6 ms·

Cases like this reinforce my opinion, that there is an increasing demand to educate consumers how to prevent getting data leaked to government institutions like

by evook 11y ago

Cases like this reinforce my opinion, that there is an increasing demand to educate consumers how to prevent getting data leaked to government institutions like intelligence services. Especially the consequences of picking the wrong service provider. Luckily I am now in a position where I am fully responsible and aware of the routes my data takes. Yet we as a B2B ISP constantly get requests by intelligence services to provide information regarding our customers. Strangely they always assume that's totally okay to -just- ask for the data, instead of going the formal way. If we demand the judicial permissions they always rant about emergencies and so on. We can't help but follow the law, and the law disallows us to keep specific data for more than 60 days. I am really curious about how many ISPs voluntarily provide their customer data without asking for judicial permission beforehand. Such conversations are coming around 2 or 3 times a week.

stingraycharles 11y ago
It could just be a technique to convince you it's perfectly normal to give up the data. I wouldn't be surprised if many people would fall for such a thing.
- evook 11y ago
  That is of course possibe. I highly think that most companies fall for it. If you speak with someone of a state agency, you always feel like they are used to get it. Some of them are actually surprised and openly disappointed when you refuse to hand over. What wonders me the most is, that most of the time they won't go down the legal way. Instead they just seem to do their job without the data as well afterwards. So what was the point in requesting the data in the beginning?
eli 11y ago
To be fair, if I were investigating a crime I would start by just asking companies to give me information informally, even if most say no.
- bediger4000 11y ago
  Why? If you were investigating a crime, you're in law enforcement. Officers of the law have an ethical duty to obey the law, perhaps a stronger duty than those of us who are not sworn to uphold the Constitution or some other higher document. Law enforcement officers also have better knowledge of the law and what it requres of both officers and people/businesses with data. If I were part of a business, I would be obliged to follow the laws about giving away data, so I would find out exactly what my legal obligation is, and follow that as best I could. If that means asking for a warrant, I would politely, but firmly ask for one. I'm thinking of getting one of those doormats that say "GET A WARRANT", personally.
  - fastandfurryous 11y ago
    Because it takes the least amount of time and effort to get the answers you need. Most people want to do the "right thing" to catch the bad guy, and will help out a LEO without a warrant to that end. Plus, who wants to sully a relationship with people who have the power to make your life and business miserable?
    - bediger4000 11y ago
      Sadly, I image you're correct. But you're speaking of regular citizens, not the law enforcement officers. The officers would seem to have a greaty duty than ordinary citizens, no?
      - fastandfurryous 11y ago
        What duty do they have other than to ensure they get credit for a job well done and to continue their career building? They're people driven by the same selfish pressures most are, but there is little oversight or regulation to keep that in check. Getting answers quickly and cheaply is considered good investigative work. A warrant is a last resort and exists as a check against their desire for answers from someone who is unwilling to comply.
Animats 11y ago
There's one cellular provider which has the obligation under CALEA to do wiretaps. They comply with the law strictly, which annoys the FBI. First, CALEA requires that the company provide a "senior official" as a point of access for law enforcement, and a backup 24/7 contact. Their senior official is their general counsel, and the backup is another lawyer. It's not their network operations center. Their general counsel wants to see a warrant, and checks back with the court to make sure it's valid. This is the way to do it; bring in Legal. There's a procedure for "emergency requests" in advance of a warrant under CALEA. This telco immediately faxes the law enforcement requester a brief form to fill in for those. It requires name, police department, office address, badge number, and a brief explanation of why there's no warrant yet. The form to be signed by the law enforcement official contains a statement that the official will provide a warrant within 48 hours, and in the event that they fail to do so, their department will take full responsibility for their actions, including indemnifying the telco against any costs and damages. That's followed by a statement that in the event the law enforcement organization fails to authorize the actions of their official, the official will be personally responsible for said costs. The telco also reserves the right to disclose requests for which a court order does not follow. This discourages fake "emergency" requests. Get your legal people to draft something like that. The key to this is that law enforcement's interface to your company should go through your legal department. (I used to have a link for this, including their forms, but can't find it now. Can anyone else find it? )
- comrade1 11y ago
  If only Qwest took this route. Instead they rejected the government wiretap requests and the CEO went to prison for insider trading because he announced that they would probably lose their government contracts...
  - PhantomGremlin 11y ago
    Looked at another way, assisting the government in subverting the Constitution should not be a "Get Out Of Jail, Free" card.
    - 11y ago
rdl 11y ago
It's a shame these conversations don't get published in realtime.

by evook 11y ago

stingraycharles 11y ago

It could just be a technique to convince you it's perfectly normal to give up the data. I wouldn't be surprised if many people would fall for such a thing.

evook 11y ago
That is of course possibe. I highly think that most companies fall for it. If you speak with someone of a state agency, you always feel like they are used to get it. Some of them are actually surprised and openly disappointed when you refuse to hand over. What wonders me the most is, that most of the time they won't go down the legal way. Instead they just seem to do their job without the data as well afterwards. So what was the point in requesting the data in the beginning?

eli 11y ago

To be fair, if I were investigating a crime I would start by just asking companies to give me information informally, even if most say no.

bediger4000 11y ago
Why? If you were investigating a crime, you're in law enforcement. Officers of the law have an ethical duty to obey the law, perhaps a stronger duty than those of us who are not sworn to uphold the Constitution or some other higher document. Law enforcement officers also have better knowledge of the law and what it requres of both officers and people/businesses with data. If I were part of a business, I would be obliged to follow the laws about giving away data, so I would find out exactly what my legal obligation is, and follow that as best I could. If that means asking for a warrant, I would politely, but firmly ask for one. I'm thinking of getting one of those doormats that say "GET A WARRANT", personally.
- fastandfurryous 11y ago
  Because it takes the least amount of time and effort to get the answers you need. Most people want to do the "right thing" to catch the bad guy, and will help out a LEO without a warrant to that end. Plus, who wants to sully a relationship with people who have the power to make your life and business miserable?
  - bediger4000 11y ago
    Sadly, I image you're correct. But you're speaking of regular citizens, not the law enforcement officers. The officers would seem to have a greaty duty than ordinary citizens, no?
    - fastandfurryous 11y ago
      What duty do they have other than to ensure they get credit for a job well done and to continue their career building? They're people driven by the same selfish pressures most are, but there is little oversight or regulation to keep that in check. Getting answers quickly and cheaply is considered good investigative work. A warrant is a last resort and exists as a check against their desire for answers from someone who is unwilling to comply.

Animats 11y ago

There's one cellular provider which has the obligation under CALEA to do wiretaps. They comply with the law strictly, which annoys the FBI. First, CALEA requires that the company provide a "senior official" as a point of access for law enforcement, and a backup 24/7 contact. Their senior official is their general counsel, and the backup is another lawyer. It's not their network operations center. Their general counsel wants to see a warrant, and checks back with the court to make sure it's valid. This is the way to do it; bring in Legal. There's a procedure for "emergency requests" in advance of a warrant under CALEA. This telco immediately faxes the law enforcement requester a brief form to fill in for those. It requires name, police department, office address, badge number, and a brief explanation of why there's no warrant yet. The form to be signed by the law enforcement official contains a statement that the official will provide a warrant within 48 hours, and in the event that they fail to do so, their department will take full responsibility for their actions, including indemnifying the telco against any costs and damages. That's followed by a statement that in the event the law enforcement organization fails to authorize the actions of their official, the official will be personally responsible for said costs. The telco also reserves the right to disclose requests for which a court order does not follow. This discourages fake "emergency" requests. Get your legal people to draft something like that. The key to this is that law enforcement's interface to your company should go through your legal department. (I used to have a link for this, including their forms, but can't find it now. Can anyone else find it? )

comrade1 11y ago
If only Qwest took this route. Instead they rejected the government wiretap requests and the CEO went to prison for insider trading because he announced that they would probably lose their government contracts...
- PhantomGremlin 11y ago
  Looked at another way, assisting the government in subverting the Constitution should not be a "Get Out Of Jail, Free" card.
  - 11y ago

rdl 11y ago

It's a shame these conversations don't get published in realtime.