Whoa, I had never heard of an attorney-client gag before:

> LADAR LEVISON: Well, just to add one thing to Greenwald’s comments, I mean, there’s information that I can’t even share with my lawyer, let alone with the American public.

My understanding was attorney client privilege was basically absolute. So it would be nigh unto impossible to actually prevent you from sharing something with your lawyer. I wonder if the guy is embellishing some of this.

Of course, if you engage in a criminal conspiracy with your lawyer, it's breakable(sorry Walter White). So they could claim espionage. But the catch 22 is proving it it if the only evidence is itself covered by said privilege.

According to Wikipedia, NSLs used to prohibit you from disclosing their existence from anyone, including your lawyer. This was changed in 2006:

"On March 9, 2006 the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act was signed into law... Other amendments included that the recipient of an NSL was allowed to explicitly inform their attorney about the request" [1]

Scary stuff. It wouldn't surprise me if there's still some things, like implementation details, that you're compelled to keep secret from your attorney.

Whether or not that would stand up in court is another issue.

Edit: It's not entirely clear to me whether or not this was an actual prohibition on consulting with an attorney, or whether the NSL is worded sufficiently vaguely to make most people believe that's the case. Some case notes from Doe/ACLU v. Ashcroft make me believe it's the latter:

"Because neither the statute, nor an NSL, nor the FBI agents dealing with the recipient say as much, all but the most mettlesome and undaunted NSL recipients would consider themselves effectively barred from consulting an attorney or anyone else who might advise them otherwise, as well as bound to absolute silence about the very existence of the NSL." [2]

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter#Histor...

[2]: http://counsel.cua.edu/fedlaw/Patriot.cfm

It would be a technical violation of the law to reveal to ANYONE including your lawyer that you received an NSL.

Nope. Maybe it used to be true, but not as of 2007.

"…prohibits you…from disclosing this letter, other than to…an attorney to obtain legal advice or legal assistance with respect to this letter.""

Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/EFF-IA_Na...

Is it interpreted as singular, "an attorney", or can you send NSLs to everyone in the American Bar Association for a second opinion?

It's good to shop around, especially here in California, one of the states where graduates from non-accredited law schools can join the bar. :-)

I can't see a reasonable way of establishing bona fides other than creating a strong implication/inference of "national security".

(My wife is a federal attorney, and it is disappointing how warped "the government's" perspectives are on rights and what is reasonable.)

Just saying, there is no law on god's earth that would stop me talking to my girlfriend. The government simply does not have that right and I would NEVER recognise it.

You don't have to recognize that right so long as you're willing to take Snowden's route: flee to a country that is willing to stand up to the US and never return.

The law doesn't work by individual consent, it works by hitting individuals with sticks or locking them in closets until they comply.

If you don't believe him, then you should see this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6xsv4azzpc

It does seem like NSL's are fundamentally unconstitutional, but I think every person needs to prove it now in Court, so if you get one, you should contest it.

I'm getting the impression that shutting the service down was the goal perhaps, although the lenience in not just finding a charge to put him away for seems surprising. But really how many rational serious business owners without legal training would do anything to do with the federal government without legal representation?

I did share that link 5 hours ago, maybe it's because of that. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6206623

Your link doesn't appear to work.

That's strange, I can see it just fine.

Edit: Tried it on private mode and I couldn't see it either. No clue as to why.

Maybe it's like hellbans: everybody can see the submission is dead except the submitter. HN, where you're always the last to know ^^

You have showdead on, it seems...

Nope, it's off. Anyway, who cares. The conversation is happening, that's all that matters.

It is a "dead" link.