On May 31, 2005 12:39 PM, Jason Frisvold wrote:

On 5/31/05, Chris Ranch <CRanch@affinity.com> wrote:

...

Looks like they want us to turn over customer info without the subpoena, but simply with a phone call (or whatever) from an investigator. I would hope that would be just for specific accounts, and not the entire customer list. In any event, now we're going to have to at least confirm the investigator's identity, whereas currently the sub carries sufficient authority.

Ugh.. Ok, so it's a "Hi, I'm an FBI Agent. Gimme info on Joe Blow and Mary Jane" and I'm supposed to jump and give out that info... No questions asked...

I just reread the article, and realized I got it wrong. There is some paperwork: "The ruling came in a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union and an Internet access firm that received a national security letter (NSL) from the FBI demanding records." So, the NSL isn't judge or grand jury authorized, just the FBI investigator.

I'm not so opposed to the "don't tell anyone" part. When we receive a subpeona for a criminal case (as opposed to a civil case), the subpeona usually states that the subpeona and information being requested can't be discussed by anyone. Whereas a civil case allows us to tell the customer if we want to.

That's a good question. Has anyone seen an NSL, and/or know if we're gagged?

My problem would be the handing over of information to what is essentially an unknown party.. That wonderful law would allow a terrorist or other crook to impersonate an investigator and gather information..

Do you double-check sups back to the signing judge? Does anyone? Chris Affinity Internet, Inc.