5 ms·

How Yahoo Fought Against PRISM in Secret and Lost

85 points by maudlinmau5 13y ago

danso 13y ago
Blogspam at its worst: > The details of Yahoo's challenge are not completely clear, since the procedure is in part still classified. All the information available on the case comes from the Times story The Times story is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/technology/secret-court-ruling-put-tech-companies-in-data-bind.html?pagewanted=all&_r=3& http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/technology/secret-court-ru...
jdp23 13y ago
Back in 2009 (when the decision first came to light, although we didn't know what company it applied to), Russ Feingold had some scathing things to say about it: The decision placed the burden of proof on the company to identify problems related to the implementation of the law, information to which the company did not have access.... Senator Feingold, who has repeatedly raised concerns about the implementation of the PAA and its successor, the FISA Amendments Act (“FAA”), in classified communications with the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, has stated that the court’s analysis would have been fundamentally altered had the company had access to this information and been able to bring it before the court. In the absence of specific complaints from the company, the court relied on the good faith of the government. As the court concluded, “[w]ithout something more than a purely speculative set of imaginings, we cannot infer that the purpose of the directives (and, thus, of the surveillance) is other than their stated purpose....” One example of the court’s deference to the government concerns minimization procedures, which require the government to limit the dissemination of information about Americans that it collects in the course of its surveillance. Because the company did not raise concerns about minimization, the court “s[aw] no reason to question the adequacy of the minimization protocol.” And yet, the existence of adequate minimization procedures, as applied in this case, was central to the court’s constitutional analysis. More at http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/06/14/feingold-yahoo-blind/ http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/06/14/feingold-yahoo-blind/
quotha 13y ago
So, what exactly do you think would happen if a major company simply refuses/d to comply? Would they arrest the whole company? The CEO? Would it happen secretly? Would they just disappear? How can these "laws" possibly be enforced?
- InternalRun 13y ago
  It depends on the company, some would lose out on government contracts, I dare say a few anti-trust investigations would popup or some new laws that the company wouldn't like. They can make life very difficult for them.
  - quotha 13y ago
    That sounds like the mafia, not the gov't.
    - InternalRun 13y ago
      That is the problem.
- LoganCale 13y ago
  Joe Nacchio, the former CEO of Qwest, is in prison for insider trading, which he was charged with after refusing to hand over customer data without a warrant. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/qwest-ceo-nsa-punished-qwest-refusing-participate-illegal-surveillance-pre-9-11 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/qwest-ceo-nsa-punished...
  - kvb 13y ago
    Did he participate in insider trading? Do you believe he was framed?
    - bdcravens 13y ago
      I'd surmise that everyone's a little dirty, but if you play nice, the powers that be will turn their head. Put another way: racial profiling is real. That doesn't mean that those racially profiled are innocent when caught with illicit substances, but that doesn't make the profiling any less wrong.

85 points by maudlinmau5 13y ago

danso 13y ago

Blogspam at its worst: > The details of Yahoo's challenge are not completely clear, since the procedure is in part still classified. All the information available on the case comes from the Times story The Times story is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/technology/secret-court-ruling-put-tech-companies-in-data-bind.html?pagewanted=all&_r=3& http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/technology/secret-court-ru...

jdp23 13y ago

Back in 2009 (when the decision first came to light, although we didn't know what company it applied to), Russ Feingold had some scathing things to say about it: The decision placed the burden of proof on the company to identify problems related to the implementation of the law, information to which the company did not have access.... Senator Feingold, who has repeatedly raised concerns about the implementation of the PAA and its successor, the FISA Amendments Act (“FAA”), in classified communications with the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, has stated that the court’s analysis would have been fundamentally altered had the company had access to this information and been able to bring it before the court. In the absence of specific complaints from the company, the court relied on the good faith of the government. As the court concluded, “[w]ithout something more than a purely speculative set of imaginings, we cannot infer that the purpose of the directives (and, thus, of the surveillance) is other than their stated purpose....” One example of the court’s deference to the government concerns minimization procedures, which require the government to limit the dissemination of information about Americans that it collects in the course of its surveillance. Because the company did not raise concerns about minimization, the court “s[aw] no reason to question the adequacy of the minimization protocol.” And yet, the existence of adequate minimization procedures, as applied in this case, was central to the court’s constitutional analysis. More at http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/06/14/feingold-yahoo-blind/ http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/06/14/feingold-yahoo-blind/

quotha 13y ago

So, what exactly do you think would happen if a major company simply refuses/d to comply? Would they arrest the whole company? The CEO? Would it happen secretly? Would they just disappear? How can these "laws" possibly be enforced?

InternalRun 13y ago
It depends on the company, some would lose out on government contracts, I dare say a few anti-trust investigations would popup or some new laws that the company wouldn't like. They can make life very difficult for them.
- quotha 13y ago
  That sounds like the mafia, not the gov't.
  - InternalRun 13y ago
    That is the problem.
LoganCale 13y ago
Joe Nacchio, the former CEO of Qwest, is in prison for insider trading, which he was charged with after refusing to hand over customer data without a warrant. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/qwest-ceo-nsa-punished-qwest-refusing-participate-illegal-surveillance-pre-9-11 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/qwest-ceo-nsa-punished...
- kvb 13y ago
  Did he participate in insider trading? Do you believe he was framed?
  - bdcravens 13y ago
    I'd surmise that everyone's a little dirty, but if you play nice, the powers that be will turn their head. Put another way: racial profiling is real. That doesn't mean that those racially profiled are innocent when caught with illicit substances, but that doesn't make the profiling any less wrong.