5 ms·

This headline is quite misleading. Nowhere in it does Google actually state what the article claims in any way. If anything, what makes me happy is that Google

by kposehn 14y ago

This headline is quite misleading. Nowhere in it does Google actually state what the article claims in any way. If anything, what makes me happy is that Google can even disclose any of this at all. NSL's are a tool that has little oversight and a bit more awareness may help keep them from being abused.

n3rdy 14y ago
> This headline is quite misleading. Indeed, the FBI doesn't have customers either.
gojomo 14y ago
I'm happy Google has found a way to disclose this, too. The headline ("Google Says the FBI Is Secretly Spying on Some of Its Customers") seems fair to me. Google is reporting that it got more than 1 and less than 1,000 "National Security Letters", about more than 999 but less than 2,000 of Google's customers. Because the exact subjects of these letters can't be shared, the FBI's actions are being done "secretly". Because they allow the FBI to receive private information it wouldn't otherwise have without the subjects knowing, this activity fits the colloquial meaning of "spying". All the elements of the headline are supported by the reporting.
- dalke 14y ago
  What's the difference between "secretly spying" and "secretly investigating"? What's an example of a secret investigation which is not secret spying? Would these NSLs more appropriately be describe as investigation or spying? Why?
  - gojomo 14y ago
    Both are accurate enough for a headline. 'Spying' will often win as it's less than half the size (in letters and syllables). Also, usually when investigation requires crossing usual privacy boundaries, and perhaps compelling third-party disclosures, the subject gets to know, and even challenge the search/seizure. Or at the very least, some other impartial hearing occurs – for example, to get a search warrant. Not so with the 'National Security Letters'. So 'spying' is especially apt, compared to the normalcy and equitable procedures connoted by 'investigating'. There's a stronger case to be made that 'secretly' is redundant; it's already implied by 'spying'. But an oddity of the the NSL law is that you're not even supposed to reveal you've received one. Only now, many years later, are some fuzzy aggregate totals being revealed for prior years. So the extra heightening emphasis 'secretly spying' makes sense as well. Not only are the subjects unaware there online information is being collected, but the magnitude of the collection activity as a whole has been disguised.
    - dalke 14y ago
      The headline was deliberately selected for drama, and not for the length of the headline. If brevity was the sole criteria then ""Google Says FBI Requests Some Customer Data" is even shorter. Or even "Google: FBI Spies on Its Customers." Why does the headline use the word "spy" at all? Google did not use the word "spy." They say the NSL is used in "national security investigations." Nor does the word "spy" appear in the body of the Wired article. Why does the headline use the word "secret"? As you pointed out, "spying" implies "secret". If brevity were the primary concern then it should be omitted. Hence my conclusion about using the headline as an attention grabber, and not because of its length. BTW, when I read the headline, I took it to mean that Google found out that the FBI was getting customer information using a means which was secret even from Google. Thus, I believe the headline is also misleading. While the statements you made about the NSL are true, and I believe NSLs are fundamentally counter to the transparency needed for good oversight, the statement that "when investigation requires crossing usual privacy boundaries, the subject gets to know" is not true. Wiretapping is legal, and the subject does not necessarily get to know or contest the wiretapping. How many times have you or people you know been wiretapped? If you can't be sure of the answer, because not all of that information is public, then wiretapping by the police is "spying" under your definition, is it not? A difference is that subpoenas and warrants have judicial oversight, while NSLs do not. No, I do not believe that the FISA court or appeal to the FISA court gives sufficient oversight. Unfortunately, as we recently learned from the Supreme Court, if we don't have proof of being spied upon then we can't say that we're being spied upon. I'm actually in favor of saying that we are being spied upon. I do so from a moral and ethical view, and not from a legal definition. I think your argument is that this can be called spying because 'this activity fits the colloquial meaning of "spying".' My objection is that other similar activities by the government are not called spying, and neither you nor the Wired article characterized the difference between the "spying" and "secret investigation."
      - gojomo 14y ago
        I suspect this author and editorial organization would, in fact, call all the similar activities by the government 'spying', that you and I would agree should be called 'spying'. So the fact that other people, sometimes, use and understand 'spying' less consistently isn't very relevant for condemning this headline use as 'misleading'. Wiretapping requires a court order. And it is also 'spying', in the common understanding of the word. ('Spying' does not require illegality. With a court order, wiretapping is legal spying. These NSLs are also currently-understood-to-be-legal spying.) The headline "Google: FBI Spies on its Customers" would have been defensible, too. It's a short, opinionated summary of the equally-opinionated reporting. Yes, it would prompt readers to wonder exactly which kind of 'spying' is meant, which they could find in the article. 'Requests Some Customer Data' would not be enough: there's no indication of the compulsion and secrecy. 'Secretly Investigates' would not be enough, either, because just researching someone via public sources could be a 'secret investigation'. Only 'spying' adds the necessary connotation of surveillance or privileged-document-collection. And sure Wired picked the word for drama. We should expect reports to feature the most-dramatic-yet-still-fair headlines that can be backed up by the reporting. This recent expansion of oversight-resistant domestic-spying is in fact a dramatic development. Google finding a way to hint at its magnitude is also a dramatic development.
- jeremyjh 14y ago
  Its no secret that the FBI is spying on Google's customers.
- firebones 14y ago
  If we had an estimate of the number of in-links and out-links in the inbox, we would have a more accurate sense of the number of people whose communications were actually swept up under this surveillance. The number might be more accurately portrayed as "greater than 49,950 and less than 100,000 people" assuming the typical mailbox contains traffic from 50 people. Not all would be Google's customers, but it would portray the scope more clearly.
  - stanleydrew 14y ago
    If you read the whole article closely you'll find this: Google noted that the FBI may “obtain ‘the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records’ of a subscriber to a wire or electronic communications service. The FBI can’t use NSLs to obtain anything else from Google, such as Gmail content, search queries, YouTube videos or user IP addresses.” So inboxes are not being opened up for the FBI as part of these requests.
  - magicalist 14y ago
    That applies more to the general search warrants they disclose than NSLs. "Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) 18 U.S.C. section 2709, the FBI can seek “the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records” of a subscriber to a wire or electronic communications service. The FBI can’t use NSLs to obtain anything else from Google, such as Gmail content, search queries, YouTube videos or user IP addresses." http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/faq/#what_does_an_nsl_compel http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/fa...
- mc32 14y ago
  I think the contention is that Google knows they're spying on its users, so it's not secret spying, if spying means observing/seeing. I think 'Google says the FBI spies on some of its customers' is less confusing. Secret spying would imply the gov have a secret undefined backdoor.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    It is kept secret from the victims, the most relevant people to the spying.
    - mc32 14y ago
      It's still plain spying. Spies would not be spies if the spied on knew they were spies, except in situations where they discover the spy and want her to lead them to her network of spies. But normally who the spies are is unknown to the entity being spied upon. to put it plainly it's unnecessarily redundant in the title.
lhnn 14y ago
NSL = Secret, no-judiciary, blanket access to what the FBI wants. Spying. Google confirms at least 1000 accounts per year are accessed by the FBI via NSL. Google confirms the FBI is spying on some of [Google's] customers. QED
wyclif 14y ago
I wanted to edit the headline, but I know how futile that is these days on HN, having done it many times before and having it edited to strictly mirror the original headline of the post.
rishimoko 14y ago
> what makes me happy is that Google can even disclose any of this at all. That's one way to look at it. Another way might be, "Influential data company prevented from disclosing what the government is doing on the company's network".
Evbn 14y ago
The only way to prevent abuse is to keep your data unavailable to Google and others.
rsync 14y ago
There is a much more aggressive response that a service provider can give to a NSL: http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt Some background: http://blog.kozubik.com/john_kozubik/2010/08/the-warrant-canary-in-2010-and-beyond.html http://blog.kozubik.com/john_kozubik/2010/08/the-warrant-can... We've been updating this since late 2005.

by kposehn 14y ago

n3rdy 14y ago

> This headline is quite misleading. Indeed, the FBI doesn't have customers either.

gojomo 14y ago

I'm happy Google has found a way to disclose this, too. The headline ("Google Says the FBI Is Secretly Spying on Some of Its Customers") seems fair to me. Google is reporting that it got more than 1 and less than 1,000 "National Security Letters", about more than 999 but less than 2,000 of Google's customers. Because the exact subjects of these letters can't be shared, the FBI's actions are being done "secretly". Because they allow the FBI to receive private information it wouldn't otherwise have without the subjects knowing, this activity fits the colloquial meaning of "spying". All the elements of the headline are supported by the reporting.

dalke 14y ago
What's the difference between "secretly spying" and "secretly investigating"? What's an example of a secret investigation which is not secret spying? Would these NSLs more appropriately be describe as investigation or spying? Why?
- gojomo 14y ago
  Both are accurate enough for a headline. 'Spying' will often win as it's less than half the size (in letters and syllables). Also, usually when investigation requires crossing usual privacy boundaries, and perhaps compelling third-party disclosures, the subject gets to know, and even challenge the search/seizure. Or at the very least, some other impartial hearing occurs – for example, to get a search warrant. Not so with the 'National Security Letters'. So 'spying' is especially apt, compared to the normalcy and equitable procedures connoted by 'investigating'. There's a stronger case to be made that 'secretly' is redundant; it's already implied by 'spying'. But an oddity of the the NSL law is that you're not even supposed to reveal you've received one. Only now, many years later, are some fuzzy aggregate totals being revealed for prior years. So the extra heightening emphasis 'secretly spying' makes sense as well. Not only are the subjects unaware there online information is being collected, but the magnitude of the collection activity as a whole has been disguised.
  - dalke 14y ago
    The headline was deliberately selected for drama, and not for the length of the headline. If brevity was the sole criteria then ""Google Says FBI Requests Some Customer Data" is even shorter. Or even "Google: FBI Spies on Its Customers." Why does the headline use the word "spy" at all? Google did not use the word "spy." They say the NSL is used in "national security investigations." Nor does the word "spy" appear in the body of the Wired article. Why does the headline use the word "secret"? As you pointed out, "spying" implies "secret". If brevity were the primary concern then it should be omitted. Hence my conclusion about using the headline as an attention grabber, and not because of its length. BTW, when I read the headline, I took it to mean that Google found out that the FBI was getting customer information using a means which was secret even from Google. Thus, I believe the headline is also misleading. While the statements you made about the NSL are true, and I believe NSLs are fundamentally counter to the transparency needed for good oversight, the statement that "when investigation requires crossing usual privacy boundaries, the subject gets to know" is not true. Wiretapping is legal, and the subject does not necessarily get to know or contest the wiretapping. How many times have you or people you know been wiretapped? If you can't be sure of the answer, because not all of that information is public, then wiretapping by the police is "spying" under your definition, is it not? A difference is that subpoenas and warrants have judicial oversight, while NSLs do not. No, I do not believe that the FISA court or appeal to the FISA court gives sufficient oversight. Unfortunately, as we recently learned from the Supreme Court, if we don't have proof of being spied upon then we can't say that we're being spied upon. I'm actually in favor of saying that we are being spied upon. I do so from a moral and ethical view, and not from a legal definition. I think your argument is that this can be called spying because 'this activity fits the colloquial meaning of "spying".' My objection is that other similar activities by the government are not called spying, and neither you nor the Wired article characterized the difference between the "spying" and "secret investigation."
    - gojomo 14y ago
      I suspect this author and editorial organization would, in fact, call all the similar activities by the government 'spying', that you and I would agree should be called 'spying'. So the fact that other people, sometimes, use and understand 'spying' less consistently isn't very relevant for condemning this headline use as 'misleading'. Wiretapping requires a court order. And it is also 'spying', in the common understanding of the word. ('Spying' does not require illegality. With a court order, wiretapping is legal spying. These NSLs are also currently-understood-to-be-legal spying.) The headline "Google: FBI Spies on its Customers" would have been defensible, too. It's a short, opinionated summary of the equally-opinionated reporting. Yes, it would prompt readers to wonder exactly which kind of 'spying' is meant, which they could find in the article. 'Requests Some Customer Data' would not be enough: there's no indication of the compulsion and secrecy. 'Secretly Investigates' would not be enough, either, because just researching someone via public sources could be a 'secret investigation'. Only 'spying' adds the necessary connotation of surveillance or privileged-document-collection. And sure Wired picked the word for drama. We should expect reports to feature the most-dramatic-yet-still-fair headlines that can be backed up by the reporting. This recent expansion of oversight-resistant domestic-spying is in fact a dramatic development. Google finding a way to hint at its magnitude is also a dramatic development.
jeremyjh 14y ago
Its no secret that the FBI is spying on Google's customers.
firebones 14y ago
If we had an estimate of the number of in-links and out-links in the inbox, we would have a more accurate sense of the number of people whose communications were actually swept up under this surveillance. The number might be more accurately portrayed as "greater than 49,950 and less than 100,000 people" assuming the typical mailbox contains traffic from 50 people. Not all would be Google's customers, but it would portray the scope more clearly.
- stanleydrew 14y ago
  If you read the whole article closely you'll find this: Google noted that the FBI may “obtain ‘the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records’ of a subscriber to a wire or electronic communications service. The FBI can’t use NSLs to obtain anything else from Google, such as Gmail content, search queries, YouTube videos or user IP addresses.” So inboxes are not being opened up for the FBI as part of these requests.
- magicalist 14y ago
  That applies more to the general search warrants they disclose than NSLs. "Under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) 18 U.S.C. section 2709, the FBI can seek “the name, address, length of service, and local and long distance toll billing records” of a subscriber to a wire or electronic communications service. The FBI can’t use NSLs to obtain anything else from Google, such as Gmail content, search queries, YouTube videos or user IP addresses." http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/faq/#what_does_an_nsl_compel http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/fa...
mc32 14y ago
I think the contention is that Google knows they're spying on its users, so it's not secret spying, if spying means observing/seeing. I think 'Google says the FBI spies on some of its customers' is less confusing. Secret spying would imply the gov have a secret undefined backdoor.
- Evbn 14y ago
  It is kept secret from the victims, the most relevant people to the spying.
  - mc32 14y ago
    It's still plain spying. Spies would not be spies if the spied on knew they were spies, except in situations where they discover the spy and want her to lead them to her network of spies. But normally who the spies are is unknown to the entity being spied upon. to put it plainly it's unnecessarily redundant in the title.

lhnn 14y ago

NSL = Secret, no-judiciary, blanket access to what the FBI wants. Spying. Google confirms at least 1000 accounts per year are accessed by the FBI via NSL. Google confirms the FBI is spying on some of [Google's] customers. QED

wyclif 14y ago

I wanted to edit the headline, but I know how futile that is these days on HN, having done it many times before and having it edited to strictly mirror the original headline of the post.

rishimoko 14y ago

> what makes me happy is that Google can even disclose any of this at all. That's one way to look at it. Another way might be, "Influential data company prevented from disclosing what the government is doing on the company's network".

Evbn 14y ago

The only way to prevent abuse is to keep your data unavailable to Google and others.

rsync 14y ago

There is a much more aggressive response that a service provider can give to a NSL: http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt Some background: http://blog.kozubik.com/john_kozubik/2010/08/the-warrant-canary-in-2010-and-beyond.html http://blog.kozubik.com/john_kozubik/2010/08/the-warrant-can... We've been updating this since late 2005.