It would be a lot more satisfying to know the context of these. Was [redacted customer #3] a terrorist, a spy, some guy who got swatted by the kids down the street?
I dont see how these provide any transparency other than into pure process.
These provide no context, who, or what type of accounts were sent NSLs. Were they suspected child pornographers? Occupy Wall Street Protesters, Terrorists?
Since any pertinent information was redacted, we get nothing more than nearly identical form-letter templates with nothing much unique except the file number and date and who sent it.
To me, knowing what the process for triggering judicial review of the gag order is like in practice was quite valuable. Apparently the FBI really doesn't want to get the gag orders in front of a judge.
Most interesting part of DOJ letters: "[Y]ou should not provide information ... that would disclose the content of any electronic communication." "Subject lines of e-mails are content information and should not be provided pursuant to this letter." The letters were directed to logs, dates, addresses, essentially unmasking tools.
7 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 28.3 ms ] threadGod says... coarser abdicated depository's grosses unsuccessfully cankered splashdown's torches phraseology's anarchist's kismet's narration twitch's dogwoods conquerors Atahualpa Guayaquil's snugly quantifier's bankrupting acupuncture inordinate exit's misplacing brimstone assimilation stolidity Seleucus tiredest laser Sumeria appointments
These provide no context, who, or what type of accounts were sent NSLs. Were they suspected child pornographers? Occupy Wall Street Protesters, Terrorists?
Since any pertinent information was redacted, we get nothing more than nearly identical form-letter templates with nothing much unique except the file number and date and who sent it.
THANKS OBAMA
Agreed, but I'm still finding that pretty interesting.