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 Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 3:37 PM, James Salsman <jsalsman@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?
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.)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).
Luis_______________________________________________
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
--Luis Villa
Deputy General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6810NOTICE: 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@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors