4 ms·

Facebook, Microsoft Disclose Government Data Requests, But Google Balks

LoganCale 13y ago
This is a poor headline that does not accurately reflect the situation. Microsoft and Facebook made deals with the government to include NSLs and FISA warrants in their total disclosure numbers as long as they kept them grouped together, but Google had already made a deal in the past to disclose NSLs separately from regular law enforcement warrant numbers and accepting the new deal would've forced them to lump the NSLs in with the rest, reducing the usefulness of the overall numbers. Instead they seem to be pushing to be allowed to disclose regular warrants, FISA warrants and NSLs all separately. This is a good thing.
- anologwintermut 13y ago
  I believe that data covered only NSLs and explicitly didn't cover FISA requests. In fact, Google's spokes person makes this clear in the article: " a Google spokesman said the company has 'always believed that it’s important to differentiate between different types of government requests,' referring to requests for data in criminal cases, and data requests stemming from national security-related, classified orders. 'Lumping the two categories together would be a step back for users,' the Google spokesman added in the statement. 'Our request to the government is clear: to be able to publish aggregate numbers of national security requests, including FISA disclosures, separately.'"
  - LoganCale 13y ago
    Facebook (and I presume Microsoft) are including regular warrants, FISA warrants, and NSLs. https://newsroom.fb.com/News/636/Facebook-Releases-Data-Including-All-National-Security-Requests https://newsroom.fb.com/News/636/Facebook-Releases-Data-Incl... Google is, and has been for some time, including regular warrants and NSLs but not FISA warrants. They could have gone along with the same agreement Facebook and Microsoft made, but that would've required them to group the NSLs and FISA warrants in with the regular warrants. Instead they kept doing what they currently do, which is to show NSLs separately but not include the still forbidden FISA warrants. https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US/ https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/U...
anologwintermut 13y ago
Despite Microsoft and Facebook being allowed to release data, Google is refusing. Google claims "Lumping the two categories together would be a step back for users,” the Google spokesman added in the statement. “Our request to the government is clear: to be able to publish aggregate numbers of national security requests, including FISA disclosures, separately" This strikes me as bullshit. One, more data seems always to be better. Two, google already releases some data on non NSL/FISA requests[0]. We'd have some idea which is which and not just lump it all together. Microsofts numbers were odd too: they only gave requests, not effected accounts (a marked contrast to the rather complete info Facebook gave out). Why the discrepancy ? Did Facebook not get many request, so they were allowed to release everything? Did Microsoft batch requests and so those mere 7k requests did give out huge amount? Did Google actually make them file individual requests -- which would be inline with their denial earlier this week? It seems the DOJ/NSA is only letting people release (accurate) statistics that might understat the problem. [0]http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/?metric=targets http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/?m...
- tptacek 13y ago
  No, what's happening here is that Google is continuing to push the USG to be able to publish fine-grained data, while Facebook is publishing less informative aggregates. In other words, Google is going to bat for its users, and being punished for it because of the optics that sets up. How does it feel to be a tool of the NSA? :)
  - anologwintermut 13y ago
    Thats noble if somehow publishing non-fine-grained information precludes or hurts their chances of publishing fine grained information later. I can't think of a reasonable argument that thats the case. As for being a tool of the NSA,I feel grossly underpaid.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      Publishing the aggregates allows the USG to claim that Google has already been authorized to disclose the important information. How much do you think it costs Google to fight this fight with the USG? How much do you think a lawyer who can participate in a team effort to make this kind of case bills an hour? Why aren't you cheering for them, instead of trying to tear them down?

This is a poor headline that does not accurately reflect the situation. Microsoft and Facebook made deals with the government to include NSLs and FISA warrants in their total disclosure numbers as long as they kept them grouped together, but Google had already made a deal in the past to disclose NSLs separately from regular law enforcement warrant numbers and accepting the new deal would've forced them to lump the NSLs in with the rest, reducing the usefulness of the overall numbers. Instead they seem to be pushing to be allowed to disclose regular warrants, FISA warrants and NSLs all separately. This is a good thing.

anologwintermut 13y ago
I believe that data covered only NSLs and explicitly didn't cover FISA requests. In fact, Google's spokes person makes this clear in the article: " a Google spokesman said the company has 'always believed that it’s important to differentiate between different types of government requests,' referring to requests for data in criminal cases, and data requests stemming from national security-related, classified orders. 'Lumping the two categories together would be a step back for users,' the Google spokesman added in the statement. 'Our request to the government is clear: to be able to publish aggregate numbers of national security requests, including FISA disclosures, separately.'"
- LoganCale 13y ago
  Facebook (and I presume Microsoft) are including regular warrants, FISA warrants, and NSLs. https://newsroom.fb.com/News/636/Facebook-Releases-Data-Including-All-National-Security-Requests https://newsroom.fb.com/News/636/Facebook-Releases-Data-Incl... Google is, and has been for some time, including regular warrants and NSLs but not FISA warrants. They could have gone along with the same agreement Facebook and Microsoft made, but that would've required them to group the NSLs and FISA warrants in with the regular warrants. Instead they kept doing what they currently do, which is to show NSLs separately but not include the still forbidden FISA warrants. https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US/ https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/U...

anologwintermut 13y ago

Despite Microsoft and Facebook being allowed to release data, Google is refusing. Google claims "Lumping the two categories together would be a step back for users,” the Google spokesman added in the statement. “Our request to the government is clear: to be able to publish aggregate numbers of national security requests, including FISA disclosures, separately" This strikes me as bullshit. One, more data seems always to be better. Two, google already releases some data on non NSL/FISA requests[0]. We'd have some idea which is which and not just lump it all together. Microsofts numbers were odd too: they only gave requests, not effected accounts (a marked contrast to the rather complete info Facebook gave out). Why the discrepancy ? Did Facebook not get many request, so they were allowed to release everything? Did Microsoft batch requests and so those mere 7k requests did give out huge amount? Did Google actually make them file individual requests -- which would be inline with their denial earlier this week? It seems the DOJ/NSA is only letting people release (accurate) statistics that might understat the problem. [0]http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/?metric=targets http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/?m...

tptacek 13y ago
No, what's happening here is that Google is continuing to push the USG to be able to publish fine-grained data, while Facebook is publishing less informative aggregates. In other words, Google is going to bat for its users, and being punished for it because of the optics that sets up. How does it feel to be a tool of the NSA? :)
- anologwintermut 13y ago
  Thats noble if somehow publishing non-fine-grained information precludes or hurts their chances of publishing fine grained information later. I can't think of a reasonable argument that thats the case. As for being a tool of the NSA,I feel grossly underpaid.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Publishing the aggregates allows the USG to claim that Google has already been authorized to disclose the important information. How much do you think it costs Google to fight this fight with the USG? How much do you think a lawyer who can participate in a team effort to make this kind of case bills an hour? Why aren't you cheering for them, instead of trying to tear them down?