> 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.