5 ms·

Secret Court Ruling Put Tech Companies in Data Bind

71 points by Lightning 13y ago

discostrings 13y ago
> FISA requests can be as broad as seeking court approval to ask a company to turn over information about the online activities of people in a certain country. I wonder what the source for this is. It contrasts interestingly with Google's statement regarding Prism: > Until this week’s reports, we had never heard of the broad type of order that Verizon received—an order that appears to have required them to hand over millions of users’ call records. We were very surprised to learn that such broad orders exist. Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false. If Google received one of these broader requests, wouldn't they have had to comply with it? If the requests can be that broad, it's hard to imagine they never did. It's harder to imagine why they would deny it so strongly if they did receive one.
- tptacek 13y ago
  NYT does not report in this story that Google (or anyone else) received a directive requiring them to relay all the communications from all users from any country.
  - discostrings 13y ago
    Yes, you are completely correct that this story does not report an instance of this type of broad request to an Internet company. I found it interesting that this story about an Internet company also mentioned this specific breadth. I'm likely reading too much into it. Maybe some restraint has been shown and, unlike phone companies, no Internet companies have received requests for more than data about specific individuals. I'll try to stop assuming the worst.
- jdp23 13y ago
  Yes, if they challenged it and lost, they would have to comply with it. Assuming David Drummond and Larry Page's denial is accurate, there are various possible explanations. Two that leap to mind: - the government has so far held off on a broad order for Google because they assumed that Google would challenge such a broad order (whereas given past history Verizon and most other telcos would be likely to go along meekly). - perhaps internet-based orders can be targeted more precisely, so Google's gotten requests for tens of thousands of user but not millions
  - leoc 13y ago
    > (whereas given past history Verizon and most other telcos would be likely to go along meekly) Weren't varous telcos co-operating with this program before it was strictly speaking legal? I seem to recall something about them being given retroactive immunity. Indeed, I'd guess that Verizon's broad metadata order is less a means to really compel Verizon than a convenient sicknote for them, giving immunity and some PR cover in the event of discovery.
    - jdp23 13y ago
      Yes indeed, almost all the telcos (except for Qwest) cooperated with the Bush administration's illegal wiretapping in the early 2000s. The Protect America Act in 2007 and FISA Amendments Act in 2008 made it legal -- as a bonus the FAA included retroactive immunity for telcos.
- gasull 13y ago
  I wonder what the source for this is. Verizon was ordered to hand over the metadata of all its US customers. http://m.guardiannews.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order http://m.guardiannews.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-record...
tptacek 13y ago
Read the court order. It is, as NYT says, heavily redacted, but it's also full of interesting stuff about the FISA process.
rayiner 13y ago
> It also highlights a paradox of Silicon Valley: while tech companies eagerly vacuum up user data to track their users and sell ever more targeted ads, many also have a libertarian streak ingrained in their corporate cultures that resists sharing that data with the government. Bizarre definition of "libertarian."
JumpCrisscross 13y ago
"Small companies are more likely to take the government to court, lawyers said, because they have fewer government relationships and customers, and fewer disincentives to rock the boat." This makes the increasing concentration in IT and communications more worrying.
Fuxy 13y ago
Decentralization is the only way. It seems the only way to solve this is to force all big companies to have servers in every country they offer their services to and limit all local traffic to these servers only and be made to comply with local law. Completely impractical from the internet architectural point of view but that would make information on foreign citizens quite hard to get That way any information retrieved from these servers and sent to Americans can be considered and act of treason in that country. Everybody seems to be forgetting that the internet is global and if they are going to comply with one countries laws then they should be forced to comply with every countries laws.
tlb 13y ago
I hate the way nytimes misuses "trove" to mean "a valuable collection". The word is from French "trouvé" through the expression "treasure trove", meaning found treasure. It has a technical legal meaning: treasure apparently hidden so long ago that its original owner can be presumed dead and therefore can be kept by the finder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_trove https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_trove

71 points by Lightning 13y ago

> FISA requests can be as broad as seeking court approval to ask a company to turn over information about the online activities of people in a certain country. I wonder what the source for this is. It contrasts interestingly with Google's statement regarding Prism: > Until this week’s reports, we had never heard of the broad type of order that Verizon received—an order that appears to have required them to hand over millions of users’ call records. We were very surprised to learn that such broad orders exist. Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false. If Google received one of these broader requests, wouldn't they have had to comply with it? If the requests can be that broad, it's hard to imagine they never did. It's harder to imagine why they would deny it so strongly if they did receive one.

tptacek 13y ago
NYT does not report in this story that Google (or anyone else) received a directive requiring them to relay all the communications from all users from any country.
- discostrings 13y ago
  Yes, you are completely correct that this story does not report an instance of this type of broad request to an Internet company. I found it interesting that this story about an Internet company also mentioned this specific breadth. I'm likely reading too much into it. Maybe some restraint has been shown and, unlike phone companies, no Internet companies have received requests for more than data about specific individuals. I'll try to stop assuming the worst.
jdp23 13y ago
Yes, if they challenged it and lost, they would have to comply with it. Assuming David Drummond and Larry Page's denial is accurate, there are various possible explanations. Two that leap to mind: - the government has so far held off on a broad order for Google because they assumed that Google would challenge such a broad order (whereas given past history Verizon and most other telcos would be likely to go along meekly). - perhaps internet-based orders can be targeted more precisely, so Google's gotten requests for tens of thousands of user but not millions
- leoc 13y ago
  > (whereas given past history Verizon and most other telcos would be likely to go along meekly) Weren't varous telcos co-operating with this program before it was strictly speaking legal? I seem to recall something about them being given retroactive immunity. Indeed, I'd guess that Verizon's broad metadata order is less a means to really compel Verizon than a convenient sicknote for them, giving immunity and some PR cover in the event of discovery.
  - jdp23 13y ago
    Yes indeed, almost all the telcos (except for Qwest) cooperated with the Bush administration's illegal wiretapping in the early 2000s. The Protect America Act in 2007 and FISA Amendments Act in 2008 made it legal -- as a bonus the FAA included retroactive immunity for telcos.
gasull 13y ago
I wonder what the source for this is. Verizon was ordered to hand over the metadata of all its US customers. http://m.guardiannews.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order http://m.guardiannews.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-record...

tptacek 13y ago

Read the court order. It is, as NYT says, heavily redacted, but it's also full of interesting stuff about the FISA process.

rayiner 13y ago

> It also highlights a paradox of Silicon Valley: while tech companies eagerly vacuum up user data to track their users and sell ever more targeted ads, many also have a libertarian streak ingrained in their corporate cultures that resists sharing that data with the government. Bizarre definition of "libertarian."

JumpCrisscross 13y ago

"Small companies are more likely to take the government to court, lawyers said, because they have fewer government relationships and customers, and fewer disincentives to rock the boat." This makes the increasing concentration in IT and communications more worrying.

Fuxy 13y ago

Decentralization is the only way. It seems the only way to solve this is to force all big companies to have servers in every country they offer their services to and limit all local traffic to these servers only and be made to comply with local law. Completely impractical from the internet architectural point of view but that would make information on foreign citizens quite hard to get That way any information retrieved from these servers and sent to Americans can be considered and act of treason in that country. Everybody seems to be forgetting that the internet is global and if they are going to comply with one countries laws then they should be forced to comply with every countries laws.

tlb 13y ago

I hate the way nytimes misuses "trove" to mean "a valuable collection". The word is from French "trouvé" through the expression "treasure trove", meaning found treasure. It has a technical legal meaning: treasure apparently hidden so long ago that its original owner can be presumed dead and therefore can be kept by the finder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_trove https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_trove