A Federal court ruled that the Patriot Act's National Security Letter (NSL) provision, 18 U.S.C. § 2709 is unconstitutional. § 2709 authorizes the FBI to issue NSLs to request information about an Electronic Communications Service Provider's client (ECSP). The ECSP "shall comply" with such request, and is required to provide records such as "subscriber information" or "electronic communication transactional records."The Federal court noted that there were approximately 39,000 NSL demands made by the FBI in 2003, 56,000 in 2004, and 47,000 in 2005.
The Court used the strict scrutiny standard to review the statute, as it is prior restraint and content-based restriction.
The Federal Court rules that § 2709 (c) is unconstitutional:
No wire or electronic communication service provider, or officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall disclose to any person that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained access to information or records under this section.
Because this provision cannot be severed from the statute, section 2709 as a whole was declared unconstitutional.
According to the Court, the "government's use of non disclosure orders must be narrowly-tailored on a case-by-case basis. That is, a nondisclosure order may not be broader in either scope or duration than the degree of secrecy required to serve the government's interest in protecting national security." Also, "the nondisclosure orders must be subject to meaningful judicial review." The Court was also troubled by the fact that the standard of review the courts must apply when a nondisclosure order is challenged offends the principles of checks and balances and separation of powers.
RE: Cyberlaw, IP, rivacy in the USA and Europe NB: This site is 100% legal-advice free.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
Labels
- ACTA
- Anomymat sur Internet
- Art Law
- Avatars
- Biometry
- blogs
- Book Worm Report
- Censorship
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Compteurs Intelligents
- Contrefaçon
- Cookies
- Copie Privée
- Copyright
- Copyright Fair Use
- Counterfeiting
- Cyberlaw
- Cybersquatting
- Data Breaches
- Data Mining
- Data Privacy
- Database
- Defamation
- Diffamation
- Digital Identity
- DMP
- DNA
- Droit a l'image
- Droit à l'Oubli
- Droit de Réponse
- Droit Moral
- Droits Voisins
- e-commercre
- ECPA
- emails
- Fashion and Copyright
- Fashion and Patents
- Fashion and Trademark
- Fashion News
- FCC
- Fingerprints
- First Amendment
- Flag
- Fourth Amendment
- France
- Freedom of Expression
- Freedom of the Press
- French IP Law
- FTC
- Genetic Privacy
- Google's Book Settlement
- GPS
- Great Britain
- HADOPI
- How to be an Attorney
- HR 5055
- HR 683
- ID cards
- Identité Génétique
- Identity
- Identity Theft
- Indecent Speech
- International Privacy
- Internet of Things
- Internet Privacy
- Internet Security
- IP Address
- Locational Privacy
- LOPPSI 2
- Misc.
- Net Neutrality
- New York Privacy Laws
- New York State
- Online Identity
- Online Impersonation
- Online Privacy
- Pacifica
- Parody
- Passwords
- Patriot Act
- Privacy
- Privacy as a Human Right
- Privacy Breach as a Crime
- privacy in European Union
- Privacy in the EU
- Privacy in the Workplace
- Privacy Settings
- Professions Juridiques
- Propriété Intellectuelle
- Public Domain
- Public Records
- RFID
- Right of Publicity
- RSS
- Safe Harbor
- SCA
- Section 230
- Security Breaches
- Smart Grids
- Social Network
- Sports Law
- Subpoenas
- Surveillance
- Text-Messaging
- The Public Voice
- Three-Strikes
- Thrift Store Tee Shirts
- Trade Dress
- Trademark
- Trademark and Marketing
- Trademark Dilution
- Trademark Fair Use
- Trademark Infringement
- UK
- US Privacy Laws
- Vie Privee
- Virtual Worlds
- Web 2.0
- WHOIS
- Yankees
No comments:
Post a Comment