4 ms·

What a complete bullshit - > * This report doesn't include national security requests. What good is this "Transparency Report" if it excludes an unspecified n

What a complete bullshit - > * This report doesn't include national security requests. What good is this "Transparency Report" if it excludes an unspecified number arbitrary wide secret information access requests? The one kind that actually ignited the fire under Dropbox ass. How can they seriously think this could calm and reassure anyone who cares about privacy of their data held with Dropbox?

striker44 13y ago
So you expect them to answer every single conceivable question you could ever come up with. They made an attempt to product information.
- ghayes 13y ago
  I believe huhtenberg's point is that it's the only question many of us are concerned about. It would be as if a city fighting crime releases statistics on muggings but not homicides.
  - Semiapies 13y ago
    Police chiefs don't usually worry about facing prison time if they reveal homicide statistics.
    - Ygg2 13y ago
      But they do fear politicians kicking their ass and ruining their lives if that information cost them elections. Also, strained metaphor is strained. Fact is, that's not a Transparency Report, it's PR Report, to make you feel better and not run away screaming. I've decided that Dropbox/Google Sync shouldn't be trusted for anything of any importance.
      - Semiapies 13y ago
        It's a report that spends most of its length telling you in some detail exactly what they can't legally tell you. Considering how self-congratulatory HN readers are about this community's intelligence, you'd think more of them would be able to read between the lines.
        Ygg2 13y ago
        A report telling me what it can't say is not precisely informative. Because I know that they can't tell me much about NSA. Not to mention these two claims are contradictory: "This report doesn't include national security requests." "Unfortunately, the government allows services to disclose only the aggregate number of all law enforcement and national security requests received " Does it include the NSA request, or not in the aggregate? First sentence says no, second implies yes.
        Semiapies 13y ago
        Because I know that they can't tell me much about NSA. You are not the world. You are not even most Dropbox users.
  - jasonlotito 13y ago
    I don't know. I think it's important to know about: "Today we filed a legal brief asking the court to confirm that we have the right to report the number of national security requests we receive, if any. You can check out our brief here: Dropbox FISC Brief. We'll keep you updated about any developments." Maybe you don't find that information important, but I do. huhtenberg's point is simply that he doesn't agree with the classification of the page. That is contains too much information, and cannot include other information.
oleganza 13y ago
Imagine yourself in Dropbox's shoes. Do you personally want to go to jail for fighting for freedom against NSA, or do you prefer to move from this country to another (where some other agency will fuck you the same way)? When people focus their disappointment on companies that are forced to comply you get civil war while the real aggressor is just laughing at you. Let's instead focus on how government got so much brutal power, how can we possibly reduce it and prevent from increasing again in the future. That's the real issue here.
- nodata 13y ago
  The OP doesn't have a problem understanding _why_ Dropbox has done this, he is highlighting the fact that this transparency report is definitely not a transparency report, and is therefore useless.
- huhtenberg 13y ago
  You are missing the point. If a company publishes a "Transparency Report" that is woefully incomplete, they shouldn't call it a "Transparency Report", should they now? They effectively fudge the numbers to make things look better than they are.
  - StavrosK 13y ago
    When the alternative is to not post the report at all, I think I'll take the chance.
  - oleganza 13y ago
    I agree. However, it's called "Transparency Report" and not "This is the best we can tell you to avoid jail" to avoid jail. Alternative would be not to publish anything. Any freedom-fighting statement (while straight to the point and honorable) is a quick suicide. Point me to a business in US which openly opposes core government institutions and does well.
  - jasonlotito 13y ago
    So your complaint is that they didn't name it well enough? Not that they didn't make it clear in several places that this doesn't include national security requests, of which they are legally obligated not to provide.
mcherm 13y ago
Perhaps their goal is not to "calm and reassure". Perhaps their goal is to be as transparent as legally possible. In the legal brief they include an exhibit showing how their transparency report would have looked if they had included the national security requests -- go read it and tell me if you think it is more "reassuring".
andrewcooke 13y ago
this is explained in the document they link to. quote: Had Dropbox received just one national-security request [... the report would] look like this: Jan-Dec 2012 United States 1-1000 Reporting in this way decreases transparency. [...] It would also obfuscate the number of [...] requests [...] which were not sealed and are in the public record. so they are arguing that you either get the numbers shown or 1-1000 and nothing else (which seems odd to me, as google seem to manage to show both - see my link below). cut + paste from pdf not working so may be typos above. https://dt8kf6553cww8.cloudfront.net/static/docs/DropboxFISCBrief-vflkjalRT.pdf https://dt8kf6553cww8.cloudfront.net/static/docs/DropboxFISC...
- tekacs 13y ago
  Also, it looks like they're trying their best: [Update - 9/23/2013] – Today we filed a legal brief asking the court to confirm that we have the right to report the number of national security requests we receive, if any. You can check out our brief here: Dropbox FISC Brief. We'll keep you updated about any developments.
- eterm 13y ago
  You're falling for the assumption they want you to make. They've phrased their document to suggest they have 1-1000 requests without actually saying it. For all we know they could have served thousands of requests last year but are using this as an excuse not to show that.
  - andrewcooke 13y ago
    that would exceed google, which seems unlikely to me. https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US/ https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/U...
jasonlotito 13y ago
What good is a "Transparency Report" if it included that number? How would that change anything for those who care about the privacy of their data held in Dropbox?
ethnt 13y ago
Did you even read the page? > This report doesn't include national security requests. We want to report the exact number of national security requests we receive, if any. Unfortunately, the government allows services to disclose only the aggregate number of all law enforcement and national security requests received (and even then the disclosure must be in large bands). A report in that form decreases transparency, especially for companies that receive zero or very few national security requests. They can't report on how many national security requests because they have to lump them in with regular law enforcement requests in bands of 1000. Since there were less than 1000, it would be 1-1000, and that's it. They're working on being able to release the exact number, so they had to file a brief with FISA.
bound008 13y ago
This data was last updated in January, so it's not a reaction. Although it is certainly misleading.
spangled 13y ago
"[Update - 9/23/2013] – Today we filed a legal brief asking the court to confirm that we have the right to report the number of national security requests we receive, if any."

striker44 13y ago

So you expect them to answer every single conceivable question you could ever come up with. They made an attempt to product information.

ghayes 13y ago
I believe huhtenberg's point is that it's the only question many of us are concerned about. It would be as if a city fighting crime releases statistics on muggings but not homicides.
- Semiapies 13y ago
  Police chiefs don't usually worry about facing prison time if they reveal homicide statistics.
  - Ygg2 13y ago
    But they do fear politicians kicking their ass and ruining their lives if that information cost them elections. Also, strained metaphor is strained. Fact is, that's not a Transparency Report, it's PR Report, to make you feel better and not run away screaming. I've decided that Dropbox/Google Sync shouldn't be trusted for anything of any importance.
    - Semiapies 13y ago
      It's a report that spends most of its length telling you in some detail exactly what they can't legally tell you. Considering how self-congratulatory HN readers are about this community's intelligence, you'd think more of them would be able to read between the lines.
      - Ygg2 13y ago
        A report telling me what it can't say is not precisely informative. Because I know that they can't tell me much about NSA. Not to mention these two claims are contradictory: "This report doesn't include national security requests." "Unfortunately, the government allows services to disclose only the aggregate number of all law enforcement and national security requests received " Does it include the NSA request, or not in the aggregate? First sentence says no, second implies yes.
        Semiapies 13y ago
        Because I know that they can't tell me much about NSA. You are not the world. You are not even most Dropbox users.
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  I don't know. I think it's important to know about: "Today we filed a legal brief asking the court to confirm that we have the right to report the number of national security requests we receive, if any. You can check out our brief here: Dropbox FISC Brief. We'll keep you updated about any developments." Maybe you don't find that information important, but I do. huhtenberg's point is simply that he doesn't agree with the classification of the page. That is contains too much information, and cannot include other information.

oleganza 13y ago

Imagine yourself in Dropbox's shoes. Do you personally want to go to jail for fighting for freedom against NSA, or do you prefer to move from this country to another (where some other agency will fuck you the same way)? When people focus their disappointment on companies that are forced to comply you get civil war while the real aggressor is just laughing at you. Let's instead focus on how government got so much brutal power, how can we possibly reduce it and prevent from increasing again in the future. That's the real issue here.

nodata 13y ago
The OP doesn't have a problem understanding _why_ Dropbox has done this, he is highlighting the fact that this transparency report is definitely not a transparency report, and is therefore useless.
huhtenberg 13y ago
You are missing the point. If a company publishes a "Transparency Report" that is woefully incomplete, they shouldn't call it a "Transparency Report", should they now? They effectively fudge the numbers to make things look better than they are.
- StavrosK 13y ago
  When the alternative is to not post the report at all, I think I'll take the chance.
- oleganza 13y ago
  I agree. However, it's called "Transparency Report" and not "This is the best we can tell you to avoid jail" to avoid jail. Alternative would be not to publish anything. Any freedom-fighting statement (while straight to the point and honorable) is a quick suicide. Point me to a business in US which openly opposes core government institutions and does well.
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  So your complaint is that they didn't name it well enough? Not that they didn't make it clear in several places that this doesn't include national security requests, of which they are legally obligated not to provide.

mcherm 13y ago

Perhaps their goal is not to "calm and reassure". Perhaps their goal is to be as transparent as legally possible. In the legal brief they include an exhibit showing how their transparency report would have looked if they had included the national security requests -- go read it and tell me if you think it is more "reassuring".

andrewcooke 13y ago

this is explained in the document they link to. quote: Had Dropbox received just one national-security request [... the report would] look like this: Jan-Dec 2012 United States 1-1000 Reporting in this way decreases transparency. [...] It would also obfuscate the number of [...] requests [...] which were not sealed and are in the public record. so they are arguing that you either get the numbers shown or 1-1000 and nothing else (which seems odd to me, as google seem to manage to show both - see my link below). cut + paste from pdf not working so may be typos above. https://dt8kf6553cww8.cloudfront.net/static/docs/DropboxFISCBrief-vflkjalRT.pdf https://dt8kf6553cww8.cloudfront.net/static/docs/DropboxFISC...

tekacs 13y ago
Also, it looks like they're trying their best: [Update - 9/23/2013] – Today we filed a legal brief asking the court to confirm that we have the right to report the number of national security requests we receive, if any. You can check out our brief here: Dropbox FISC Brief. We'll keep you updated about any developments.
eterm 13y ago
You're falling for the assumption they want you to make. They've phrased their document to suggest they have 1-1000 requests without actually saying it. For all we know they could have served thousands of requests last year but are using this as an excuse not to show that.
- andrewcooke 13y ago
  that would exceed google, which seems unlikely to me. https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US/ https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/U...

jasonlotito 13y ago

What good is a "Transparency Report" if it included that number? How would that change anything for those who care about the privacy of their data held in Dropbox?

ethnt 13y ago

Did you even read the page? > This report doesn't include national security requests. We want to report the exact number of national security requests we receive, if any. Unfortunately, the government allows services to disclose only the aggregate number of all law enforcement and national security requests received (and even then the disclosure must be in large bands). A report in that form decreases transparency, especially for companies that receive zero or very few national security requests. They can't report on how many national security requests because they have to lump them in with regular law enforcement requests in bands of 1000. Since there were less than 1000, it would be 1-1000, and that's it. They're working on being able to release the exact number, so they had to file a brief with FISA.

bound008 13y ago

This data was last updated in January, so it's not a reaction. Although it is certainly misleading.

spangled 13y ago

"[Update - 9/23/2013] – Today we filed a legal brief asking the court to confirm that we have the right to report the number of national security requests we receive, if any."