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?
These letters appear to be handed to someone at c-level or higher.
However, perhaps a policy of being terminated effective immediately with a decent payout would be better.
John Vandenberg. sent from Galaxy Note On Aug 3, 2013 8:37 AM, "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?
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
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?
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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Luis,
Thank you for your very thoughtful reply. I am far more interested in preventing our readers from investigation because of their whims of curiosity than in frustrating the NSA or alerting the community to surveillance.
Are Foundation employees served as individuals allowed to talk to you about them? If so, are you allowed to talk with your colleagues in the legal department about the letters?
Best regards, James Salsman
On Sunday, August 4, 2013, Luis Villa wrote:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 3:37 PM, James Salsman <jsalsman@gmail.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '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?
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@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'Advocacy_Advisors@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.*
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 6:55 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Luis,
Thank you for your very thoughtful reply. I am far more interested in preventing our readers from investigation because of their whims of curiosity than in frustrating the NSA or alerting the community to surveillance.
I suppose that's what I eventually meant by "frustrate" the NSA; i.e., frustrate their purpose - sorry for the lack of clarity. Most likely, trying to game the system with something like this won't work - you really need to either press for new legislation or fight the request in the court system.
Are Foundation employees served as individuals allowed to talk to you about them? If so, are you allowed to talk with your colleagues in the legal department about the letters?
They're allowed to talk to their legal representatives; as employees, that's us. Realistically, in this sort of situation they'd probably go directly to Geoff; exactly how far he'd share with the rest of the team would probably depend on the circumstances. It's entirely possible he'd share only with outside counsel, but he might inform one or two other team members to manage the case as well.
Luis
Luis
Best regards, James Salsman
On Sunday, August 4, 2013, Luis Villa wrote:
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?
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Is there a legal policy which would immunize the Foundation against such goverment violations of the Fourth Amendment?
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Luis Villa lvilla@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 6:55 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Luis,
Thank you for your very thoughtful reply. I am far more interested in preventing our readers from investigation because of their whims of curiosity than in frustrating the NSA or alerting the community to surveillance.
I suppose that's what I eventually meant by "frustrate" the NSA; i.e., frustrate their purpose - sorry for the lack of clarity. Most likely, trying to game the system with something like this won't work - you really need to either press for new legislation or fight the request in the court system.
Are Foundation employees served as individuals allowed to talk to you about them? If so, are you allowed to talk with your colleagues in the legal department about the letters?
They're allowed to talk to their legal representatives; as employees, that's us. Realistically, in this sort of situation they'd probably go directly to Geoff; exactly how far he'd share with the rest of the team would probably depend on the circumstances. It's entirely possible he'd share only with outside counsel, but he might inform one or two other team members to manage the case as well.
Luis
Luis
Best regards, James Salsman
On Sunday, August 4, 2013, Luis Villa wrote:
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?
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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 3:03 AM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a legal policy which would immunize the Foundation against such goverment violations of the Fourth Amendment?
I don't understand the question.
-Jeremy
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@wikimedia.org wrote:
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?
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
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@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@wikimedia.org wrote:
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?
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
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@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@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@wikimedia.org wrote:
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?
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Random thoughts on this.
In most countries the law can obligate many things, but it simply cannot obligate a person to forcibly continue at an employment (or to offer services as an employee or consultant) when they do not wish to. An employee who says to their employer "I have a conflict of interest and cannot continue my role" or the like, or "I need to resign for unspecified reasons" or "on the advice of my lawyer", is unlikely to be legally out of line - especially if their contract includes emphasis on trust and reputation damage.
(Crossref recent news that HSBC is closing down many diplomatic bank accounts - however prestigious, key to networking, and profitable - due to reputation risk. We have reputation risk here no less, and a lot more.)
Legally there could be ways it might be possible to implement it in contract despite concerns in this thread.
For example, an employment/engagement contract clause might be added to state that an employee should be prepared to (and is expected to always) resign in the event that they are unable to act in the interests of the movement due to conflict of interest or other personal or external obligation, and that at the discretion of the board they may be recompensed for this if the board's finding is of genuine conflict and good cause, and this would be done in order to encourage the highest standard of ethical compliance within the foundation and in all matters, and exercise of discretion would be based on a decision by the board or such persons as the board delegates, to fact-find the matter.
This is wide enough to act as a general ethical mandate, and is not targeted at any one cause or concern. It has freedom for discretion of bona fide situations, and in the event that a person feels unable to discuss a matter with any arbitrary director, it allows a person to be chosen whom they can discuss with and will form a view, which seems legally safe in any case where COI impacts employment conduct (not just this one issue).
Informally there are other options. For example a "consensus discovering exercise" or common employee understanding that was endorsed "round robin" style (look up the origins of the expression) by individuals that had no formal policy or employment obligation might be on fairly solid ground. Specifically it would be hard to demonstrate that an employee/contractor common culture/understanding was a policy or the deed of the organization. It's much closer in nature to a set of personal views expressed personally and generally by various employees, related to a speculative non-imminent future area of personal conflict, which individuals are free to seek polled feedback on, and which has the positive effect of leaving individuals free to act as they see fit but allows them to gain an appreciation of the prevailing view of their fellows towards any of the different actions they might take. If such an event occurred, the law may not allow them to ask this kind of feedback from colleagues, so knowing that 80% of your peers would agree that in a conflict they would personally see it as okay to do X or Y, is useful information whose mere public polling in advance by individuals motivated to do so, would be hard to categorize as a wrongful act in law.
FT2
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:43 AM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
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@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@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@wikimedia.org wrote:
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?
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Adding to this, a number of sources comment that commercial employment contracts should start like this:
*"Your primary role as an employee of XYZ Corp is to aid the growth, profitability and sustainability of XYZ Corp. In your role as ___, you will primarily do this by <specific job duties etc>"*
In other words "marketing" or "coding" or "server management" are not the primary role responsibilities. Building the future is. The specific job is merely how it is anticipated that you will be able to do that task.
In the context of Wikimedia, peoples' primary role is to ensure the growth, sustainability, and secure reputation, of the foundation and matters reflecting on it. They will do this by undertaking specific roles, but also, by placing these as primary priorities in any conflict. It then becomes appropriate and valid to say something like this to underpin it:
"Your primary role is to ensure the growth, sustainability, and secure reputation, of the Foundation, Movement, and matters reflecting on them. You will generally do this by undertaking specific roles described below."
"However, as the Foundation and Movement is inordinately predicated on trust and public goodwill, it is expected that you will be exceptionally alert to situations in which reputation or sustainability are at actual risk of damage (present or future). In such circumstances your overriding responsibility is to inform the CEO or Counsel of the matter and comply with advice. If you feel for any reason unable to do so, there is an expectation you will take proactive steps to minimize any damage to the Foundation or Movement resulting from possible actions you may otherwise be required to take, including (but not limited to) resignation."
It's far from watertight, but gives an idea of a direction that's applicable, generic, and far from specific to any given situation. It's probably good guidance regardless, in a way.
FT2
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 2:59 AM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Random thoughts on this.
In most countries the law can obligate many things, but it simply cannot obligate a person to forcibly continue at an employment (or to offer services as an employee or consultant) when they do not wish to. An employee who says to their employer "I have a conflict of interest and cannot continue my role" or the like, or "I need to resign for unspecified reasons" or "on the advice of my lawyer", is unlikely to be legally out of line - especially if their contract includes emphasis on trust and reputation damage.
(Crossref recent news that HSBC is closing down many diplomatic bank accounts - however prestigious, key to networking, and profitable - due to reputation risk. We have reputation risk here no less, and a lot more.)
Legally there could be ways it might be possible to implement it in contract despite concerns in this thread.
For example, an employment/engagement contract clause might be added to state that an employee should be prepared to (and is expected to always) resign in the event that they are unable to act in the interests of the movement due to conflict of interest or other personal or external obligation, and that at the discretion of the board they may be recompensed for this if the board's finding is of genuine conflict and good cause, and this would be done in order to encourage the highest standard of ethical compliance within the foundation and in all matters, and exercise of discretion would be based on a decision by the board or such persons as the board delegates, to fact-find the matter.
This is wide enough to act as a general ethical mandate, and is not targeted at any one cause or concern. It has freedom for discretion of bona fide situations, and in the event that a person feels unable to discuss a matter with any arbitrary director, it allows a person to be chosen whom they can discuss with and will form a view, which seems legally safe in any case where COI impacts employment conduct (not just this one issue).
Informally there are other options. For example a "consensus discovering exercise" or common employee understanding that was endorsed "round robin" style (look up the origins of the expression) by individuals that had no formal policy or employment obligation might be on fairly solid ground. Specifically it would be hard to demonstrate that an employee/contractor common culture/understanding was a policy or the deed of the organization. It's much closer in nature to a set of personal views expressed personally and generally by various employees, related to a speculative non-imminent future area of personal conflict, which individuals are free to seek polled feedback on, and which has the positive effect of leaving individuals free to act as they see fit but allows them to gain an appreciation of the prevailing view of their fellows towards any of the different actions they might take. If such an event occurred, the law may not allow them to ask this kind of feedback from colleagues, so knowing that 80% of your peers would agree that in a conflict they would personally see it as okay to do X or Y, is useful information whose mere public polling in advance by individuals motivated to do so, would be hard to categorize as a wrongful act in law.
FT2
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:43 AM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
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@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@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@wikimedia.org wrote:
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?
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org