An FBI agent serves a provider with a National Security Letter and includes a nondisclosure requirement barring the provider from telling anyone, including the affected customer, that it received the NSL. The provider's counsel wants to know how the USA FREEDOM Act altered the legal posture of that nondisclosure requirement. Which statement is correct?
- AThe provider may seek judicial review of the nondisclosure requirement, and the government must periodically reassess whether continued secrecy remains justified. Correct
- BThe nondisclosure requirement is now permanent once imposed, and the provider has no statutory mechanism to seek its removal at any later time.
- CThe nondisclosure requirement was abolished entirely, so providers receiving NSLs may now freely publish the specific contents of any NSL they receive.
- DThe provider may disclose the NSL only after first obtaining written authorisation from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for each individual customer affected.
Why A is correct: Correct: USA FREEDOM established judicial-review procedures for NSL gag orders and reciprocal notice requiring the government to revisit whether nondisclosure is still warranted.
Why B is wrong: Tempting because NSL gag orders were historically open-ended, but USA FREEDOM created review and termination mechanisms, so the gag is not permanent and unchallengeable.
Why C is wrong: Tempting because reforms increased transparency, but USA FREEDOM did not abolish NSL gags; it added procedures and reciprocal-notice rules rather than removing them.
Why D is wrong: Tempting because the FISC oversees national security matters, but NSL nondisclosure review runs through ordinary judicial-review procedures, not per-customer FISC authorisation.