3 ms·

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 us

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?
- codeka 13y ago
  In addition, Google is already publishing NSLs separately to normal warrants. To go along with this agreement, they'd have to stop doing that and start aggregating them with normal warrants. That definitely seems like a huge step back. I think they're doing the right thing here.
glurgh 13y ago
More (lousy) data is not always better. Facebook's own statement: These requests run the gamut – from things like a local sheriff trying to find a missing child, to a federal marshal tracking a fugitive, to a police department investigating an assault, to a national security official investigating a terrorist threat. Can you tell, from this, if it's 5, 50, 500 or 5000 requests coming from security or intelligence services? Facebook is basically washing its hands of the issue. Google is insisting that they be allowed to release data that, albeit aggregate, is at least meaningful. They're, as they have been consistently in this matter, doing the right thing here.
jacalata 13y ago
The NPR article (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/15/191985890/facebook-microsoft-reveal-requests-for-user-data http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/15/191985890/fac...), presumably working from the same sources, quotes MS as saying that up to 32,000 accounts were affected. I have no idea why the WSJ would just leave that out.

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?
codeka 13y ago
In addition, Google is already publishing NSLs separately to normal warrants. To go along with this agreement, they'd have to stop doing that and start aggregating them with normal warrants. That definitely seems like a huge step back. I think they're doing the right thing here.

glurgh 13y ago

More (lousy) data is not always better. Facebook's own statement: These requests run the gamut – from things like a local sheriff trying to find a missing child, to a federal marshal tracking a fugitive, to a police department investigating an assault, to a national security official investigating a terrorist threat. Can you tell, from this, if it's 5, 50, 500 or 5000 requests coming from security or intelligence services? Facebook is basically washing its hands of the issue. Google is insisting that they be allowed to release data that, albeit aggregate, is at least meaningful. They're, as they have been consistently in this matter, doing the right thing here.

jacalata 13y ago

The NPR article (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/15/191985890/facebook-microsoft-reveal-requests-for-user-data http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/15/191985890/fac...), presumably working from the same sources, quotes MS as saying that up to 32,000 accounts were affected. I have no idea why the WSJ would just leave that out.