[Advocacy Advisors] National Security Letters served on individuals

Mon Aug 5 03:43:28 UTC 2013

Only resigning makes it illegal for the person served to comply with the
govt order, thereby rendering the order invalid I presume. Or the possibly
in contempt of court.

The person who has resigned could go on working for another Wikimedia
organisation; e.g. WMDE.

John Vandenberg.
sent from Galaxy Note
On Aug 5, 2013 1:38 PM, "James Salsman" <jsalsman at gmail.com> wrote:

> What would make resigning more legal than requesting a transfer to a
> different department?
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:36 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Resigning before complying is the only way to keep the WMF from being
> > 'crippled' in the trust department. Or maybe WMF has a different set of
> > values.
> >
> > Any WMF employee who complies with a NSA request to facilitate capturing
> > programs has already broken the privacy policy in the extreme, and should
> > probably be fired. So resigning before being forced to comply seems the
> > ethical choice in my opinion.  Of course the government may serve someone
> > else, but they may stop after a few people have resigned. Even the ED is
> > replacable. But trust lost is much harder to replace.
> >
> > John Vandenberg.
> > sent from Galaxy Note
> >
> > On Aug 5, 2013 11:49 AM, "Luis Villa" <lvilla at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 3:37 PM, James Salsman <jsalsman at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Luis,
> >>>
> >>> Would it be legal to adopt a policy that any individual served with a
> >>> National Security Letter must immediately request a transfer to a
> department
> >>> headed by a different C-level officer?
> >>>
> >>> If so, is the Foundation willing to adopt such a policy?
> >>
> >> Hi, James-
> >>
> >> It's not clear to me what the purpose of such a policy would be. I can
> >> think of two possible goals, neither of which really work.
> >>
> >> If the goal is "frustrate the purpose of the NSL by depriving the
> >> recipient of the authority to respond to the NSL", then the FBI simply
> >> continues to send NSLs to whoever we hire as a replacement, until we
> have no
> >> one left in ops. At that point, they start working their way up the
> chain
> >> and we're left with (1) a crippled organization and (2) eventually a
> letter
> >> to the ED, who is legally compelled to make the thing happen anyway.
> Or, if
> >> the policy is public, they just start with the ED.
> >>
> >> If the goal is "alert the community that NSLs are being sent" (or if
> that
> >> alerting happens accidentally, as a result of public knowledge of the
> >> policy, + goal #1) then that's probably a violation of the relevant law,
> >> which allows disclosure only to "those to whom such disclosure is
> necessary
> >> to comply with the request or an attorney to obtain legal advice or
> legal
> >> assistance with respect to the request" (18 USC 2709(c)(1),
> >> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2709).
> >>
> >> Note that the statute was updated a few years back to make it quite
> clear
> >> that you're allowed to talk to your lawyer about these when you get
> them,
> >> recent disclosed letters appear to refer clearly to that permission,
> and if
> >> our legal department got one, we'd be eager to fight. (That said, it
> does
> >> probably make sense to remind our employers that if they get an NSL,
> they
> >> are clearly entitled to speak to LCA; we'll look into how best to do
> that.)
> >>
> >> Luis
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
> >>> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Luis Villa
> >> Deputy General Counsel
> >> Wikimedia Foundation
> >> 415.839.6885 ext. 6810
> >>
> >> NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
> >> have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
> >> mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
> >> reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for,
> community
> >> members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
> >> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
> > Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/attachments/20130805/6c6039ed/attachment.html>