42 ms·

Google challenges U.S. gag order, citing First Amendment

414 points by stfu 13y ago

bifrost 13y ago
This is sortof hillarious, Google fighting for this when they mine ALL of your data...
- betterunix 13y ago
  They are not fighting the mining by the government, only the secrecy. They are fighting for the right to tell you what is happening, just like they tell you what they are doing with your data. The cynic in me thinks that Google is deliberately fighting a losing battle, so that later on they can say, "Hey, it's not our fault -- we want to tell you what is happening, they won't let us!"
  - selter01 13y ago
    I don't think the outcome of the battle matters at all in this case. Google is still putting up a fight. Their track record shows that they do at least tell us what is happening, so "it's not our fault, we want to tell you, they won't let us" is consistent with their actions, AFAIK.
    - lazyjones 13y ago
      > Google is still putting up a fight. Their track record shows that they do at least tell us what is happening If they wanted to fight, they'd just publish the info instead of asking some court before doing anything. Then again, it's doubtful whether anyone would believe them at this point if they published anything and claimed the information was complete.
      - selter01 13y ago
        Isn't that illegal?
  - embolism 13y ago
    Google doesn't tell us what they are doing with our data.
    - cookiecaper 13y ago
      It's not your data once you've submitted it to a Google-run service. The expense of all the services Google provides without monetary compensation is the data they can collect. You trade that to them when you use the site: that's their fee.
      - embolism 13y ago
        Firstly I was responding to the parent who said that Google tells us what they do with our data. Whether you think of it as ours or theirs, they don't tell us what they do with it. Secondly, if what you say is true, then we should stop complaining about what Google passes it to the government - what business is it of ours what they do with their data? Thirdly, I doubt that anyone seriously believes that the 'fee' for using GMail is that their messages become Google's property.
        cookiecaper 13y ago
        It doesn't necessarily convert to their property from an intellectual property POV, but it is "Google's data" in the sense that you contractually allowed them to utilize it as described in the ToS and privacy policies, which one is free to reject or accept. You know the old saying, "If you're not paying for a service, you're the product." Why expect anything else? Google is a for-profit company and it's an expensive thing to run. They deserve something for the services provided, don't they?
        embolism 13y ago
        In other words it's nothing at all like a fee, as you described it earlier. But, if things are as you say, Google can do whatever it likes with the data according to the ToS. If people don't like data about them being given to the Government, or used for any other undisclosed purpose, they shouldn't have used Google.
  - jfoster 13y ago
    The cynic in me notes that the companies were spurred into action by the leak. Google has always showed some interest in providing transparency about government requests, but even they were not taking the US government to court over it. The companies involved are taking these actions because the leak may have undermined consumer trust (eg. small drops in activity) in them. Perhaps even wrongly, if PRISM isn't as widespread as the initial leak suggested.
- nostromo 13y ago
  The government has a monopoly on violence. They can kill you, send you to gitmo, take all of your money and possessions, etc. Google by comparison can turn off your gmail account.
  - _delirium 13y ago
    Depending on what precisely they do with the data, they could do things quite a bit more damaging than turning off your Gmail account, though it certainly wouldn't rise to the level of sending you to gitmo. The worst would probably be some kind of financial and/or career blackballing, if they sold data-mined information about you to credit agencies, lenders, private investigators, and/or prospective employers, and something particularly damaging were contained in it. I believe their privacy policy currently says they won't do that, and it's especially clear that they won't do anything except target ads using information mined out of your email. But I don't think there would be anything illegal about it, as long as they didn't do something like outright blackmail (offer to let you pay to expunge negative information or something).
    - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
      The difference is that if Google did that, everyone would immediately stop giving them that information, which is worth more to them than the advantage they could gain in screwing you over once. On the other hand, if the government does this, people can do... what, exactly? Stop giving their information to the government? They didn't willingly do that to begin with. Stop giving it to Google? Maybe, but they would have to stop giving it to anyone, which is a lot more difficult than just switching from one service to another.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Well if you're willing to talk about illegal things the government could do to you it makes sense to talk about the illegal things Google could do to you; i.e., anything.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Our government has decided that it is allowed to do all of those things "legally" in certain circumstances. Execution, asset forfeiture, and detainment are all considered "legal". Nothing besides the government is permitted to do these things, they have a monopoly on that right.
- alexqgb 13y ago
  The difference is that they mine data in order to better target ads. When the Feds ask them to share the same data with them, it's for reasons that are vastly more disconcerting. Intent is everything, and that's twice as true when you're dealing with a lethal organization that shows every sign of having escaped from its legal restraints.
vanattab 13y ago
They are fighting for the right to tell their customers about the government mining their data(through google). Google already tells their customers what they mine in theToS and Privacy Policy. I see no hypocrisy.
- alexqgb 13y ago
  Also, Google isn't brokering the information they gather. From what I understand they're simply using it to target ads (which is what they actually sell), while keeping the data itself very close to the vest. If you've got something on offer, and want to know who might buy, Google won't tell you who is interested. They'll just deliver your message to the right people, and if you get a suitable response, you'll know that their service was worth the price. There's a world of difference between the mediated transactions they have with their customers, and the exchange that takes place when the government says "hand over the data itself."
  - humanspecies 13y ago
    Google fanboys make this discussion hard to take seriously. Google was caught pants down spying on everyone, stop trying to white wash it.
    - Karunamon 13y ago
      >Google was caught pants down spying on everyone If you're referring to the whole wifi thing, tell me, what information do you expect the street view car to be able to pick up in the 10 or so seconds it would have been associated with the AP? Their engineers have basically come out and said that was a fuckup, and I'm inclined to believe them because I find it hard to imagine what use that random data would be. And to be honest, I'm more likely to believe a Google engineer rather than a namecalling troll who's virulently against them for no good reason.
    - thoughtpalette 13y ago
      You give your username zero credit.
throwaway10001 13y ago
>> The court approved each of the 1,789 government requests it received in 2012, except for one that was withdrawn. Scary as hell, considering that one request can be as broad as: “It is hereby ordered that [Verizon Business Network Services'] Custodian of Records shall produce to the National Security Agency…all call detail records or ‘telephony metadata’ created by Verizon for communications (i) between the United States and abroad; or (ii) wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls,” Google should cut the crap with PR moves and stop hoarding so much data about everything we do online. If they have, NSA will get it--one way or another.
- burntsushi 13y ago
  > Google should cut the crap with PR moves and stop hoarding so much data about everything we do online. I like that Google has a lot of data on me---it makes their services much more valuable to me. I don't like that the government can access it secretly. These are distinct opinions and both can be reasonably satiated simultaneously if there are proper checks and balances in government.
slg 13y ago
Anyone familiar with the constitutional law on this? From a laymen's perspective it seems obvious that the government has some ability to restrict 1st amendment rights on matters of national security. If that wasn't the case, there would be no way to enforce legal restrictions on classified information. It would be the end of all government secrets, both good and bad. Or is this debate simply about where the actual line is drawn for national security and whether this this type of disclosure crosses that line?
- zachrose 13y ago
  Here's a place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny National security most likely qualifies as "compelling state interest" in general, but it's not the only thing the government needs to infringe on constitutional rights. The government also needs to prove that the infringement is narrow and specific. Even then, I wonder if the "compelling state interest" could be challenged on not being compelling enough. (I am definitely not a lawyer, just remembering a con law class I took and refreshing my memory with Wikipedia.)
  - andrewfong 13y ago
    I'm a lawyer, although not one that regularly practices First Amendment law. That said, zachrose is right that strict scrutiny applies here. Usually, to restrict truthful speech based on the content of the speech, the government must show that (1) there is a compelling state interest and (2) that the government's restriction on speech is narrowly tailored. National security is pretty compelling, but it's unclear how prohibiting disclosure of the number of requests is narrowly tailored to that interest. Without knowing more details about the nature of the program, it's hard to say why the number matters. But if the NSA can't demonstrate how disclosing a specific number, as opposed to an approximate range, has a noticeable impact on national security, the law would likely not be in their favor.
    - icambron 13y ago
      I guess I don't really understand "national security is compelling". National security, like basically everything else, is a matter of degree. There are presumably compelling and uncompelling national security risks. If the court is weighing some amount of speech restriction against some amount of national security risk, presumably the size of the risk matters? What are the governments burdens here? Can they merely assert there's a security issue here or do they have to prove it? Does it have to pass some kind of severity test in order to restrict speech? I'm genuinely curious what the case law says on this stuff.
arunabha 13y ago
Much as I would love to see Google prevail in this, there is just no chance that would happen. The implications to any other form of Govt gag orders (think sealed court records) would be immense.
- e3pi 13y ago
  > ...The implications to any other form of Govt gag orders (think sealed court records) would be immense. Gag order also of Greenberg/Guardian, then what are ES' options? > "....The Ministry of Defence has issued a D notice preventing the UK media from 'publish[ing] information that may "jeopardise both national security and possibly UK personnel"'. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/defence-d-bbc-me.. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/defence-d-bbc-me.... what's left-- pastebin, Kim Dotcom, Prate's Bay, that New Yorker thing(no, gag order), Anonymous posting onto defaced sites, Wikileaks, ... ?
humanspecies 13y ago
I recommend everyone have a look at the leaked documents and the extent to which all those companies participated in it and then judge their public relations reactions afterwards. After the scandal was revealed, and only after it was revealed in an unprecedented act by Snowden, did Google come out in favor of their customers. This is ridiculous. Google was caught pants down and there's no amount of PR bullshit they can use to white wash this and pretend the government forced them to do it. They willingly participated in exchange for political status with the government, that is the raw truth.
- psbp 13y ago
  Can you explain what each slide of the document means and how the program was actually implemented? I still have no idea despite reading a variety of different articles.
- pyre 13y ago
  | After the scandal was revealed, and only after it | was revealed in an unprecedented act by Snowden, | did Google come out in favor of their customers Was Google not already in court opposing NSLs? Filing with FISA was something that the EFF recently spear-headed. I'm not saying you should trust Google with all of your secrets, or even all of your data, but it should be an informed decision.
  - humanspecies 13y ago
    We have enough information for an informed decision now, thanks to Edward Snowden.
    - pyre 13y ago
      Right, but saying "Google only starts caring about its users now," is not true. For example, Google challenged the National Security Letters prior to the Snowden leak.
r-shirt 13y ago
Let's presume that PRISM is the NSA getting the ability to copy unencrypted data being transferred across these companies' internal networks. Is that one request that affects every account or one request that affects zero accounts? I would expect that the latter would be asserted while the former is more true. And I can almost hear the justification: "if people weren't sending email from Gmail to Gmail and instead from Gmail to foomail, we could be collecting all of this information. You need to give us access to your network, or we need to break you up into smaller pieces which need to send information unencrypted to work."
- mpyne 13y ago
  It's not copying data being transferred, it's copying data sitting on-disk (which does include sending along updates to that data on-disk). NSA was getting that data even before PRISM, but companies were compiling it and sending it manually.
  - r-shirt 13y ago
    Was this stated somewhere that I didn't see it?
- thrownaway2424 13y ago
  Why do you assume that internal network traffic is not encrypted?
  - r-shirt 13y ago
    If one server queries a MySQL database on another server inside my network (using private IP addresses), I don't encrypt what's transmitted between the two servers any more than what's done by default. And that default isn't SSL or anything of the sort because I'm expecting that my network admin knows what they're doing with firewalls to keep the unwanted packet sniffers out of the private network. Besides, I don't want to spend the extra CPU cycles on encrypting when I can just fortify the firewall.
    - 13y ago
rasterizer 13y ago
Again with the 'carefully worded denials' - the denials were similar because they were accused of the same thing, which is allowing "direct access". The most worrisome and misunderstood part of these reports is the "direct access" bit: can the government arbitrarily query company servers? their denials address that, they clearly say that is not the case, instead they sftp the data after being served with court orders or warrants and yes also the secretive FISA requests. So by revealing the number of FISA requests they receive and their scope they hope to clear this "direct access" mess. As even FISA orders are much more acceptable than wholesale access. As for the development being reported here: I think it has merit seeing how this clearly falls under the first amendment, but I'd like a lawyer to chip in. [edit: clarity]
- burntsushi 13y ago
  > So by revealing the number of FISA requests they receive and what sort of data is being sought they hope to clear this "direct access" mess. As even FISA orders are much more acceptable than wholesale access. Not necessarily. As another commenter pointed out [1], a single FISA order doesn't have to correspond to a single citizen. One order can encompass millions of accounts. > their denials address that, they clearly say that is not the case, instead they sftp the data after being served with court orders or warrants and such, including the secretive FISA requests. While I think it's reasonable to doubt the claim that the NSA has true direct access to servers, I haven't been given a reason to doubt that information can be requested without court orders, warrants or FISA requests. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5901811 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5901811
  - GreatBuck 13y ago
    > Not necessarily. As another commenter pointed out [1], a single FISA order doesn't have to correspond to a single citizen. One order can encompass millions of accounts. The court document from Google (http://assets.nationaljournal.com/img/MOTION.pdf http://assets.nationaljournal.com/img/MOTION.pdf) clearly states the desire to clearly list, in aggregate, the number of accounts impacted.
jstalin 13y ago
Now that EFF broke the barrier in filing with the FISC, I have a feeling we'll see a lot more of this. And that's a good thing. I expect Google's filing to show up here shortly: http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/index.html http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/index.html
- rasterizer 13y ago
  Here it is: http://www.scribd.com/doc/148608149/Foreign-Intelligence-Surveillance-Court-Motion-for-Declaratory-Judgment http://www.scribd.com/doc/148608149/Foreign-Intelligence-Sur...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
GreatBuck 13y ago
Google's Court document is here: http://assets.nationaljournal.com/img/MOTION.pdf http://assets.nationaljournal.com/img/MOTION.pdf
namank 13y ago
It's a start! So what can the gov't do if companies don't co-operate? With individuals, there is blackmail and illicit co-ercion. What does the gov't do to corporations worth updwards of 100B to get them to comply?
- gsmaverick 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio
  - namank 13y ago
    So, if Google does continue like it should, at the very least we should watch out for Sergei & Larry's dirty laundry hitting the internet soon enough?
blackaspen 13y ago
This is where we get see what "Too Big to Fail" actually looks like. If Google's too big to fail on it's own, but the Feds want them to fail because they're (Google) are poking around too much, what happens?
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  This is where we need more than one company to stand up. If Google is the only one doing it, and the government vigorously slaps them around a few times, more than likely they'll stop before they go out of business. And then all the tech companies get put in their place -- want to resist government overreach? You're going to get damaged. On the other hand, if they all resist, who is the government going to retaliate against? The entire industry? It would be too great a hit to the economy. So the question is whether Facebook, Apple et al are going to take the short view or the long view. If they let Google be the only one to stand up then maybe it will encourage the government to damage their competitor, but in so doing set the precedent that the industry won't stand together on issues like this, which can only make the government more brazen in the future.
motters 13y ago
My current theory on this is that companies such as Google probably generate vast amounts of metadata (there must be a fair amount of it behind Google Now), primarily for advertising purposes, and that it's this which PRISM has "direct access" to under some sort of gagging order.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
thelukester 13y ago
Yeah, that's right according to the Supreme Court, corporations now have citizenship, so they should have First Amendment rights too. Wouldn't that be ironic if that ruling actually did some good for our nation.
- rayiner 13y ago
  If anything good comes out of this NSA thing, I think it's the fact that liberals will be forced to concede that Citizens United was, in fact, the right decision. Do you really want the government arbitrarily banning speech by corporations that it deems to be impermissible? There is a reason the ACLU came out in favor of the ruling in Citizens United...
  - Vivtek 13y ago
    Corporations cannot speak. Only people in them can. Sheesh. No. Nobody is "forcing" me to concede that. Certainly no logical aspect of this situation.
    - euroclydon 13y ago
      What does that mean? Reaching an audience today takes money so a individual who wishes to be heard will need to raise money from her like minded citizens. Are you suggesting the the EFF should not be allowed to buy issue-oriented advertising during an election season?
  - clicks 13y ago
    For as much as I'm familiar with the CU vs. FEC case, the reasons don't stack up all that well for corportation's 'right of speech' in this context. Trevor Potter I think very reasonably explains why here: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09042009/watch2.html http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09042009/watch2.html Mainly, that it's essentially overstepping the speech of the less powerful. It results in the poor having unequal, lesser freedom of speech. I would have expected you to be on my side on this issue, as you seemed to be more of a 'spirit of the law' guy rather a 'letter of the law' kind of guy.
blisterpeanuts 13y ago
I'm not a terrorist; I'm a law abiding citizen of the U.S. Can I opt out of the PRISM thing? All I'm doing is adding unnecessary noise to their data. I want to do the patriotic thing and help my country, and in this case the best way to do that is to shrink the pool of data that they must monitor. (And no, I'm not kidding!)
- jfoster 13y ago
  If you're ordinary enough you're probably not triggering any flags, so you'd probably already not really being considered part of the dataset. One person opting out probably won't help them at all, but it would be interesting to consider a more scaled up "opt out" program whereby you go through a one-time deep check and might be granted less monitoring as a result. They would need to sufficiently automate it to make it feasible, though. I also suspect the people who feel most strongly about opting out would also be against the idea of even a one-time check.
  - sneak 13y ago
    > but it would be interesting to consider a more scaled up "opt out" program whereby you go through a one-time deep check and might be granted less monitoring No, that would not be interesting, that would be treason.
- jrockway 13y ago
  If you want to help the country and they won't let you do so by opting out of prism, you can always mail the government a check to make up for the prism resources you're consuming: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#DebtFinance http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicd...
genwin 13y ago
> In the petition, Google is seeking permission to publish the total numbers of requests the court makes of the company and the numbers of user accounts they affect. Nice confirmation that the "in the last 6 months" numbers reported by Facebook et al are worthless. No company has yet said how many users are affected total. I assume it's all users, by an earlier "request" (actually all but an order). Why shouldn't an organization that gains a bigger budget the more people it surveils demand the moon? If we're to believe the number of requests reported so far are 1-to-1 with users, all the information could fit on a single drive. The Bluffdale, UT facility seems capable of handling a good amount of data for each of the entire digital population, even if half of the buildings is space for bureaucrats.
logn 13y ago
Hypothetically, couldn't Google just decide to break the gag order, be charged with a crime, and then argue this issue in front of a jury of their peers, and then be acquitted, establishing a precedent? It would probably be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. I know Google is probably risk-averse enough to not do this, but they'd garner a lot of good will I think. Maybe I'm missing some gotcha that they'd never be granted a trial and the board of Google would end up in secret prisons.
- SEMW 13y ago
  > ...argue this issue in front of a jury of their peers, and then be acquitted, establishing a precedent? This is conceptually confused. Juries aren't judges or lawyers. They don't get to rule on questions of law, and their verdicts don't set precedent. If Google does what you suggest and then a judge rules that, as a matter of law, the FISC order was unconstitutional, that means that what Google would have been accused of doing was not illegal -- which means no jury ever gets involved. If on the other hand a judge holds that what Google would be accused of was illegal, then you get a jury to decide whether, as a matter of fact, they did what they're accused of. But in that case, an acquittal by the jury wouldn't set a precedent that their actions were legal, any more than a jury finding someone not guilty of murder sets a precedent that murder is legal. All of which means there's no reason for them not to seek a declaration of the order's unconstitutionality before breaching it.
  - pilsetnieks 13y ago
    Jury nullification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification A jury can rule on questions of law.
    - SEMW 13y ago
      No. Jury nullification does not mean a jury gets to rule that 'thing X is not illegal'. Rather, it's a jury saying 'I know thing X is illegal (and I can't change that), but I'm going to say that the defendant is not guilty of doing thing X, even though I think he did, because I think thing X shouldn't be illegal'. That may sound like a fine distinction, but it isn't, it's crucial. A legal precedent that X is not a crime means no-one can thereafter get tried for X (where the precedent applies). A jury nullification doesn't have that effect.
skygazer 13y ago
It will be interesting to see how few or many FISA requests there really are. Google implies its a small number. The government was okay releasing the numbers opaquely, inside an aggregate of all law enforcement requests, which also implies to me the number may actually be low. If it's conspicuously low, we're left to wonder what alternative sources of raw data they're relying upon primarily. They may be trying to avoid that implication, thus, release of a low number may appeal to Google, but not the government.
coherentpony 13y ago
I guess since now corporations are people, this should be no problem.
mtgx 13y ago
Hey, Google. Reporting what the government is requesting en-masse is nice, but how about you actually give us end-to-end encryption for as many of your services as possible, so we don't have to second-guess our thoughts and chats anymore simply because we know the government is watching and will be getting that data no matter what? It might help with the whole trust issue you're having now.
- Ultron 13y ago
  Maybe Google has a business relationship with the NSA. It's likely the reason Google hasn't added encryption and never will - the boss doesn't want it.
  - driax 13y ago
    I don't get it when people keep repeating something like this. Google pushed a lot for adding TSL/SSL encryption between Google's servers and the client, to the point of inventing several performance improvements in TSL start-up. However they sure don't encrypt inside the client [note] and then sends it as a blob to server to storage, mostly because that's not really how webapps can work (for practical "can work" values). For example this wouldn't allow you to full-text-search all your own emails in gmail. Moreover this would mean significant performance regression every time you would open up any Google web app, because the client would have to decrypt all data, without much help from indexes. [note] Even encrypting and decrypting in the client would only help so much. It is likely they could be ordered to splice they data while in the client for any person of interest. Cloud web apps simply requires a legal system that respects peoples' data.
    - raylu 13y ago
      *TLS
- magicalist 13y ago
  As has been replied to you several times, you don't want your web-based client in charge of client-side encryption. Yes, it may help as a second line of defence against run-of-the-mill phishing and hacking attempts, but it does absolutely nothing against government requests, as the government can either request the private key that you've stored on their servers, or the government can force them to give you broken encryption software. See, as always, [1]. Whether or not your browser client is providing the encryption, however, you've also rendered completely useless any reason for having web mail in the first place, as you've become next-to-useless to them (no content for ads, no content for things like Google Now) and all their infrastructure is useless to you (no content to search over, no content to spam filter, etc). You no longer have a relationship except they're your SMTP gateway and a backup drive. You can get those today all over the place, you don't need google. If you want to stick with Google, go download a desktop mail client and chat client and install the open source PGP and OTR plugins for them. You can do this right now. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hushmail#Compromises_to_email_privacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hushmail#Compromises_to_email_p...
MiguelHudnandez 13y ago
Could this lead to an interesting development in the issue of "corporate personhood?" I would love to see a ruling that corporations have no constitutional rights. But the people running them do, of course.
adamconroy 13y ago
Its not a big deal, google should quietly announce they are retiring the API and the government can try and contact someone at google.
spoiledtechie 13y ago
I am sort of upset with Google. Why didn't they do this in the first place? Honestly, seems like they are back pedaling to save face.
VALLEJOSJUTUG 13y ago
PRISMA – PRISM . ------------------------------------------ NEWS: HACKER SEND NWES C: PRISMA PROYECT BRAIN WASHING AND BRAIN ACTIVITY INFORMATION SENT TO SATELITES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PRISM USED, CHINESE EUROPE AND NORTH KOREA JAPAN. TRYING TO BE LOVELYG MIND CONTROLER WHEN KILL MILLIONS FROM SATELITES AND BUSINESS PROJECTS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ THE DEMAND FOR ALL PRESIDENTS. VENEZUELAN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES SELLING GENETIC INFORMATION VENEZUELAN JUAN CARLOS VALLEJOS CASE. ------------------------------------------------------- 1,000,000 FOR EACH IRRADIATION TELOMERE LOST SATELLITE PRESIDENTS WHO CHARGE MONEY FOR STUDIES OF THE HUMAN RACE. 600,000 MILLION TELOMERE EXIST IN EACH CELL NUCLEUS. COLLAPSE THEORY FOR ACCUMULATION BITS 0 BITS PER SECOND. HUMAN CLONATION. SEMEN SALES FOOD POLITICAL PRISONERS OF POLITICAL PRODUCTS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHICH ARE LOST BY STUDIES OF THE HUMAN RACE, IN METHODS OF CAUTERIZATION, IRRADIATION AND BRAIN WASHING. BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU EAT BECAUSE CORPORATIONS INCLUDE COMPUTERS NANO DRINKS FOOD AND MEDICINE. PROVEN HAVE VIDEOS OF NANO COMPUTERS, VIDEOS AS MANUFACTURED, AND SOFTWARE TRANSMITTED FROM SATELLITES. EACH NEURON CELL AND YOUR BODY. SEND IT TO ALL HACKERS. THIS IS ONLY FOR BANK BUSINESS MODEL PERFECTED. THE METHOD IS TO DENOUNCE EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE UNIVERISDADES, NGOS, ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS, WITH DEANS GOVERNING LAWYERS. SINCE ALL COUNTRIES COURTS, JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS. BEFORE DIETS REVIEW JUAN CARLOS VALLEJOS. DIETS. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WKsU8pYPTkHgAVBuMOPFvxR7DqLMZewDw5SxjcyVeTI/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WKsU8pYPTkHgAVBuMOPFvxR7... CELL DUPLICATION, COMPANIES AND RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS OF THE HUMAN RACE, PAY MONEY TO BURN, NERVE CELLS, NEURONS. THE METHODOLOGY USED TO GROW THEM ARE HERE. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kwOTL_K6Sm8NQ7FCx330h484Nx_dxlTcURoI4W1M7ow/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kwOTL_K6Sm8NQ7FCx330h484... -------------------------------------------------- - SUPPORTING CRIME VICTIMS WITH USE OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. CREATE GENOCIDE RESEARCH PROJECT. WE ASK LAWYERS NETWORK BE OUR SPONSOR. 1. - STUDY THE INTERNATIONAL DEMAND LEGAL PROPOSAL TO BE SENT TO 14,000 MEMBERS AND THE MEDIA, UNIVERSITIES, NGOS, ORGANISATIONS THAT PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS. TWO. - STUDY THE BUSINESS PROPOSAL, PAYMENT FOR ADVERTISING ACTIVITIES, PUBLICATION AND SENT THE CASE TO THE MEMBER, 10% OF TOTAL DEMAND. THE COMPLAINT SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY PROFESSIONALS LIBERAL LAWYERS AND COMPANY REDABOGADOS.NET, TO THE COMPETENT COURTS, THE COMPLAINANT, JUAN CARLOS VALLEJOS, CHILEAN, RESIDING IN VENEZUELA, CARABOBO, VALENCIA, CAMORUCO VALLEYS, STREET 133, LOPEZ LATOUCHE, (THIS IS THE RED CROSS STREET), BLDG 1-B SUITABLE ALTAMIRA. THREE. - THE SERVICES ARE REQUESTED TO JUDGES, PROSECUTORS, LAWYERS, JURISTS. A PROFESSIONAL JUDGES AND LAWYERS WORKING IN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW DRAFTING THE COMPLAINT IS REQUESTED, THE DOCUMENTS WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE COURTS. THE COMPLAINT INCLUDES; 1. RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, IRRADIATION, GENETIC DAMAGE, ROBBERY. TWO. PERFECTIBLE BANK WHICH HAVE VIDEO AND IS THE MAIN REASON WHY THESE AGENCIES PERFORM THE CAUTERIZATION, RADIATION AND TORTURE. CREATED BY JUAN CARLOS VALLEJOS, AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CARABOBO, FACES, SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS, PROF PAUL POLO. THREE. WELLS EXTRACTION SYSTEM TERMINALS, DESIGNED FOR EXTRACTING HEAVY HYDRO CARBIDE. URL: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7rdd1w6dkcSZFRTZW9hTFV1eEk/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7rdd1w6dkcSZFRTZW9hTFV1eEk/... HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
jacoblyles 13y ago
I don't see how freedom can last in a country for long with secret laws.
triplesec 13y ago
A little late, methinks. Why didn't they - in concert with the other large companies - do this before, if they're so not evil?
- tomkarlo 13y ago
  Ultimately, a company has to have a compelling business interest to justify pursuing something like this. Until this became a public issue for these companies, it might be hard to argue that they'd be acting responsibly to pursue a legal case where the only result would be more detailed disclosure of these requests (not any change to the requests themselves.) Google's arguably been the most active of the major tech firms in getting permission to disclose ranges of requests to date (has anyone else?); it's not clear there would have been a good business reason to pursue what may end up being a very expensive case if it proceeds all the way up through the court system.
  - triplesec 13y ago
    And herein lies the issue of "companies exist solely to line the coffers of shareholders", with no responsibility to other stakeholders which is a narrow interpretation which had come about especially in the last 30 years or so. It's not a certain thing, although very common. Thorsten Veblen would call it a problem of remote capital, although other factors have also been at work since the 1960s.
    - tomkarlo 13y ago
      For your statement to be relevant, you'd have to show that if they were concerned about stakeholders other than shareholders, they would have acted differently. That's not self-evident. It's not clear that this suit would have a material benefit for any stakeholders - including users - until now. It would only do slightly more than the current disclosure to expose the issue of such requests, and it would incur significant risk and cost in return. Given the recent controversy, I'd say this suit now benefits Google employees and shareholders, but I'm not sure it really does a lot for customers in reality. Let's say Google wins the right to disclose the exact number of requests instead of the range it's been reporting. Will that really materially improve the situation for users?
humanspecies 13y ago
Fucking Google is manipulating these threads, trying to white wash their secret spying deals. Don't fall for this bullshit, Google has been in the spying business for ages now. They joined the NSA program in 2009 and have been in trouble constantly in every spy scandal there is some google product involved. Wake up already.
pconf 13y ago
I would rather see them challenge FISA requests on the basis of tax law. These requests are, in addition to everything else, a form of taxation.
contingencies 13y ago
Google reputation in shreds; funds transparent PR stunt
hkmurakami 13y ago
My initial reaction to all the positive actions by these companies is to be a cheerleader and urge them on for "fighting the good fight", but I can't help but then turn around and be cynical. After all, as far as we know they were not proactive at all until the leak happened. Do they have the users' best interests in mind? I honestly can't say so.
marme 13y ago
I think too many people and companies are tip toeing around the issue. Some more people need to take a stand for what they believe in and stand up to the government. If google believes so strongly that their rights are being violated they should hold a press conference and publicly release all the gag orders and data requests they have received. Let the government try to charge them with violating the gag order and then they can really challenge the order Federal court not this secret court. The justice department almost certainly wont try to charge them with violating the order because they know that it will get declared unconstitutional by the supreme court and a giant company like google has plenty of money and lawyers to take it all the way to the supreme court. Most companies are too scared to see what will happen if they violate the unconstitutional order
asab 13y ago
I appreciate how the article frames it as a matter of Google preserving their own reputation, as opposed to principle, or it being "the right thing to do." They have been receiving information requests with gag orders attached for years, but are only fighting it now that the cat's out of the bag and they have something to lose. Until then, it seems that Google was fine with the situation as it stood. I think it's an important distinction to make, and underlines how companies ultimately serve their own self interest before anything else; they're not acting nobly, and the ultimate responsibility lies with the individual.
veidr 13y ago
This is, I think, the only way for these tech giants to come out of this scandal better off than they went in -- to take a stand, and take the fight to the feds, hard. Google does have legal resources far beyond anything a normal citizen has, and since they have been compelled to secretly give up their data, they also have the legal standing to file suit (presumably, although who can know when you have secret laws decided in secret courts via secret decisions...). So uh, go google!
- white_devil 13y ago
  > This is, I think, the only way for these tech giants to come out of this scandal better off than they went in -- to take a stand, and take the fight to the feds, hard. This is a PR-stunt, nothing more. Google could have "challenged" any and all gag-orders even before PRISM was leaked. Was giving NSA wholesale access to user data bad in 2009? -Why not challenge that shit in 2009? Gag-orders getting in the way? -Well why not challenge those in 2009 then? I guess they were too busy extolling the virtues of being Open and Transparent: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html - that's December 2009, with PRISM in place for almost a year. Fucking scumbags.
  - veidr 13y ago
    I'm not as emotionally invested as you seem to be in whether Google is good or bad. It's a corporation, so I assume they will do whatever they can to make money, and will be generally okay with fucking people over if needed, especially if not many people will know about it. Just like Yahoo, Apple, Microsoft, and everybody else on that scale. So why didn't they challenge it in 2009? Probably because there wasn't that much in it for Google, since wasn't a big national shitstorm blowing that way. But now there is. That is the point I am making. So, now, Google could serve their own corporate interests by fighting hard against the rise of the secret police. Would that make Google an awesome person? No, it would still be a selfish corporate entity trying to get money, just like it always has been But, it would (rightly) be perceived as a force for good, on the right side of this particular battle with tyranny. That would help you, me, America, and the world... but it would also help Google, it would seem. And some of these other "fucking scumbags" (which I assume is your term for "corporations acting normally"), like Apple, Yahoo, etc., might be encouraged to do likewise. In other words, it takes public outrage to create the shitstorm (which you will have noticed is in the mainstream media, not just nerd forums like this one), but once the outrage is in place, that helps align the interests of corporate behemoths like Google with what you and I would probably agree is Good (i.e., not having fucking secret police using secret laws to evade the control by the citizens of the nation).
hackduder 13y ago
de-cloud yourself, de-google, de-facebook. Fuck the NSA

414 points by stfu 13y ago

bifrost 13y ago

This is sortof hillarious, Google fighting for this when they mine ALL of your data...

betterunix 13y ago
They are not fighting the mining by the government, only the secrecy. They are fighting for the right to tell you what is happening, just like they tell you what they are doing with your data. The cynic in me thinks that Google is deliberately fighting a losing battle, so that later on they can say, "Hey, it's not our fault -- we want to tell you what is happening, they won't let us!"
- selter01 13y ago
  I don't think the outcome of the battle matters at all in this case. Google is still putting up a fight. Their track record shows that they do at least tell us what is happening, so "it's not our fault, we want to tell you, they won't let us" is consistent with their actions, AFAIK.
  - lazyjones 13y ago
    > Google is still putting up a fight. Their track record shows that they do at least tell us what is happening If they wanted to fight, they'd just publish the info instead of asking some court before doing anything. Then again, it's doubtful whether anyone would believe them at this point if they published anything and claimed the information was complete.
    - selter01 13y ago
      Isn't that illegal?
- embolism 13y ago
  Google doesn't tell us what they are doing with our data.
  - cookiecaper 13y ago
    It's not your data once you've submitted it to a Google-run service. The expense of all the services Google provides without monetary compensation is the data they can collect. You trade that to them when you use the site: that's their fee.
    - embolism 13y ago
      Firstly I was responding to the parent who said that Google tells us what they do with our data. Whether you think of it as ours or theirs, they don't tell us what they do with it. Secondly, if what you say is true, then we should stop complaining about what Google passes it to the government - what business is it of ours what they do with their data? Thirdly, I doubt that anyone seriously believes that the 'fee' for using GMail is that their messages become Google's property.
      - cookiecaper 13y ago
        It doesn't necessarily convert to their property from an intellectual property POV, but it is "Google's data" in the sense that you contractually allowed them to utilize it as described in the ToS and privacy policies, which one is free to reject or accept. You know the old saying, "If you're not paying for a service, you're the product." Why expect anything else? Google is a for-profit company and it's an expensive thing to run. They deserve something for the services provided, don't they?
        embolism 13y ago
        In other words it's nothing at all like a fee, as you described it earlier. But, if things are as you say, Google can do whatever it likes with the data according to the ToS. If people don't like data about them being given to the Government, or used for any other undisclosed purpose, they shouldn't have used Google.
- jfoster 13y ago
  The cynic in me notes that the companies were spurred into action by the leak. Google has always showed some interest in providing transparency about government requests, but even they were not taking the US government to court over it. The companies involved are taking these actions because the leak may have undermined consumer trust (eg. small drops in activity) in them. Perhaps even wrongly, if PRISM isn't as widespread as the initial leak suggested.
nostromo 13y ago
The government has a monopoly on violence. They can kill you, send you to gitmo, take all of your money and possessions, etc. Google by comparison can turn off your gmail account.
- _delirium 13y ago
  Depending on what precisely they do with the data, they could do things quite a bit more damaging than turning off your Gmail account, though it certainly wouldn't rise to the level of sending you to gitmo. The worst would probably be some kind of financial and/or career blackballing, if they sold data-mined information about you to credit agencies, lenders, private investigators, and/or prospective employers, and something particularly damaging were contained in it. I believe their privacy policy currently says they won't do that, and it's especially clear that they won't do anything except target ads using information mined out of your email. But I don't think there would be anything illegal about it, as long as they didn't do something like outright blackmail (offer to let you pay to expunge negative information or something).
  - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
    The difference is that if Google did that, everyone would immediately stop giving them that information, which is worth more to them than the advantage they could gain in screwing you over once. On the other hand, if the government does this, people can do... what, exactly? Stop giving their information to the government? They didn't willingly do that to begin with. Stop giving it to Google? Maybe, but they would have to stop giving it to anyone, which is a lot more difficult than just switching from one service to another.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Well if you're willing to talk about illegal things the government could do to you it makes sense to talk about the illegal things Google could do to you; i.e., anything.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Our government has decided that it is allowed to do all of those things "legally" in certain circumstances. Execution, asset forfeiture, and detainment are all considered "legal". Nothing besides the government is permitted to do these things, they have a monopoly on that right.
alexqgb 13y ago
The difference is that they mine data in order to better target ads. When the Feds ask them to share the same data with them, it's for reasons that are vastly more disconcerting. Intent is everything, and that's twice as true when you're dealing with a lethal organization that shows every sign of having escaped from its legal restraints.

vanattab 13y ago

They are fighting for the right to tell their customers about the government mining their data(through google). Google already tells their customers what they mine in theToS and Privacy Policy. I see no hypocrisy.

alexqgb 13y ago
Also, Google isn't brokering the information they gather. From what I understand they're simply using it to target ads (which is what they actually sell), while keeping the data itself very close to the vest. If you've got something on offer, and want to know who might buy, Google won't tell you who is interested. They'll just deliver your message to the right people, and if you get a suitable response, you'll know that their service was worth the price. There's a world of difference between the mediated transactions they have with their customers, and the exchange that takes place when the government says "hand over the data itself."
- humanspecies 13y ago
  Google fanboys make this discussion hard to take seriously. Google was caught pants down spying on everyone, stop trying to white wash it.
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    >Google was caught pants down spying on everyone If you're referring to the whole wifi thing, tell me, what information do you expect the street view car to be able to pick up in the 10 or so seconds it would have been associated with the AP? Their engineers have basically come out and said that was a fuckup, and I'm inclined to believe them because I find it hard to imagine what use that random data would be. And to be honest, I'm more likely to believe a Google engineer rather than a namecalling troll who's virulently against them for no good reason.
  - thoughtpalette 13y ago
    You give your username zero credit.

throwaway10001 13y ago

>> The court approved each of the 1,789 government requests it received in 2012, except for one that was withdrawn. Scary as hell, considering that one request can be as broad as: “It is hereby ordered that [Verizon Business Network Services'] Custodian of Records shall produce to the National Security Agency…all call detail records or ‘telephony metadata’ created by Verizon for communications (i) between the United States and abroad; or (ii) wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls,” Google should cut the crap with PR moves and stop hoarding so much data about everything we do online. If they have, NSA will get it--one way or another.

burntsushi 13y ago
> Google should cut the crap with PR moves and stop hoarding so much data about everything we do online. I like that Google has a lot of data on me---it makes their services much more valuable to me. I don't like that the government can access it secretly. These are distinct opinions and both can be reasonably satiated simultaneously if there are proper checks and balances in government.

slg 13y ago

Anyone familiar with the constitutional law on this? From a laymen's perspective it seems obvious that the government has some ability to restrict 1st amendment rights on matters of national security. If that wasn't the case, there would be no way to enforce legal restrictions on classified information. It would be the end of all government secrets, both good and bad. Or is this debate simply about where the actual line is drawn for national security and whether this this type of disclosure crosses that line?

zachrose 13y ago
Here's a place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny National security most likely qualifies as "compelling state interest" in general, but it's not the only thing the government needs to infringe on constitutional rights. The government also needs to prove that the infringement is narrow and specific. Even then, I wonder if the "compelling state interest" could be challenged on not being compelling enough. (I am definitely not a lawyer, just remembering a con law class I took and refreshing my memory with Wikipedia.)
- andrewfong 13y ago
  I'm a lawyer, although not one that regularly practices First Amendment law. That said, zachrose is right that strict scrutiny applies here. Usually, to restrict truthful speech based on the content of the speech, the government must show that (1) there is a compelling state interest and (2) that the government's restriction on speech is narrowly tailored. National security is pretty compelling, but it's unclear how prohibiting disclosure of the number of requests is narrowly tailored to that interest. Without knowing more details about the nature of the program, it's hard to say why the number matters. But if the NSA can't demonstrate how disclosing a specific number, as opposed to an approximate range, has a noticeable impact on national security, the law would likely not be in their favor.
  - icambron 13y ago
    I guess I don't really understand "national security is compelling". National security, like basically everything else, is a matter of degree. There are presumably compelling and uncompelling national security risks. If the court is weighing some amount of speech restriction against some amount of national security risk, presumably the size of the risk matters? What are the governments burdens here? Can they merely assert there's a security issue here or do they have to prove it? Does it have to pass some kind of severity test in order to restrict speech? I'm genuinely curious what the case law says on this stuff.

arunabha 13y ago

Much as I would love to see Google prevail in this, there is just no chance that would happen. The implications to any other form of Govt gag orders (think sealed court records) would be immense.

e3pi 13y ago
> ...The implications to any other form of Govt gag orders (think sealed court records) would be immense. Gag order also of Greenberg/Guardian, then what are ES' options? > "....The Ministry of Defence has issued a D notice preventing the UK media from 'publish[ing] information that may "jeopardise both national security and possibly UK personnel"'. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/defence-d-bbc-me.. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/defence-d-bbc-me.... what's left-- pastebin, Kim Dotcom, Prate's Bay, that New Yorker thing(no, gag order), Anonymous posting onto defaced sites, Wikileaks, ... ?

humanspecies 13y ago

I recommend everyone have a look at the leaked documents and the extent to which all those companies participated in it and then judge their public relations reactions afterwards. After the scandal was revealed, and only after it was revealed in an unprecedented act by Snowden, did Google come out in favor of their customers. This is ridiculous. Google was caught pants down and there's no amount of PR bullshit they can use to white wash this and pretend the government forced them to do it. They willingly participated in exchange for political status with the government, that is the raw truth.

psbp 13y ago
Can you explain what each slide of the document means and how the program was actually implemented? I still have no idea despite reading a variety of different articles.
pyre 13y ago
| After the scandal was revealed, and only after it | was revealed in an unprecedented act by Snowden, | did Google come out in favor of their customers Was Google not already in court opposing NSLs? Filing with FISA was something that the EFF recently spear-headed. I'm not saying you should trust Google with all of your secrets, or even all of your data, but it should be an informed decision.
- humanspecies 13y ago
  We have enough information for an informed decision now, thanks to Edward Snowden.
  - pyre 13y ago
    Right, but saying "Google only starts caring about its users now," is not true. For example, Google challenged the National Security Letters prior to the Snowden leak.

r-shirt 13y ago

Let's presume that PRISM is the NSA getting the ability to copy unencrypted data being transferred across these companies' internal networks. Is that one request that affects every account or one request that affects zero accounts? I would expect that the latter would be asserted while the former is more true. And I can almost hear the justification: "if people weren't sending email from Gmail to Gmail and instead from Gmail to foomail, we could be collecting all of this information. You need to give us access to your network, or we need to break you up into smaller pieces which need to send information unencrypted to work."

mpyne 13y ago
It's not copying data being transferred, it's copying data sitting on-disk (which does include sending along updates to that data on-disk). NSA was getting that data even before PRISM, but companies were compiling it and sending it manually.
- r-shirt 13y ago
  Was this stated somewhere that I didn't see it?
thrownaway2424 13y ago
Why do you assume that internal network traffic is not encrypted?
- r-shirt 13y ago
  If one server queries a MySQL database on another server inside my network (using private IP addresses), I don't encrypt what's transmitted between the two servers any more than what's done by default. And that default isn't SSL or anything of the sort because I'm expecting that my network admin knows what they're doing with firewalls to keep the unwanted packet sniffers out of the private network. Besides, I don't want to spend the extra CPU cycles on encrypting when I can just fortify the firewall.
  - 13y ago

rasterizer 13y ago

Again with the 'carefully worded denials' - the denials were similar because they were accused of the same thing, which is allowing "direct access". The most worrisome and misunderstood part of these reports is the "direct access" bit: can the government arbitrarily query company servers? their denials address that, they clearly say that is not the case, instead they sftp the data after being served with court orders or warrants and yes also the secretive FISA requests. So by revealing the number of FISA requests they receive and their scope they hope to clear this "direct access" mess. As even FISA orders are much more acceptable than wholesale access. As for the development being reported here: I think it has merit seeing how this clearly falls under the first amendment, but I'd like a lawyer to chip in. [edit: clarity]

burntsushi 13y ago
> So by revealing the number of FISA requests they receive and what sort of data is being sought they hope to clear this "direct access" mess. As even FISA orders are much more acceptable than wholesale access. Not necessarily. As another commenter pointed out [1], a single FISA order doesn't have to correspond to a single citizen. One order can encompass millions of accounts. > their denials address that, they clearly say that is not the case, instead they sftp the data after being served with court orders or warrants and such, including the secretive FISA requests. While I think it's reasonable to doubt the claim that the NSA has true direct access to servers, I haven't been given a reason to doubt that information can be requested without court orders, warrants or FISA requests. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5901811 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5901811
- GreatBuck 13y ago
  > Not necessarily. As another commenter pointed out [1], a single FISA order doesn't have to correspond to a single citizen. One order can encompass millions of accounts. The court document from Google (http://assets.nationaljournal.com/img/MOTION.pdf http://assets.nationaljournal.com/img/MOTION.pdf) clearly states the desire to clearly list, in aggregate, the number of accounts impacted.

jstalin 13y ago

Now that EFF broke the barrier in filing with the FISC, I have a feeling we'll see a lot more of this. And that's a good thing. I expect Google's filing to show up here shortly: http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/index.html http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/index.html

rasterizer 13y ago
Here it is: http://www.scribd.com/doc/148608149/Foreign-Intelligence-Surveillance-Court-Motion-for-Declaratory-Judgment http://www.scribd.com/doc/148608149/Foreign-Intelligence-Sur...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

GreatBuck 13y ago

Google's Court document is here: http://assets.nationaljournal.com/img/MOTION.pdf http://assets.nationaljournal.com/img/MOTION.pdf

namank 13y ago

It's a start! So what can the gov't do if companies don't co-operate? With individuals, there is blackmail and illicit co-ercion. What does the gov't do to corporations worth updwards of 100B to get them to comply?

gsmaverick 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio
- namank 13y ago
  So, if Google does continue like it should, at the very least we should watch out for Sergei & Larry's dirty laundry hitting the internet soon enough?

blackaspen 13y ago

This is where we get see what "Too Big to Fail" actually looks like. If Google's too big to fail on it's own, but the Feds want them to fail because they're (Google) are poking around too much, what happens?

AnthonyMouse 13y ago
This is where we need more than one company to stand up. If Google is the only one doing it, and the government vigorously slaps them around a few times, more than likely they'll stop before they go out of business. And then all the tech companies get put in their place -- want to resist government overreach? You're going to get damaged. On the other hand, if they all resist, who is the government going to retaliate against? The entire industry? It would be too great a hit to the economy. So the question is whether Facebook, Apple et al are going to take the short view or the long view. If they let Google be the only one to stand up then maybe it will encourage the government to damage their competitor, but in so doing set the precedent that the industry won't stand together on issues like this, which can only make the government more brazen in the future.

motters 13y ago

My current theory on this is that companies such as Google probably generate vast amounts of metadata (there must be a fair amount of it behind Google Now), primarily for advertising purposes, and that it's this which PRISM has "direct access" to under some sort of gagging order.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

thelukester 13y ago

Yeah, that's right according to the Supreme Court, corporations now have citizenship, so they should have First Amendment rights too. Wouldn't that be ironic if that ruling actually did some good for our nation.

rayiner 13y ago
If anything good comes out of this NSA thing, I think it's the fact that liberals will be forced to concede that Citizens United was, in fact, the right decision. Do you really want the government arbitrarily banning speech by corporations that it deems to be impermissible? There is a reason the ACLU came out in favor of the ruling in Citizens United...
- Vivtek 13y ago
  Corporations cannot speak. Only people in them can. Sheesh. No. Nobody is "forcing" me to concede that. Certainly no logical aspect of this situation.
  - euroclydon 13y ago
    What does that mean? Reaching an audience today takes money so a individual who wishes to be heard will need to raise money from her like minded citizens. Are you suggesting the the EFF should not be allowed to buy issue-oriented advertising during an election season?
- clicks 13y ago
  For as much as I'm familiar with the CU vs. FEC case, the reasons don't stack up all that well for corportation's 'right of speech' in this context. Trevor Potter I think very reasonably explains why here: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09042009/watch2.html http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09042009/watch2.html Mainly, that it's essentially overstepping the speech of the less powerful. It results in the poor having unequal, lesser freedom of speech. I would have expected you to be on my side on this issue, as you seemed to be more of a 'spirit of the law' guy rather a 'letter of the law' kind of guy.

blisterpeanuts 13y ago

I'm not a terrorist; I'm a law abiding citizen of the U.S. Can I opt out of the PRISM thing? All I'm doing is adding unnecessary noise to their data. I want to do the patriotic thing and help my country, and in this case the best way to do that is to shrink the pool of data that they must monitor. (And no, I'm not kidding!)

jfoster 13y ago
If you're ordinary enough you're probably not triggering any flags, so you'd probably already not really being considered part of the dataset. One person opting out probably won't help them at all, but it would be interesting to consider a more scaled up "opt out" program whereby you go through a one-time deep check and might be granted less monitoring as a result. They would need to sufficiently automate it to make it feasible, though. I also suspect the people who feel most strongly about opting out would also be against the idea of even a one-time check.
- sneak 13y ago
  > but it would be interesting to consider a more scaled up "opt out" program whereby you go through a one-time deep check and might be granted less monitoring No, that would not be interesting, that would be treason.
jrockway 13y ago
If you want to help the country and they won't let you do so by opting out of prism, you can always mail the government a check to make up for the prism resources you're consuming: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#DebtFinance http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicd...

genwin 13y ago

> In the petition, Google is seeking permission to publish the total numbers of requests the court makes of the company and the numbers of user accounts they affect. Nice confirmation that the "in the last 6 months" numbers reported by Facebook et al are worthless. No company has yet said how many users are affected total. I assume it's all users, by an earlier "request" (actually all but an order). Why shouldn't an organization that gains a bigger budget the more people it surveils demand the moon? If we're to believe the number of requests reported so far are 1-to-1 with users, all the information could fit on a single drive. The Bluffdale, UT facility seems capable of handling a good amount of data for each of the entire digital population, even if half of the buildings is space for bureaucrats.

logn 13y ago

Hypothetically, couldn't Google just decide to break the gag order, be charged with a crime, and then argue this issue in front of a jury of their peers, and then be acquitted, establishing a precedent? It would probably be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. I know Google is probably risk-averse enough to not do this, but they'd garner a lot of good will I think. Maybe I'm missing some gotcha that they'd never be granted a trial and the board of Google would end up in secret prisons.

SEMW 13y ago
> ...argue this issue in front of a jury of their peers, and then be acquitted, establishing a precedent? This is conceptually confused. Juries aren't judges or lawyers. They don't get to rule on questions of law, and their verdicts don't set precedent. If Google does what you suggest and then a judge rules that, as a matter of law, the FISC order was unconstitutional, that means that what Google would have been accused of doing was not illegal -- which means no jury ever gets involved. If on the other hand a judge holds that what Google would be accused of was illegal, then you get a jury to decide whether, as a matter of fact, they did what they're accused of. But in that case, an acquittal by the jury wouldn't set a precedent that their actions were legal, any more than a jury finding someone not guilty of murder sets a precedent that murder is legal. All of which means there's no reason for them not to seek a declaration of the order's unconstitutionality before breaching it.
- pilsetnieks 13y ago
  Jury nullification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification A jury can rule on questions of law.
  - SEMW 13y ago
    No. Jury nullification does not mean a jury gets to rule that 'thing X is not illegal'. Rather, it's a jury saying 'I know thing X is illegal (and I can't change that), but I'm going to say that the defendant is not guilty of doing thing X, even though I think he did, because I think thing X shouldn't be illegal'. That may sound like a fine distinction, but it isn't, it's crucial. A legal precedent that X is not a crime means no-one can thereafter get tried for X (where the precedent applies). A jury nullification doesn't have that effect.

skygazer 13y ago

It will be interesting to see how few or many FISA requests there really are. Google implies its a small number. The government was okay releasing the numbers opaquely, inside an aggregate of all law enforcement requests, which also implies to me the number may actually be low. If it's conspicuously low, we're left to wonder what alternative sources of raw data they're relying upon primarily. They may be trying to avoid that implication, thus, release of a low number may appeal to Google, but not the government.

coherentpony 13y ago

I guess since now corporations are people, this should be no problem.

mtgx 13y ago

Hey, Google. Reporting what the government is requesting en-masse is nice, but how about you actually give us end-to-end encryption for as many of your services as possible, so we don't have to second-guess our thoughts and chats anymore simply because we know the government is watching and will be getting that data no matter what? It might help with the whole trust issue you're having now.

Ultron 13y ago
Maybe Google has a business relationship with the NSA. It's likely the reason Google hasn't added encryption and never will - the boss doesn't want it.
- driax 13y ago
  I don't get it when people keep repeating something like this. Google pushed a lot for adding TSL/SSL encryption between Google's servers and the client, to the point of inventing several performance improvements in TSL start-up. However they sure don't encrypt inside the client [note] and then sends it as a blob to server to storage, mostly because that's not really how webapps can work (for practical "can work" values). For example this wouldn't allow you to full-text-search all your own emails in gmail. Moreover this would mean significant performance regression every time you would open up any Google web app, because the client would have to decrypt all data, without much help from indexes. [note] Even encrypting and decrypting in the client would only help so much. It is likely they could be ordered to splice they data while in the client for any person of interest. Cloud web apps simply requires a legal system that respects peoples' data.
  - raylu 13y ago
    *TLS
magicalist 13y ago
As has been replied to you several times, you don't want your web-based client in charge of client-side encryption. Yes, it may help as a second line of defence against run-of-the-mill phishing and hacking attempts, but it does absolutely nothing against government requests, as the government can either request the private key that you've stored on their servers, or the government can force them to give you broken encryption software. See, as always, [1]. Whether or not your browser client is providing the encryption, however, you've also rendered completely useless any reason for having web mail in the first place, as you've become next-to-useless to them (no content for ads, no content for things like Google Now) and all their infrastructure is useless to you (no content to search over, no content to spam filter, etc). You no longer have a relationship except they're your SMTP gateway and a backup drive. You can get those today all over the place, you don't need google. If you want to stick with Google, go download a desktop mail client and chat client and install the open source PGP and OTR plugins for them. You can do this right now. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hushmail#Compromises_to_email_privacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hushmail#Compromises_to_email_p...

MiguelHudnandez 13y ago

Could this lead to an interesting development in the issue of "corporate personhood?" I would love to see a ruling that corporations have no constitutional rights. But the people running them do, of course.

adamconroy 13y ago

Its not a big deal, google should quietly announce they are retiring the API and the government can try and contact someone at google.

spoiledtechie 13y ago

I am sort of upset with Google. Why didn't they do this in the first place? Honestly, seems like they are back pedaling to save face.

VALLEJOSJUTUG 13y ago

PRISMA – PRISM . ------------------------------------------ NEWS: HACKER SEND NWES C: PRISMA PROYECT BRAIN WASHING AND BRAIN ACTIVITY INFORMATION SENT TO SATELITES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PRISM USED, CHINESE EUROPE AND NORTH KOREA JAPAN. TRYING TO BE LOVELYG MIND CONTROLER WHEN KILL MILLIONS FROM SATELITES AND BUSINESS PROJECTS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ THE DEMAND FOR ALL PRESIDENTS. VENEZUELAN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES SELLING GENETIC INFORMATION VENEZUELAN JUAN CARLOS VALLEJOS CASE. ------------------------------------------------------- 1,000,000 FOR EACH IRRADIATION TELOMERE LOST SATELLITE PRESIDENTS WHO CHARGE MONEY FOR STUDIES OF THE HUMAN RACE. 600,000 MILLION TELOMERE EXIST IN EACH CELL NUCLEUS. COLLAPSE THEORY FOR ACCUMULATION BITS 0 BITS PER SECOND. HUMAN CLONATION. SEMEN SALES FOOD POLITICAL PRISONERS OF POLITICAL PRODUCTS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHICH ARE LOST BY STUDIES OF THE HUMAN RACE, IN METHODS OF CAUTERIZATION, IRRADIATION AND BRAIN WASHING. BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU EAT BECAUSE CORPORATIONS INCLUDE COMPUTERS NANO DRINKS FOOD AND MEDICINE. PROVEN HAVE VIDEOS OF NANO COMPUTERS, VIDEOS AS MANUFACTURED, AND SOFTWARE TRANSMITTED FROM SATELLITES. EACH NEURON CELL AND YOUR BODY. SEND IT TO ALL HACKERS. THIS IS ONLY FOR BANK BUSINESS MODEL PERFECTED. THE METHOD IS TO DENOUNCE EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE UNIVERISDADES, NGOS, ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS, WITH DEANS GOVERNING LAWYERS. SINCE ALL COUNTRIES COURTS, JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS. BEFORE DIETS REVIEW JUAN CARLOS VALLEJOS. DIETS. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WKsU8pYPTkHgAVBuMOPFvxR7DqLMZewDw5SxjcyVeTI/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WKsU8pYPTkHgAVBuMOPFvxR7... CELL DUPLICATION, COMPANIES AND RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS OF THE HUMAN RACE, PAY MONEY TO BURN, NERVE CELLS, NEURONS. THE METHODOLOGY USED TO GROW THEM ARE HERE. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kwOTL_K6Sm8NQ7FCx330h484Nx_dxlTcURoI4W1M7ow/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kwOTL_K6Sm8NQ7FCx330h484... -------------------------------------------------- - SUPPORTING CRIME VICTIMS WITH USE OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. CREATE GENOCIDE RESEARCH PROJECT. WE ASK LAWYERS NETWORK BE OUR SPONSOR. 1. - STUDY THE INTERNATIONAL DEMAND LEGAL PROPOSAL TO BE SENT TO 14,000 MEMBERS AND THE MEDIA, UNIVERSITIES, NGOS, ORGANISATIONS THAT PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS. TWO. - STUDY THE BUSINESS PROPOSAL, PAYMENT FOR ADVERTISING ACTIVITIES, PUBLICATION AND SENT THE CASE TO THE MEMBER, 10% OF TOTAL DEMAND. THE COMPLAINT SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY PROFESSIONALS LIBERAL LAWYERS AND COMPANY REDABOGADOS.NET, TO THE COMPETENT COURTS, THE COMPLAINANT, JUAN CARLOS VALLEJOS, CHILEAN, RESIDING IN VENEZUELA, CARABOBO, VALENCIA, CAMORUCO VALLEYS, STREET 133, LOPEZ LATOUCHE, (THIS IS THE RED CROSS STREET), BLDG 1-B SUITABLE ALTAMIRA. THREE. - THE SERVICES ARE REQUESTED TO JUDGES, PROSECUTORS, LAWYERS, JURISTS. A PROFESSIONAL JUDGES AND LAWYERS WORKING IN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW DRAFTING THE COMPLAINT IS REQUESTED, THE DOCUMENTS WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE COURTS. THE COMPLAINT INCLUDES; 1. RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, IRRADIATION, GENETIC DAMAGE, ROBBERY. TWO. PERFECTIBLE BANK WHICH HAVE VIDEO AND IS THE MAIN REASON WHY THESE AGENCIES PERFORM THE CAUTERIZATION, RADIATION AND TORTURE. CREATED BY JUAN CARLOS VALLEJOS, AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CARABOBO, FACES, SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS, PROF PAUL POLO. THREE. WELLS EXTRACTION SYSTEM TERMINALS, DESIGNED FOR EXTRACTING HEAVY HYDRO CARBIDE. URL: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7rdd1w6dkcSZFRTZW9hTFV1eEk/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7rdd1w6dkcSZFRTZW9hTFV1eEk/... HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

jacoblyles 13y ago

I don't see how freedom can last in a country for long with secret laws.

triplesec 13y ago

A little late, methinks. Why didn't they - in concert with the other large companies - do this before, if they're so not evil?

tomkarlo 13y ago
Ultimately, a company has to have a compelling business interest to justify pursuing something like this. Until this became a public issue for these companies, it might be hard to argue that they'd be acting responsibly to pursue a legal case where the only result would be more detailed disclosure of these requests (not any change to the requests themselves.) Google's arguably been the most active of the major tech firms in getting permission to disclose ranges of requests to date (has anyone else?); it's not clear there would have been a good business reason to pursue what may end up being a very expensive case if it proceeds all the way up through the court system.
- triplesec 13y ago
  And herein lies the issue of "companies exist solely to line the coffers of shareholders", with no responsibility to other stakeholders which is a narrow interpretation which had come about especially in the last 30 years or so. It's not a certain thing, although very common. Thorsten Veblen would call it a problem of remote capital, although other factors have also been at work since the 1960s.
  - tomkarlo 13y ago
    For your statement to be relevant, you'd have to show that if they were concerned about stakeholders other than shareholders, they would have acted differently. That's not self-evident. It's not clear that this suit would have a material benefit for any stakeholders - including users - until now. It would only do slightly more than the current disclosure to expose the issue of such requests, and it would incur significant risk and cost in return. Given the recent controversy, I'd say this suit now benefits Google employees and shareholders, but I'm not sure it really does a lot for customers in reality. Let's say Google wins the right to disclose the exact number of requests instead of the range it's been reporting. Will that really materially improve the situation for users?

humanspecies 13y ago

Fucking Google is manipulating these threads, trying to white wash their secret spying deals. Don't fall for this bullshit, Google has been in the spying business for ages now. They joined the NSA program in 2009 and have been in trouble constantly in every spy scandal there is some google product involved. Wake up already.

pconf 13y ago

I would rather see them challenge FISA requests on the basis of tax law. These requests are, in addition to everything else, a form of taxation.

contingencies 13y ago

Google reputation in shreds; funds transparent PR stunt

hkmurakami 13y ago

My initial reaction to all the positive actions by these companies is to be a cheerleader and urge them on for "fighting the good fight", but I can't help but then turn around and be cynical. After all, as far as we know they were not proactive at all until the leak happened. Do they have the users' best interests in mind? I honestly can't say so.

marme 13y ago

I think too many people and companies are tip toeing around the issue. Some more people need to take a stand for what they believe in and stand up to the government. If google believes so strongly that their rights are being violated they should hold a press conference and publicly release all the gag orders and data requests they have received. Let the government try to charge them with violating the gag order and then they can really challenge the order Federal court not this secret court. The justice department almost certainly wont try to charge them with violating the order because they know that it will get declared unconstitutional by the supreme court and a giant company like google has plenty of money and lawyers to take it all the way to the supreme court. Most companies are too scared to see what will happen if they violate the unconstitutional order

asab 13y ago

I appreciate how the article frames it as a matter of Google preserving their own reputation, as opposed to principle, or it being "the right thing to do." They have been receiving information requests with gag orders attached for years, but are only fighting it now that the cat's out of the bag and they have something to lose. Until then, it seems that Google was fine with the situation as it stood. I think it's an important distinction to make, and underlines how companies ultimately serve their own self interest before anything else; they're not acting nobly, and the ultimate responsibility lies with the individual.

veidr 13y ago

This is, I think, the only way for these tech giants to come out of this scandal better off than they went in -- to take a stand, and take the fight to the feds, hard. Google does have legal resources far beyond anything a normal citizen has, and since they have been compelled to secretly give up their data, they also have the legal standing to file suit (presumably, although who can know when you have secret laws decided in secret courts via secret decisions...). So uh, go google!

white_devil 13y ago
> This is, I think, the only way for these tech giants to come out of this scandal better off than they went in -- to take a stand, and take the fight to the feds, hard. This is a PR-stunt, nothing more. Google could have "challenged" any and all gag-orders even before PRISM was leaked. Was giving NSA wholesale access to user data bad in 2009? -Why not challenge that shit in 2009? Gag-orders getting in the way? -Well why not challenge those in 2009 then? I guess they were too busy extolling the virtues of being Open and Transparent: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/meaning-of-open.html - that's December 2009, with PRISM in place for almost a year. Fucking scumbags.
- veidr 13y ago
  I'm not as emotionally invested as you seem to be in whether Google is good or bad. It's a corporation, so I assume they will do whatever they can to make money, and will be generally okay with fucking people over if needed, especially if not many people will know about it. Just like Yahoo, Apple, Microsoft, and everybody else on that scale. So why didn't they challenge it in 2009? Probably because there wasn't that much in it for Google, since wasn't a big national shitstorm blowing that way. But now there is. That is the point I am making. So, now, Google could serve their own corporate interests by fighting hard against the rise of the secret police. Would that make Google an awesome person? No, it would still be a selfish corporate entity trying to get money, just like it always has been But, it would (rightly) be perceived as a force for good, on the right side of this particular battle with tyranny. That would help you, me, America, and the world... but it would also help Google, it would seem. And some of these other "fucking scumbags" (which I assume is your term for "corporations acting normally"), like Apple, Yahoo, etc., might be encouraged to do likewise. In other words, it takes public outrage to create the shitstorm (which you will have noticed is in the mainstream media, not just nerd forums like this one), but once the outrage is in place, that helps align the interests of corporate behemoths like Google with what you and I would probably agree is Good (i.e., not having fucking secret police using secret laws to evade the control by the citizens of the nation).

hackduder 13y ago

de-cloud yourself, de-google, de-facebook. Fuck the NSA