[praptak]

They would just serve the paper using the usual techniques for delivering legal papers to persons possibly unwilling to receive them. These techniques usually avoid identifying yourself upfront.

I believe they rather want information which they cannot legally force her to divulge (otherwise see above), so they're trying their luck at intimidation.

[DougHaber]

That isn't always true. In the U.S. legal system, a person can be granted immunity, and in doing so have their 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination terminated. With that, they could be forced to provide testimony, and refusal could result in fines and jail time without due process for as long as the courts see fit.

[algorias]

I don't understand your "without due process" statement. Surely there is a process for granting someone immunity?

Jail time does seem appropriate for non-compliance with a legally binding judicial order (I'm not endorsing or condemning the existence of these laws, btw)

[DougHaber]

In a sense, I think you are right and perhaps my bias is showing. From the perspective of a judge or prosecutor, they followed a legal process and gave a legal order, so there is no violation of due process in their eyes.

Through the eyes of a person compelled to give testimony, we may reach a different conclusion. Consider a journalist who is granted immunity and asked to give up their source. They refuse and spend six months in jail, with few to no options to appeal for their freedom. This isn't theoretical. It happens occasionally.

The definition of due process can vary from the common definition of fair treatment under the law, to the view more often taken by lawyers and governments that it just means following the process of the law as accepted by the courts and respecting legal rights.

The reporter probably would feel as though they weren't treated fairly under the law, but the prosecutor would argue that they followed the law in full. I probably should not have used the phrase "without due process" in this case, since that will make it difficult to communicate with anyone holding views of the government or lawyers.

[MacsHeadroom]

NSL are used to compel a party to DO something to assist with, so called, matters of national security, under threat of physical force. If the letter isn't received and a person can't be physically detained then it can't compel anything, other than hiding from its possible existence

To make things more difficult, the very contents of the letter itself are considered a national secret. Typical methods for serving papers would needlessly jeopardize the confidentiality of such papers. So one would presume that these methods simply aren't in the cards.

[bravo22]

My understanding is that the NSL is a subpoena, and therefore a request for production of documents. It does come with a gag clause however.

Government can only compel you to hand over information for third party which you possess. They can't compel you to DO something, as demonstrated by FBI v Apple recently.

[pfg]

> They can't compel you to DO something, as demonstrated by FBI v Apple recently.

In case anyone who's not familiar with the Apple case is reading this: The government didn't actually wait for the court to rule that they can't (which might or might not be the case, though my understand is that they would've probably ruled in favour of Apple), but rather withdrew the case after a third party unlocked the phone for them.

[MacsHeadroom]

Just the same, they can compel someone to give over information that enables the FBI to do something on their behalf- private encryption keys or signing certificates, for example.

[rdtsc]

Isn't there a process to serve legal documents already? If that is what they are going to do, just server her the letter.

[MacsHeadroom]

The process for serving legal documents which are also considered national secrets is to physically detain someone and have them read (or read to) the document. No copy of the document is made or delivered in a way which allows the individual to retain a copy of the document. That is the process, so far an NSL is involved.

[rdtsc]

Ok, I see, in that case it makes sense.