The Washington Post prints the experiences of one recipient of a national security letter, anonymously, because the first rule of NSLs is recipients are not allowed to talk about NSLs.
Rather than turn over the information, I contacted lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union, and in April 2004 I filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the NSL power. I never released the information the FBI sought, and last November the FBI decided that it no longer needs the information anyway. But the FBI still hasn’t abandoned the gag order that prevents me from disclosing my experience and concerns with the law or the national security letter that was served on my company. In fact, the government will return to court in the next few weeks to defend the gag orders that are imposed on recipients of these letters.
Living under the gag order has been stressful and surreal. Under the threat of criminal prosecution, I must hide all aspects of my involvement in the case — including the mere fact that I received an NSL — from my colleagues, my family and my friends. When I meet with my attorneys I cannot tell my girlfriend where I am going or where I have been. I hide any papers related to the case in a place where she will not look. When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to look them in the eye and lie.
Did you think you lived in this kind of country?
National security letters in practice
The Washington Post prints the experiences of one recipient of a national security letter, anonymously, because the first rule of NSLs is recipients are not allowed to talk about NSLs.
Did you think you lived in this kind of country?
Commentary
Previous post
Evidence of Bubble 2.0Next post
The Blackberry defense