If the government is amassing information on individuals to prove guilt of some crime, by withholding that information from counsel, it's very possible that evidence that proves the individual is completely innocent may be destroyed inadvertently since the individual has no idea what they might be someday accused of.
Of course, you could always keep a copy of every phone bill you receive if you want permanent proof of what you were up to.
Casting doubt is one thing, prosecutors seem intent they never get in front of a jury and if they do they will do their best to suppress any evidence in your favor.
Why, especially in the light of recent privacy concerns, would I just hand over my full name, address and phone number and allow someone I have no relationship with mail a legal document on my behalf?
PS. In submitting this - your Web page (!!) - I was hoping to get some feedback from wise old HNers as to whether it was legit or not. Though the page out of context seems faintly scam-like ("We will mail your request for FREE!" "We've got a lot of printing and mailing to do, and can only do it with your support!"), it seemed to check out with the other pages on the site and all the information about you so I figured it was fine, but still was interested in what other folks made of it. I wasn't expecting the author himself to be the first to assure people with his previous HN credentials! Great stuff, and keep up the awesome work.
There are a few little things, too, like the ASCII arrow "bullets" and cheap-feeling graphics, that just make it seem less trustworthy. Contact me if you’d like me to donate a wee bit of time to upgrade your look & feel.
If youd like to make graphics to improve the design, I'd be happy to put them up! jon [at] professional-troublemaker.com
<a href="/retrieve/" class="button retrieve">Retrieve</a>
<style type="text/css" media="screen">
font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;
I am a lawyer and would be interested in helping you make this more effective, if you are interested.
I don't believe the FISA court has established filing fees, simply because they typically only get requests from the government. Their rules:
Also, NSA likely doesn't have too much of a file on you. FBI, CIA, DHS, on the other hand...
Not sure why this is getting down voted, it isn't hard to understand or show evidence of. You may not agree with it, but it is fact. For example a Columbian drug lord can break American laws without ever stepping foot on US soil. A hacker in China can violate wiretapping laws. The sovereignty of other nations has given way to extradition, extraordinary rendition, or even drone strikes.
Even if someone is physically not in the US? Have I misunderstood something for a very long time?
There are other examples. This is the one that came to mind most readily. I don't smoke up. I don't support Marc Emery. I was however, ashamed at how nut-less my government was in handing him over.
It would be nice if the site published instructions on submitting these requests yourself.
On a related note, I'd love to know:
1. How does one typically file a motion with the FISA court, given that they don't have a website or any public contact information that I can find?
2. What's the probability of these "quash" requests even being considered, given that nobody other than the USG is technically party to the case?
2) Probably slim, but again, it's a matter of petitioning your government for redress -- a protest. You certainly have "standing," so I don't imagine the reason will be that you're "not a party," but they'll likely find some reason to deny them.
> For a typical requester the agency can charge for the time it takes to search for records and for duplication of those records. There is usually no charge for the first two hours of search time or for the first 100 pages of duplication.
In the spirit of absurdist satirical works such as Brazil locally relevant in light of recent events, here's an immediate lunatic conspiracy theory:
This whole Snowden leak business is an elaborate and wholly orchestrated "make work" scheme to boost the economy by flooding "the agency" with requests for records. In three months four out of every five Americans will be hired in this line of work. Brilliant, government economists, simply brilliant!
Sounds like that applies to most everyone to me!
The main remedy for illegal police searches is exclusion of the evidence if, and when, the government attempts to use it in court (and then, usually, only if they attempt to use it against the specific person whose rights were violated by the search, and not always even then [e.g., good faith exception, and other exceptions to the exclusionary rule].)
You all can feel free to try on my behalf tho! Perhaps you have a more established account.