Responding to orders which include a secrecy requirement

[Tim May]

On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 03:28  PM, Steve Schear wrote:

> At 01:54 PM 8/29/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>> Stopping your notification that the service is not monitored can be
>> forbidden by a strict enough secrecy order.  It may be the least 
>> legally
>> risky of the options.  The fact that you will stop notification 
>> should be
>> included in your terms of service.
>
> All covered in my previous postings.  This approach should be 
> particularly applicable to ISPs as they generally have billing 
> arrangement and can add this on as an extra service fee for each 
> inquiry.  Instead of court orders being a cost they become a revenue 
> source.
>
This has been proposed for, but it fails for the usual reasons.

An ISP is free to say "anyone requesting a tap is required to pay a 
fee," just as any ISP is free to say that it will handle installation 
of special Carnivore equipment for a certain fee.

But when Big Brother commands that his Carnivore boxes be added, ISPs 
are afraid to shoot his agents who trespass.

And so the work is done for free. And so, too, will the fees you talk 
about be waived.

I think my solution may be best: take a few ISPs who have bent over for 
Big Brother and kill their owners and staff. A few ISP owners found 
necklaced and smoking may send a message to others. It works for the 
Mob in a way none of the more civilized approaches can possibly work.

"You narc us out, we douse your children with gasoline and light them 
off. Your choice."

Sometimes freedom demands harshness.


--Tim May