If I understand correctly, the sequences of events is like this:
A) FBI issues NSL to ISP, demanding information, and prohibiting disclosure.
B) ISP starts a proceeding challenging constitutionality of gag
C) FBI starts a separate proceeding reasserting validing of gag
D?) Wired also claims that the FBI claimed that step B violated the law, but I don't see that in the ruling link you posted.
Why is step C needed? Not that it seems that bad....
If I understand correctly, the sequences of events is like this:
A) FBI issues NSL to ISP, demanding information, and prohibiting disclosure. B) ISP starts a proceeding challenging constitutionality of gag C) FBI starts a separate proceeding reasserting validing of gag
D?) Wired also claims that the FBI claimed that step B violated the law, but I don't see that in the ruling link you posted.
Why is step C needed? Not that it seems that bad....
But if D happened, that seems really alarming.