant to an NSL served on
a third party, even if the information i.s. .c. onstitutionally protected.
^.-

17. Section 2709 includes a' gag provision that prohibits a person served with an NSL
from disclosing to any other person that the FBIhas sought or obtained records. See 18 U.S.C.
5 2709(c) ("No wire or electronic communication service provider, or officer, employee, or agent
thereof, shall disclose to any person that the has sought or obtained access to information
or records under this section.").

18. The gag provision, which on its face prohibits even consultation with counsel,
applies in every case, whether or not the government can demonstrate a need for secrecy. See id.

19. The gag provision is indefinite and persists even after any legitimate need for
secrecy has expired. See id.

20. Section 2709 is part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA),
which Congress enacted in 1986. See Pub. L. 99-508, Title 11, 9 201, 100 Stat. 1867 (Oct.21,
1986) (codified as 18 U.S.C. 25 10, et seq.).

21. As originally enacted, Section 2709 could be used only against people suspected ,
of espionage. The original provision permitted the FBI to issue an NSL only if it could certify
that (i) the information sought was relevant to an authorized foreign cxiunterintelligence
investigation; and (ii) there were specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the
subject of the NSL was a foreign power or foreign agent. See 18 U.S.C. Â 2709 (1 988).

22. In 1993, Congress relaxed the individualized suspicion requirement. It authorized
the FBI to issue an NSL if it could certify that (i) the information sought was relevant to an
authorized foreign counterintelligence investigation; and (ii) there were specific and articulable
facts giving reason to believe that either (a) the subject of the NSL was a foreign power or
foreign agent, or (b) the subject had communicated with a person engaged in international
%.
1 terrorism or with a foreign agent or power "under circumstances giving reason to believe that the
communication concerned international terrorism." See Pub. L. 103-142, 107 Stat. 1491 (Nov.
. 17, 1993).

23. In adopting the 1993 amendments, Congress recognized that "the national
security letter is an extraordinary device," as it is "required for compulsory process." See H.Rep. 103-46 (Mar. 29, 1993).

24. In 2001, through the Patriot Act, Congress further expanded Section 2709 by
' deleting the individualized suspicion requirement altogether. See Pub. L. 107-56, Title V,
505(a), 11 5 Stat. 365 (Oct. 26,2001).

25. As a result of the Patriot Act, the FBI may now use NSLs to obtain sensitive
information about innocent individuals who have no connection to espionage or terrorism. See 18 U.S.C. 9 2709(b).

[Mnemosyne]

19. English please! For those of us slower

on the draw. :)

[rumpel]

21. The Google subpeona posted on zdnet, indicates the case ACLU v.

Gonzales.
When I checked the actual complaint (lawsuit), it is about the FBI having served a librarian to give all records to the FBI. The ACLU is fighting on behalf of this librarian, saying the Patriot Act, under which the FBI issued the request for the information is unconstitutional.

Here is the part of what happend in this complaint, which was file on August 9, 2005:

2. In (redacted) an agent of defendant FBI served an NSL on plaintiff (redacted)
The NSL directed (redacted) to disclose certain subscriber records and other sensitive information. (Redacted)
strictly guards the confidentiality and privacy of its library and
Internet records, and believes it should not be forced to disclose such records without a showing
of compelling need and approval by a judge. Because the NSL gags (redacted) and its
counsel from "disclosing to any person" that the FBI has demanded information, plaintiffs have
filed this Complaint initially under seal.

3. Plaintiffs submit that Section 2709 is unconstitutional on its face and as applied.
Plaintiffs further submit that the gag provision is unconstitutionally vague, overbroad, and
imposes an unlawful prior restraint on speech. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Section 2709
violates the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments; an injunction prohibiting the FBI from seeking
to enforce the NSL served o and an injunction prohibiting the FBI's farther
use of Section 2709 against plaintiffs or others.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

[Mnemosyne]

24. So basically Gonzo is the biggest weasel

to ever be AG in history, right? And he's trying to use an unConstitutional piece of shit paper like the tyranny, uh, patriot act to back him up? Thank dog for the ACLU! If I ever have $25 extra I'm becoming a card carrying member.

Thanks for explaining rumpel! :hi:

Sometimes I just get so overwhelmed by all the twists and turns these pricks use to cover their asses. It's like an eternal tilt-a-whirl, but not fun.:puke:

[jimshoes]

22. Who drew up this awful act,

This is incredible that such a thing is the law in America!

[rumpel]

23. ACLU v. Gonzales Here is the beginning of the complaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

(redacted)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION;
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUN ION
FOUNDATION,
Plaintiffs,

V.

ALBERT0 GONZALES, in his official capacity
as Attorney General of the United States;
ROBERT MUELLER in his official capacity as
Investigation, (redacted) in his official capacity as
(redacted) Federal Bureau of Investigation
Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
AND INJTUNCTIVE RELIEF
Civ. Action No.
FILED UNDER SEAL
August 9.2005

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiffs (Redacted) the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (ACLUF)
challenge the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. $2709, a statute that authorizes the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) to demand the disclosure of a wide range of sensitive and constitutionally
protected information, including the identity of a person who has borrowed particular books from
a public library or who has engaged in anonymous speech on the Internet. See 18 U.S.C. 8 2709
("Section 2709"), as amended by the USA PATRIOT Act, Pub. L. 107-56, 1 15 Stat. 272 (Oct.
26,2001) ("Patriot Act"). In its current form, Section 2709 allows the FBI to issue such
demands to "electronic communication service providers" in the form of National Security
Letters (NSLs) without obtaining prior judicial approval; without demonstrating a compelling
need to justify the production of constitutionally protected information; and without specifying
any means by which the recipient can contest the demand's validity. Section 2709 also
permanently gags those served with NSLs from disclosing to any other person that the FBI
sought or obtained information from them. Because Section 2709 was amended by the Patriot
Act to remove any requirement of individualized suspicion, the FBI may now use NSLs to demand sensitive information about innocent people.

[rumpel]

25. Correction

The case referred to in the subpeona is in fact "ACLU v Reno" which was filed in 1998!

I think they are using the Child Protection case to set a precedent to use it broadly to apply to other cases. No one objects to protecting children on the internet.

But why bring an old case back to life now?

The subpeona re: case NO. 98-5591 the case was originally ACLU v Reno. (I don't know how they now call it ACLU v Gonzales) but here is the information link on the old case:
http://jcomm.uoregon.edu/~tgleason/j385/Aclu_Renopi.html

The Google subpeona was issued on Aug 25, 2005 the Librarian/ACLU case was filed August 9, 2005

subpeona available in pdf here:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6028701.html?tag=nl