6 ms·

Google has directly contradicted what you are saying about rubber stamping requests. See http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/what.html http://googleblog.blo

by skwirl 13y ago

Google has directly contradicted what you are saying about rubber stamping requests. See http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/what.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/what.html and http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/asking-us-government-to-allow-google-to.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/asking-us-government-.... For example: "Our legal team reviews each and every request, and frequently pushes back when requests are overly broad or don’t follow the correct process."

anologwintermut 13y ago
That does seem to preclude dragnet requests. But what is google going to do when the NSA asks for all the mail from "foo@gmail.com"? Is NSA going to give some justification for why the need access? Now what happens if the NSA issues thousands of those requests? They are not broad, they are for specific people. As to following proper procedure, it appears rather strongly that secret procedures allows the NSA to request a hell of a lot legally and may not provide much safeguard for preventing abuse. We don't know because the procedures are secret. Again, the companies in question appear to have little choice in the matter and that probably absolves them of a lot, but that doesn't mean the situation is ok from the view of what they were compeled to do.
emn13 13y ago
They may be lying. If there's a gag order, they may be required to lie. Or they may consider "review" not to necessarily be human review. Or the person writing that may simply not know. We don't know what's going on at google, and with no transparency, it's hard to have a lot of trust, particularly since there are many examples of government overreach in the past. Sure, google and facebook and whatever should push back, but it's clear that if the government really wants to abuse its power, they won't stop it. Given the current witch-hunt on whistleblowers, it's clear that those in power do not appreciate being questioned. Trust is fine, but verification is better.
- moultano 13y ago
  What would you consider transparency if your response to that is, "they might be lying."
  - emn13 13y ago
    Actual transparency, not just words? That could be free access to their internal architecture (not exactly likely), or more plausible, external, independent auditors. However, I think you're focusing on the wrong party here - I think it's a lot more reasonable to request this of the government than of companies. There's no reason not to require the government to publish the general structure of what they're doing in great detail, and to let others make up their own mind if it's overstepping its bounds. In short: I want an independent parties to have free access and be allowed to verify what's going on.
- jacobparker 13y ago
  The FISA gag orders bar you from discussing them. They don't mandate that you lie. That'd be silly.

by skwirl 13y ago

anologwintermut 13y ago

That does seem to preclude dragnet requests. But what is google going to do when the NSA asks for all the mail from "foo@gmail.com"? Is NSA going to give some justification for why the need access? Now what happens if the NSA issues thousands of those requests? They are not broad, they are for specific people. As to following proper procedure, it appears rather strongly that secret procedures allows the NSA to request a hell of a lot legally and may not provide much safeguard for preventing abuse. We don't know because the procedures are secret. Again, the companies in question appear to have little choice in the matter and that probably absolves them of a lot, but that doesn't mean the situation is ok from the view of what they were compeled to do.

emn13 13y ago

They may be lying. If there's a gag order, they may be required to lie. Or they may consider "review" not to necessarily be human review. Or the person writing that may simply not know. We don't know what's going on at google, and with no transparency, it's hard to have a lot of trust, particularly since there are many examples of government overreach in the past. Sure, google and facebook and whatever should push back, but it's clear that if the government really wants to abuse its power, they won't stop it. Given the current witch-hunt on whistleblowers, it's clear that those in power do not appreciate being questioned. Trust is fine, but verification is better.

moultano 13y ago
What would you consider transparency if your response to that is, "they might be lying."
- emn13 13y ago
  Actual transparency, not just words? That could be free access to their internal architecture (not exactly likely), or more plausible, external, independent auditors. However, I think you're focusing on the wrong party here - I think it's a lot more reasonable to request this of the government than of companies. There's no reason not to require the government to publish the general structure of what they're doing in great detail, and to let others make up their own mind if it's overstepping its bounds. In short: I want an independent parties to have free access and be allowed to verify what's going on.
jacobparker 13y ago
The FISA gag orders bar you from discussing them. They don't mandate that you lie. That'd be silly.