4 ms·

Actually I have heard the exact opposite of what you are stating is true. Both Google and Apple fight very hard to avoid handing data to authorities. They don't

Actually I have heard the exact opposite of what you are stating is true. Both Google and Apple fight very hard to avoid handing data to authorities. They don't want to be seen as some sort of easy conduit to government surveillance or shill. How does that benefit their reputation? I know of one case where Google spent millions on lawyers fighting government wanting access to an activist's email. Their FAQ here makes their policy pretty clear. https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/9713961?hl=en#zippy=%2Chow-does-google-handle-government-requests-for-user-information https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/9713961...

sneak 2y ago
Apple’s own transparency report indicates they turn over data to the USG for over 100,000 different apple IDs each year in the no-warrant-or-probable-cause (FISA orders and NSLs) category. (Mind you; this includes device location histories due to geoip logs, unique identifiers, iMessage histories, photos, documents, everything.) The cases they are allowed to tell you about aren’t in this category. They aren’t even allowed to say exactly how many of the secret warrantless orders they received, or exactly how many users were affectee, only 500-count ranges. For just Apple, for just January 2023 to June 2023 (six months): National Security - FISA Non-Content Requests Table for National Security - FISA Non-Content Requests Data Requests Received 0 - 499 Users/Accounts 40,500 - 40,999 National Security - FISA Content Requests Table displaying National Security - FISA Content Requests Requests Received 500 - 999 Users/Accounts 50,500 - 50,999 National Security Letter Requests Table for National Security Letter Requests data Requests Received 0 - 499 Users/Accounts 1,000 - 1,499 National Security Letters where Non-disclosure Order Lifted 0 I encourage you to read it for yourself: https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html
- imchillyb 2y ago
  > ...no-warrant-or-probable-cause (FISA orders and NSLs)... These are not equivalents, nor are they similar. FISA = Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court / NSL = National Security Letter. If a person is the target of the FISA system, there most certainly is probable cause. National Security Letter is a gag order, given by the intelligence community, in order to protect national security. Again, if you or your organization receives one of these, there most certainly is probable cause. These systems may be detestable, but there's no need to make things up.
  - sneak 2y ago
    There is no probable cause required for FISA orders. They are routinely used illegally against americans. This has been well documented in the press following the Snowden disclosures. It’s called FAA702 or PRISM.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > Apple’s own transparency report indicates they turn over data to the USG for over 100,000 different apple IDs each year in the no-warrant-or-probable-cause (FISA orders and NSLs) category. FISA “orders” are warrants and have the same requirement for probable cause as any search or seizure warrant (they aren't criminal warrants so the probable cause is not of there being evidence of a crime, but of the target being an agent of a foreign power.) NSLs are administrative subpoenas accompanied with gag orders, not warrants, and correspondingly do not have a probable cause requirement; unlike warrants (and like other subpoenas), they are subject to precompliance challenge (and the associated gag order is challengable separately.)
  - fsckboy 2y ago
    FISA warrants do not have the check and balance safeguards that other warrants have, and the system for getting FISA warrants has been extensively and egregiously abused >they are subject to precompliance challenge and it's weird you go to the trouble to mention this but slough over the problems with FISA warrants. You are not arguing honestly here.
  - sneak 2y ago
    > FISA “orders” are warrants and have the same requirement for probable cause as any search or seizure warrant (they aren't criminal warrants so the probable cause is not of there being evidence of a crime, but of the target being an agent of a foreign power.) You put orders in quotes, but that’s what they are called, because it is illegal and inaccurate to call them warrants, because warrants per 4A are issued only upon probable cause. FISA orders are warrantless and do not require probable cause. Snowden was very clear when he released the data on FAA702. No probable cause is required. They are not warrants. There is nobody in the room except a government petitioner and a government judge who rubber stamps them. They are the #1 most used source in the US IC, and they make it possible for the FBI and DHS et al to read all of your gmail, all of your google docs, and all of your iMessages and phone photos without so much as a shred of criminal wrongdoing. The idea that they are used only for foreign surveillance is patently false. There is ample hard documentation (again, thanks to Snowden) that they routinely use these to spy on americans. Their twisted logic is that if the data is replicated outside of the US (to say, a datacenter in Europe) then they are legally permitted to access it under the way the unconstitutional FISA Amendments Act (Section 702) is written.

sneak 2y ago

Apple’s own transparency report indicates they turn over data to the USG for over 100,000 different apple IDs each year in the no-warrant-or-probable-cause (FISA orders and NSLs) category. (Mind you; this includes device location histories due to geoip logs, unique identifiers, iMessage histories, photos, documents, everything.) The cases they are allowed to tell you about aren’t in this category. They aren’t even allowed to say exactly how many of the secret warrantless orders they received, or exactly how many users were affectee, only 500-count ranges. For just Apple, for just January 2023 to June 2023 (six months): National Security - FISA Non-Content Requests Table for National Security - FISA Non-Content Requests Data Requests Received 0 - 499 Users/Accounts 40,500 - 40,999 National Security - FISA Content Requests Table displaying National Security - FISA Content Requests Requests Received 500 - 999 Users/Accounts 50,500 - 50,999 National Security Letter Requests Table for National Security Letter Requests data Requests Received 0 - 499 Users/Accounts 1,000 - 1,499 National Security Letters where Non-disclosure Order Lifted 0 I encourage you to read it for yourself: https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html

imchillyb 2y ago
> ...no-warrant-or-probable-cause (FISA orders and NSLs)... These are not equivalents, nor are they similar. FISA = Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court / NSL = National Security Letter. If a person is the target of the FISA system, there most certainly is probable cause. National Security Letter is a gag order, given by the intelligence community, in order to protect national security. Again, if you or your organization receives one of these, there most certainly is probable cause. These systems may be detestable, but there's no need to make things up.
- sneak 2y ago
  There is no probable cause required for FISA orders. They are routinely used illegally against americans. This has been well documented in the press following the Snowden disclosures. It’s called FAA702 or PRISM.
dragonwriter 2y ago
> Apple’s own transparency report indicates they turn over data to the USG for over 100,000 different apple IDs each year in the no-warrant-or-probable-cause (FISA orders and NSLs) category. FISA “orders” are warrants and have the same requirement for probable cause as any search or seizure warrant (they aren't criminal warrants so the probable cause is not of there being evidence of a crime, but of the target being an agent of a foreign power.) NSLs are administrative subpoenas accompanied with gag orders, not warrants, and correspondingly do not have a probable cause requirement; unlike warrants (and like other subpoenas), they are subject to precompliance challenge (and the associated gag order is challengable separately.)
- fsckboy 2y ago
  FISA warrants do not have the check and balance safeguards that other warrants have, and the system for getting FISA warrants has been extensively and egregiously abused >they are subject to precompliance challenge and it's weird you go to the trouble to mention this but slough over the problems with FISA warrants. You are not arguing honestly here.
- sneak 2y ago
  > FISA “orders” are warrants and have the same requirement for probable cause as any search or seizure warrant (they aren't criminal warrants so the probable cause is not of there being evidence of a crime, but of the target being an agent of a foreign power.) You put orders in quotes, but that’s what they are called, because it is illegal and inaccurate to call them warrants, because warrants per 4A are issued only upon probable cause. FISA orders are warrantless and do not require probable cause. Snowden was very clear when he released the data on FAA702. No probable cause is required. They are not warrants. There is nobody in the room except a government petitioner and a government judge who rubber stamps them. They are the #1 most used source in the US IC, and they make it possible for the FBI and DHS et al to read all of your gmail, all of your google docs, and all of your iMessages and phone photos without so much as a shred of criminal wrongdoing. The idea that they are used only for foreign surveillance is patently false. There is ample hard documentation (again, thanks to Snowden) that they routinely use these to spy on americans. Their twisted logic is that if the data is replicated outside of the US (to say, a datacenter in Europe) then they are legally permitted to access it under the way the unconstitutional FISA Amendments Act (Section 702) is written.