Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
Recently there has been some news about the Feds secretly acquiring personal financial data on people here in the US, and questions surrounding the appropriateness of this practice. A couple days ago I saw Dick Cheney making some comments about this on one of the news stations on television. I wanted to comment a bit about what he said, because I believe he made some misleading statements.
He stated that this information was acquired thru the use of National Security Letters. This is a statutorially supported method for gaining information about an individual without a subpoena, and has been in use by law enforcement for at least a couple decades. I believe it was originally meant to be used against foreigners, as a way of tracking enemy spies in our country. The USA PATRIOT act broadened its authority to also be used against US citizens. At any rate, whether we agree or disagree with the practice, it is supported by the laws of our country.
However, I have some strong disagreement with what Mr. Cheney said. He stated that compliance with the information request is optional on the part of the financial institutions. He stated that most financial institutions choose to comply, but they don't have to, and they are free to challenge the request in court if they desire. These statements are extremely misleading.
I work for a well known financial institution, and I have handled National Security Letters in the past, and others in my department continue to handle them today. They are served by agents of the FBI and CIA, and request financial information about certain individuals.
There is tremendous secrecy surrounding the request. Usually, the agent contacts us by telephone and states that they will arrive and personally hand over a NSL. We receive the letter which outlines the information needed, and identifies the person. The person's name is never to be spoken out loud. We are not supposed to even talk about the request with our coworkers. We compile the information, but generate no correspondence with the agent that identifies the individual. When the documents are ready, we call the agent and simply tell them "the documents you requested are ready", but again, we do not mention the name over the telephone. The agent arrives at our office and we hand over the documents in an unmarked, sealed envelope.
We are under threat of criminal charges for non-compliance with the request, or for notifying the subject individual that his records are being sought. This is true for us as an individual, as well as punishment for my company.
It is true, my company could object to the request and file a challenge in court. Keep in mind, anything can be challenged in court. But what this means is that we would need to spend time and money to challenge this issue, which is frankly none of our business. We have no interest in making the challenge, and no reason to spend the time or money, so we don't do it. To do so would put our company into the role of shield and legal counsel for our financial client, and that is not our role. So we don't do it. Basically, his problems are his own, not ours, he just happens to be a financial customer of ours. So it is not surprising that the financial institutions don't challenge these letters.
But for Mr. Cheney to characterize compliance as "optional", is just not true. He has oversimplified the situation, and expresses this to the public, most of whom are in no position to understand the complexity of the situation. This implies that the Financial Institution has the final say over whether or not the govt. receives the documents, and paints a picture of the institutions happily turning over whatever the govt. may decide on a whim that it wants. Once again, they are attempting to deflect the nation's suspicions, and place responsibility on the shoulders of others, in this case, the financial institutions.
The practice of serving NSL by the govt. has caused some outrage and suspicion of abuse. This outrage and suspicion is properly aimed at the Feds. But the Feds, thru the mouth of Cheney, have attempted to redirect that outrage at the Financial Institutions.
Either Mr. Cheney is actually ignorant of how NSLs work, or he is telling deliberate lies and half-truths.
Just wanted to comment. Thx.
He stated that this information was acquired thru the use of National Security Letters. This is a statutorially supported method for gaining information about an individual without a subpoena, and has been in use by law enforcement for at least a couple decades. I believe it was originally meant to be used against foreigners, as a way of tracking enemy spies in our country. The USA PATRIOT act broadened its authority to also be used against US citizens. At any rate, whether we agree or disagree with the practice, it is supported by the laws of our country.
However, I have some strong disagreement with what Mr. Cheney said. He stated that compliance with the information request is optional on the part of the financial institutions. He stated that most financial institutions choose to comply, but they don't have to, and they are free to challenge the request in court if they desire. These statements are extremely misleading.
I work for a well known financial institution, and I have handled National Security Letters in the past, and others in my department continue to handle them today. They are served by agents of the FBI and CIA, and request financial information about certain individuals.
There is tremendous secrecy surrounding the request. Usually, the agent contacts us by telephone and states that they will arrive and personally hand over a NSL. We receive the letter which outlines the information needed, and identifies the person. The person's name is never to be spoken out loud. We are not supposed to even talk about the request with our coworkers. We compile the information, but generate no correspondence with the agent that identifies the individual. When the documents are ready, we call the agent and simply tell them "the documents you requested are ready", but again, we do not mention the name over the telephone. The agent arrives at our office and we hand over the documents in an unmarked, sealed envelope.
We are under threat of criminal charges for non-compliance with the request, or for notifying the subject individual that his records are being sought. This is true for us as an individual, as well as punishment for my company.
It is true, my company could object to the request and file a challenge in court. Keep in mind, anything can be challenged in court. But what this means is that we would need to spend time and money to challenge this issue, which is frankly none of our business. We have no interest in making the challenge, and no reason to spend the time or money, so we don't do it. To do so would put our company into the role of shield and legal counsel for our financial client, and that is not our role. So we don't do it. Basically, his problems are his own, not ours, he just happens to be a financial customer of ours. So it is not surprising that the financial institutions don't challenge these letters.
But for Mr. Cheney to characterize compliance as "optional", is just not true. He has oversimplified the situation, and expresses this to the public, most of whom are in no position to understand the complexity of the situation. This implies that the Financial Institution has the final say over whether or not the govt. receives the documents, and paints a picture of the institutions happily turning over whatever the govt. may decide on a whim that it wants. Once again, they are attempting to deflect the nation's suspicions, and place responsibility on the shoulders of others, in this case, the financial institutions.
The practice of serving NSL by the govt. has caused some outrage and suspicion of abuse. This outrage and suspicion is properly aimed at the Feds. But the Feds, thru the mouth of Cheney, have attempted to redirect that outrage at the Financial Institutions.
Either Mr. Cheney is actually ignorant of how NSLs work, or he is telling deliberate lies and half-truths.
Just wanted to comment. Thx.
). The Patriot Act merely extended this hijacking of civil liberties to the fight against suspected terrorists (and the rest of us honest citizens have nothing to worry about 
