4 ms·

> 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.

> 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

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...