38 ms·

The Government is Silencing Twitter and Yahoo, and It Won't Tell Us Why

286 points by e1ven 13y ago

dfa0 13y ago
Why does a dog lick his balls?
yoamro 13y ago
"In a democracy, if your government is going to gag someone from speaking, it should publicly explain why" It seems like even the ACLU is saying "it's okay to censor people, just please tell us why". Im not sure what to even think of this.
- milesskorpen 13y ago
  There are legitimate reasons why the government needs to operate in secret for a short while — a sting on a suspected criminal, where they have strong evidence, but need to close the case without scaring the target into fleeing the country, for example. This usage should be firmly rooted in law and disclosed after a reasonable period of time, however.
  - danielweber 13y ago
    I was thinking this. But I can't tell that from the article if this isn't what's going on in these cases. Has the government permanently stopped Twitter from talking to the customers in question about something, or only temporarily?
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    Even those "needs" need to be balanced against having an open legal process. We have both NSLs and a "no fly list." For the purpose of keeping some very high-value suspect from fleeing, the no fly list should be sufficient. This looks like an exercise of power just to maintain and expand secrecy and the supremacy of "national security" over legal process.
    - milesskorpen 13y ago
      I'm not trying to argue secrecy is right in this case — I don't know enough. I'm just saying that anyone (including the ACLU!) should recognize that limited & temporary secrecy is really important in combating crime or fighting wars. The question is just how we make sure it is limited, temporary, and really only applied to the right things — and not used as a way to cover up/hide information which should be public.
      - Zigurd 13y ago
        > * recognize that limited & temporary secrecy is really important in combating crime or fighting wars* How important? Quantify that. Start at zero, and then justify all the really vital things. You may find there are actually zero existential threats if some super-Snowden revealed all secrets.
- TehCorwiz 13y ago
  IANAL I believe that there are valid reasons for gag orders. See http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Gag+Order http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Gag+Order However it's fairly obvious that the purposes which a gag order is commonly used, preventing jury tampering, media distortion, or other disruption to the operations of a fair court, do not seem to apply in the instances of the article.
- sitkack 13y ago
  No they are saying, "the government might have a legitimate case for censorship but we can't even tell because they don't give a reason" Before they would at least give some bullshit answer like, "state secrets", "means and methods" etc etc. Now they don't even put up those lies.
cordite 13y ago
If he public knew the why, then they'd want to know more. So far the pattern of information control is to seal it at the most root position as possible.
ChuckMcM 13y ago
This looks like another attempt by the ACLU to get the national security letter issue resolved (or undone). Its a worthwhile battle and I support them in it, but I'm not sure what this article brings to the conversation. It is yet another skirmish in the district courts.
- jdp23 13y ago
  The article talks about "grand jury subpoenas" so this is different than NSLs.
ticktocktick 13y ago
Think of the government as being a member of Hacker News with nearly infinite downvote power. If it doesn't like what you've said it disappears what you've said...often without even so much as an explanation.
higherpurpose 13y ago
So, people still don't think they should prioritize getting their services from outside of EU, rather than US? It seems to me that despite all the laws and the Constitution, the government can still pretty much force any company do whatever it wants, "legally" or extra-legally (hello Amazon/Paypal/Visa/Mastercard!). Post-Snowden, US companies don't deserve a second chance - at least not while the US government doesn't seem to have any remorse about mass surveillance and its abuse of power, and has no serious intention of reforming itself.
- dctoedt 13y ago
  > So, people still don't think they should prioritize getting their services from outside of EU, rather than US? It seems to me that despite all the laws and the Constitution, the government can still pretty much force any company do whatever it wants .... The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. I imagine that most other countries' governments would do at least what the U.S. Government does, if only they had the tools.
  - insuffi 13y ago
    I find it peculiar that you still imply the US government's moral authority by using the phrase at least. What gives? What makes you think the other governments are intrinsically more evil? Besides, your argument is rather off-topic. The other governments probably don't have the tools, so they can't be at least as evil, so the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. EDIT: I'd prefer somebody to tell me why other governments are intrinsically more evil, instead of silently downvoting me.
    - dctoedt 13y ago
      > I find it peculiar that you still imply the US government's moral authority by using the phrase at least. What gives? What makes you think the other governments are intrinsically more evil? I didn't say anything about morality, nor about evil. As Rayiner has correctly noted more than once, in international affairs the world is ultimately a Hobbesian state of nature. Morality plays a definite but limited role --- especially when different people adhere to drastically different views of what's "moral" or "evil"(cf., e.g., Crimea), in which case the stronger side will win. The brute fact is that a government that daintily claims to be morally "above" gathering intelligence about potential threats is one that likely won't be in power for long. By and large, the people in charge of other governments tend to know this. Apropos of that, note that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits only unreasonable searches by the government. ---------------- > The other governments probably don't have the tools, so they can't be at least as evil, so the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. Life isn't a snapshot, it's a movie. Other governments might not have particular tools now. If history is any guide, they will, soon enough (cf., e.g., the nuclear-weapons programs of various countries). EDIT: BTW, I'm not the one who down-voted you.
artellectual 13y ago
America is slowly turning into its own worst enemy. Is this what war on terror has lead to? "No one can terrorize our people, we terrorize our own people by slowly taking away all their rights and liberties" good job America.
- Ihmahr 13y ago
  > terrorize our own people ... and other people, but then it was okay-ish.
mtimjones 13y ago
The Obama administration is the most open and transparent administration in history. Not.
- venomsnake 13y ago
  I think it is pretty transparent right now that they don't think the american public that they serve worthy of having a say in the way that they are being served. Or knowing how. Also voting them out is not an option right now because both parties are pretty fine with extending the security apparatus rights and abilities. And the system is made almost impossible for a non partisan candidates to enter the government.
  - pdkl95 13y ago
    ...and so we maintain the status quo. Worse, we are conditioning people to believe they can get away with this kind of blatant abuse. The longer this goes on without somebody being forced to answer for their role in it, we will see more and more people coming to the conclusion that they ARE actually above the law. Nobody threw the people involved in ${OLDER_PROJECT} in jail - despite being obviously unconstitutional and/or illegal at a glance - so why would ${NEW_PROJECT} be any different? This feedback loop, I fear, is at the root of a lot of these issues. We've seen a general emboldening in many areas. In some areas, nobody is even bothering to to pretend their abuses are legal and constitutional. Without the fear of getting "caught" in some way - which would break the conditioning feedback-loop - I expect these kinds of abuses to simply get bolder and more frequent. There was a time thought things like the legal system could reintroduce that fear. As I've learned about just how bad things have gotten, I now strongly suspect it will take more. I never wish for violence. Unfortunately, I really don't see attitudes changing until at least some heads quite literally end up on a pike. Anything less will be interpreted as still "getting away with it". Seriously, I don't want a damn civil war. I just think it seems foolish to expect things like "the law" to fix anything, when you see people publicly announcing their intention to ignoring the law, and barely even makes the news.
    - mtimjones 13y ago
binarymax 13y ago
Here is what I don't understand: actions like this takes more than one person. It takes hundreds of people, complicit in actions that are the opposite of what anyone would consider 'American'. It's plainly fucking unamerican. So who the hell are these people? Why are they getting away with it? Sure covert things have always been going on to protect the public...but this is so in-your-face against what we should stand for that I cannot fathom how it is allowed to continue. I am so very angry that things like this are happening. The worst part? we can't seem to do anything about it so we just end up whining on the internet.
- jbooth 13y ago
  The hiring filters for most of the security services seem to select for people who consider following orders to be the most American thing they could possibly do.
  - binarymax 13y ago
    Ok sure, plenty of cogs in the wheel following orders. But what about the judges? What about the leaders? The people we elect into office? Where is the accountability?
    - maccard 13y ago
      > judges? What about the leaders? The people we elect into office? Judges are appointed by the president, and confirmed by the senate[1] (I guess that means voted on by the senate after a high ranking civil servant decides they would make a good judge) so if this person disagrees with the policy of the senators, there's a good chance he's not going to get into power. The people who are in office are normally so caught up in this sort of thing that they would end their own careers by speaking out about it, or worse, be called traitors of their own country and hunted by the NSA/FBI (see Snowden). The problem is once you know about it, you're already in deep, and your head will roll if it rolls. For many people, that sacrifice is too much to make. If you have a family, you ruin their lives too remember. All your friends, parents, relatives lives will be turned upside down at the same time... Is that something you would risk and give up if you were in this position? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judge
wavesounds 13y ago
So the Government can't limit the amount of money corporations can spend on influencing political campaigns but, when it feels like it, it can silence them without even explaining why. Yeah that makes sense.
sage_joch 13y ago
If Twitter and Yahoo really wanted to disclose this information, there is nothing the government could do to stop them. Civil disobedience is one of the most important tools we have against Orwellian governments. And doing the right thing is infinitely more important than following authoritarian orders.
- why-el 13y ago
  I think fighting through ACLU is more fruitful. What you are asking for could cause both companies to shutdown, effectively killing one of the few places (Twitter in this case) through which the same distress you are feeling against governments is voiced throughout the world.
  - tokipin 13y ago
    I think if Twitter was forced to shut down, a PR shitstorm of amazing proportions would erupt. There is no way the government would win that battle. And that's part of the point of civil disobedience: publicity.
    - why-el 13y ago
      Fair point. :) I could see that scenario unfolding.
- marincounty 13y ago
  The IRS could make the head honchos' lives miserable. This seems to be all their Achilles heal? And when it comes to their money--it all gets a bit fuzzy.
  - ensignavenger 13y ago
    The IRS yes, but also the SEC has a history of retaliating against executives who don't cooperate with the Feds.
- insuffi 13y ago
  I'm sorry, but that's wishful thinking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojS4zGDc4JI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojS4zGDc4JI - QWest http://www.wired.com/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-lifted/ http://www.wired.com/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-lifted/ Does QWEST CEO going to jail for refusing to cooperate ring any bells?
xname 13y ago
Chinese government can silence Twitter and Yahoo? Weird.
dm2 13y ago
I don't know what information they are trying to suppress but in my opinion gag orders are wrong and the US government should have to thoroughly justify any action that goes directly against the US constitution. Say the plans for the US Navy's railgun, or advanced nuclear specifics, or advanced drone technology, or time-travel technology is leaked out, should the US government be able to do everything in it's power to wipe that information from the internet to ensure that it has the #1 military in the world? I don't know the answer to that question. But I do know that if a terrorist group got that information and used it to cause massive amounts of destruction that people would have wished the US government did more to protect it's military secrets. The Patriot Act really messed things up. Does anyone have a solution? Does it involve getting more ethical people into congress? I have a solution, and it's called Online Voting. We are probably one of the few online communities that can actually make it happen, yet it's never even mentioned. Start by testing it in select states, then if it's successful move towards implementing it nation-wide. I have proposed it before but people just tell me how it's impossible because of security. There HAS to be a valid solution, being able to validate your votes, having numerous checks in place, having open-source code, I don't know, but hopefully someday we can all work together to make it a reality. We could even work to eliminate Congress eventually, have every single thing that normally goes before Congress voted by individuals. Yes, the president could overrule votes (such as building a spaceship for trillions of dollars), but near unlimited transparency just seems to be the obvious answer. There will be a ton of resistance, because those in power don't want to give up power. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think we should at least try it.
- dmur 13y ago
  We don't know what happened, that's the problem. FTA, "To make matters worse, the government won't disclose its reasoning for requesting the gag, effectively shutting the public out of the courthouse without any explanation." It's idealistic to think that no information should be able to be quashed by the government, but it's not idealistic to think that their motives for doing so should be made public.
  - dm2 13y ago
    I had the "motives made public" line in there but moved it to the top of my comment. Suppressing leaks of top-secret military technology is acceptable, suppressing secrets that could harm the image of the US government or individuals because they did something bad is something that shouldn't be allowed. People must be accountable for their actions, otherwise they are cowards.
ama729 13y ago
I don't understand the outrage here, aren't gag orders pretty much standard police tool? I mean, if you are taping the new Al Capone/Ben Laden/Ted Bundy, then surely you don't want Twitter to reveal it no?
- ds9 13y ago
  It would make no sense to let the provider say "we're monitoring Al Capone", as this would alert Al Capone. But they're not even allowing the provider to say "certain users are subject to wiretapping at government order". On a huge service like Twitter this would not alert anyone in particular. Even the above is not as much of a concern - but the same mechanism can silence the providere about more drastic intrusions which compromise the whole service - such as coercing private encryption keys. Lookup the whole Lavabit thing.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    You should assume that all governments are hostile and trying to get your data. You then decide if you care. If you do care you instLl and carefully use encryption software and keep your private keys under your control.
anigbrowl 13y ago
(In one case, the government withdrew its gag order application after Judge Facciola invited Twitter's participation.) ...and? How did this play out in the context of the original subpoena?
omarhegazy 13y ago
I'm reading through these comments and really laughing my ass off at the bold, crazy rhetoric being used here. Orwellian governments! Everyone is just a complacent cog! America is it's own worst enemy! No more freedom! I mean, I admit, this specific act seems pretty dumb on the government's part. I have no idea why the government would silence Twitter or Yahoo. And given that they didn't care enough to explain, seems like it was probably a legal bug. Maybe some 60 year-old anti-Internet Congress member that thought SOPA was genius got cranky one day and sent some phone calls. I don't know; doesn't seem like anyone that truly has power in government cares, or else they'd succeed in silencing. This doesn't seem like "an extraordinary effort by the government"; this is the same government that dropped two nukes in order to end a worldwide war, so if they really cared about what your favorite anti-government Reddit liberal had to say in in a 140-character long witticism, they'd be able to really shut it down. But I have a feeling that these alarmist and dramatic comments regarding FASCIST AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENTS HOLDING THE TRUE ARTISTS DOWN! have much more to do with the general reddit.com/r/technology culture of shitting on everything the government has been doing since last June. And that culture is much more retarded and out-of-hand than anything PRISM could possibly be. It seems like what the government is doing with user data since PRISM is very similar to what advertisers have been doing with user data since Fucking Forever, the government doing it for it's ideals regarding terrorism and advertisers doing it for the moolah. But the point is the same -- massive data collection and other forms statistical analysis that you dramatic fucks label "spying" in order to seem passionate and cool has been going on for a while. Just that the government is a much bigger and more complex system than your average advertiser, so you seem like a hip and happening individual by attacking it. Most people really don't give a shit about massive data collection. I mean, sure, everyone's a Reddit slacktivist nowadays, throwing around words like "spying!" and "privacy!" but no one really cares, or else we'd all be using rsync + ftp and BitMessage and all that idealistic free software stuff that RMS peddles. People just want to seem special and cool and smart and advanced when they post about how EVIL the government is for spying on all of us. But no one honestly cares, or else no one would use Facebook and Google and Apple products. And should you care? Is it really that significant, your tiny, indistinguishable contribution to our advertising overlords that isn't even tied to your personal identity? Is it really that creepy or a violation of privacy? It's not like the government knows that specifically Omar Hegazy and E1ven, they don't care about everyone's specific identities (but that would be truly creepy). I mean, even if they have your specific data tied to your real name, it's not like the NSA has people actually listening and looking at your conversation and spying on who you are and what you do. That would be statistically impossible. There are 316 million American citizens, 204 million e-mails sent per minute, and 1.26 billion Facebook users, and only 75 thousand NSA employees. Could they really be reading all your e-mails tied to you the person, are they even capable of that? They wouldn't be able to spy on each and every one of you even if they tried, and that wouldn't make sense, either. So I'm pretty sure the only thing that knows about you you is the program transferring stuff from Google's servers to NSA servers, and you can trust that one to not be sentient enough to care. So. They're not spying on individual people, cause they physically can't - but that would really be creepy. They're checking on aggregate statistics. And when you're just another brick in the wall of statistical analysis, is it really all that creepy? Do they really know all that much specifically about you? But why are they looking at aggregate statistics, you ask? Good question. Don't laugh -- I think it's terrorism ? I mean sure, that seems like such a cop-out answer from our perspective. But how do we know that the only reason that terrorism isn't a threat anymore isn't because of the American government putting it's foot down? Couldn't it be that the government's seemingly creepy obsession with fighting against terrorism is the reason Al-Qaeda and such have failed so hard that we just laugh at the possibility of them being a threat? If terrorism isn't a threat anymore, couldn't it be that shows that the government's way is working? I mean, this bin Laden guy. His family was filthy fucking rich, man. They were connected to Saudi royalty. These Al-Qaeda guys had fucking planes, man. And they reaaaaalllllly didn't like us. So obviously, if we just did nothing about it, they probably would've struck again ... But I don't know. I haven't done enough research on this topic myself. Maybe the government's obsession with terrorism is a bit too much and while we should be worrying about this issue in order to keep it from happening, maybe 20x the military budget of the next 10 countries on the list combined is a bit too far. Or maybe it's just the right amount. I don't know, I read programming books in my free time, not political discourse. But it's just so obvious from their alarmist bullshit that these Reddit libertarians haven't done their research either. They just want to seem like they have.
Zigurd 13y ago
It is very very hard to sympathize with the companies involved. If they wanted to, they could implement secure communication where ephemeral keys or user-controlled keys are used, and open source clients would guard against the placement of "bugged" client software. Then they could hand over cyphertext on demand, and not take on the job of supposedly protecting people who in their estimation merit protection. Protect all the bits.
hadoukenio 13y ago
Stupid but serious question... If I get a National Security Letter am I allowed to show it to my lawyer? If so, is there any limit to the number of people in my legal council? If NOT, what's stopping having everyone in the country as my legal council. Then, as I can only show the National Security Letter to my lawyers, I can then host the NSL on my website for everyone to see. Crazy or illegal?
- gknoy 13y ago
  I'd say that you'd have a hard time arguing that you had made the entire world your legal counsel. There's no contract in place, etc.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- scintill76 13y ago
  Ladar Levison claimed, "There's information that I can't even share with my lawyer, let alone with the American public."[0] I'm not familiar enough to say whether this level of gag is legally documented, or has been upheld, etc. [0] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/lavabit-founder-under-gag-order-speaks-out-about-shut-down-decision/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/lavabit-founder-u...

286 points by e1ven 13y ago

dfa0 13y ago

Why does a dog lick his balls?

"In a democracy, if your government is going to gag someone from speaking, it should publicly explain why" It seems like even the ACLU is saying "it's okay to censor people, just please tell us why". Im not sure what to even think of this.

milesskorpen 13y ago
There are legitimate reasons why the government needs to operate in secret for a short while — a sting on a suspected criminal, where they have strong evidence, but need to close the case without scaring the target into fleeing the country, for example. This usage should be firmly rooted in law and disclosed after a reasonable period of time, however.
- danielweber 13y ago
  I was thinking this. But I can't tell that from the article if this isn't what's going on in these cases. Has the government permanently stopped Twitter from talking to the customers in question about something, or only temporarily?
- Zigurd 13y ago
  Even those "needs" need to be balanced against having an open legal process. We have both NSLs and a "no fly list." For the purpose of keeping some very high-value suspect from fleeing, the no fly list should be sufficient. This looks like an exercise of power just to maintain and expand secrecy and the supremacy of "national security" over legal process.
  - milesskorpen 13y ago
    I'm not trying to argue secrecy is right in this case — I don't know enough. I'm just saying that anyone (including the ACLU!) should recognize that limited & temporary secrecy is really important in combating crime or fighting wars. The question is just how we make sure it is limited, temporary, and really only applied to the right things — and not used as a way to cover up/hide information which should be public.
    - Zigurd 13y ago
      > * recognize that limited & temporary secrecy is really important in combating crime or fighting wars* How important? Quantify that. Start at zero, and then justify all the really vital things. You may find there are actually zero existential threats if some super-Snowden revealed all secrets.
TehCorwiz 13y ago
IANAL I believe that there are valid reasons for gag orders. See http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Gag+Order http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Gag+Order However it's fairly obvious that the purposes which a gag order is commonly used, preventing jury tampering, media distortion, or other disruption to the operations of a fair court, do not seem to apply in the instances of the article.
sitkack 13y ago
No they are saying, "the government might have a legitimate case for censorship but we can't even tell because they don't give a reason" Before they would at least give some bullshit answer like, "state secrets", "means and methods" etc etc. Now they don't even put up those lies.

cordite 13y ago

If he public knew the why, then they'd want to know more. So far the pattern of information control is to seal it at the most root position as possible.

ChuckMcM 13y ago

This looks like another attempt by the ACLU to get the national security letter issue resolved (or undone). Its a worthwhile battle and I support them in it, but I'm not sure what this article brings to the conversation. It is yet another skirmish in the district courts.

jdp23 13y ago
The article talks about "grand jury subpoenas" so this is different than NSLs.

ticktocktick 13y ago

Think of the government as being a member of Hacker News with nearly infinite downvote power. If it doesn't like what you've said it disappears what you've said...often without even so much as an explanation.

higherpurpose 13y ago

So, people still don't think they should prioritize getting their services from outside of EU, rather than US? It seems to me that despite all the laws and the Constitution, the government can still pretty much force any company do whatever it wants, "legally" or extra-legally (hello Amazon/Paypal/Visa/Mastercard!). Post-Snowden, US companies don't deserve a second chance - at least not while the US government doesn't seem to have any remorse about mass surveillance and its abuse of power, and has no serious intention of reforming itself.

dctoedt 13y ago
> So, people still don't think they should prioritize getting their services from outside of EU, rather than US? It seems to me that despite all the laws and the Constitution, the government can still pretty much force any company do whatever it wants .... The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. I imagine that most other countries' governments would do at least what the U.S. Government does, if only they had the tools.
- insuffi 13y ago
  I find it peculiar that you still imply the US government's moral authority by using the phrase at least. What gives? What makes you think the other governments are intrinsically more evil? Besides, your argument is rather off-topic. The other governments probably don't have the tools, so they can't be at least as evil, so the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. EDIT: I'd prefer somebody to tell me why other governments are intrinsically more evil, instead of silently downvoting me.
  - dctoedt 13y ago
    > I find it peculiar that you still imply the US government's moral authority by using the phrase at least. What gives? What makes you think the other governments are intrinsically more evil? I didn't say anything about morality, nor about evil. As Rayiner has correctly noted more than once, in international affairs the world is ultimately a Hobbesian state of nature. Morality plays a definite but limited role --- especially when different people adhere to drastically different views of what's "moral" or "evil"(cf., e.g., Crimea), in which case the stronger side will win. The brute fact is that a government that daintily claims to be morally "above" gathering intelligence about potential threats is one that likely won't be in power for long. By and large, the people in charge of other governments tend to know this. Apropos of that, note that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits only unreasonable searches by the government. ---------------- > The other governments probably don't have the tools, so they can't be at least as evil, so the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. Life isn't a snapshot, it's a movie. Other governments might not have particular tools now. If history is any guide, they will, soon enough (cf., e.g., the nuclear-weapons programs of various countries). EDIT: BTW, I'm not the one who down-voted you.

artellectual 13y ago

America is slowly turning into its own worst enemy. Is this what war on terror has lead to? "No one can terrorize our people, we terrorize our own people by slowly taking away all their rights and liberties" good job America.

Ihmahr 13y ago
> terrorize our own people ... and other people, but then it was okay-ish.

mtimjones 13y ago

The Obama administration is the most open and transparent administration in history. Not.

venomsnake 13y ago
I think it is pretty transparent right now that they don't think the american public that they serve worthy of having a say in the way that they are being served. Or knowing how. Also voting them out is not an option right now because both parties are pretty fine with extending the security apparatus rights and abilities. And the system is made almost impossible for a non partisan candidates to enter the government.
- pdkl95 13y ago
  ...and so we maintain the status quo. Worse, we are conditioning people to believe they can get away with this kind of blatant abuse. The longer this goes on without somebody being forced to answer for their role in it, we will see more and more people coming to the conclusion that they ARE actually above the law. Nobody threw the people involved in ${OLDER_PROJECT} in jail - despite being obviously unconstitutional and/or illegal at a glance - so why would ${NEW_PROJECT} be any different? This feedback loop, I fear, is at the root of a lot of these issues. We've seen a general emboldening in many areas. In some areas, nobody is even bothering to to pretend their abuses are legal and constitutional. Without the fear of getting "caught" in some way - which would break the conditioning feedback-loop - I expect these kinds of abuses to simply get bolder and more frequent. There was a time thought things like the legal system could reintroduce that fear. As I've learned about just how bad things have gotten, I now strongly suspect it will take more. I never wish for violence. Unfortunately, I really don't see attitudes changing until at least some heads quite literally end up on a pike. Anything less will be interpreted as still "getting away with it". Seriously, I don't want a damn civil war. I just think it seems foolish to expect things like "the law" to fix anything, when you see people publicly announcing their intention to ignoring the law, and barely even makes the news.
  - mtimjones 13y ago

binarymax 13y ago

Here is what I don't understand: actions like this takes more than one person. It takes hundreds of people, complicit in actions that are the opposite of what anyone would consider 'American'. It's plainly fucking unamerican. So who the hell are these people? Why are they getting away with it? Sure covert things have always been going on to protect the public...but this is so in-your-face against what we should stand for that I cannot fathom how it is allowed to continue. I am so very angry that things like this are happening. The worst part? we can't seem to do anything about it so we just end up whining on the internet.

jbooth 13y ago
The hiring filters for most of the security services seem to select for people who consider following orders to be the most American thing they could possibly do.
- binarymax 13y ago
  Ok sure, plenty of cogs in the wheel following orders. But what about the judges? What about the leaders? The people we elect into office? Where is the accountability?
  - maccard 13y ago
    > judges? What about the leaders? The people we elect into office? Judges are appointed by the president, and confirmed by the senate[1] (I guess that means voted on by the senate after a high ranking civil servant decides they would make a good judge) so if this person disagrees with the policy of the senators, there's a good chance he's not going to get into power. The people who are in office are normally so caught up in this sort of thing that they would end their own careers by speaking out about it, or worse, be called traitors of their own country and hunted by the NSA/FBI (see Snowden). The problem is once you know about it, you're already in deep, and your head will roll if it rolls. For many people, that sacrifice is too much to make. If you have a family, you ruin their lives too remember. All your friends, parents, relatives lives will be turned upside down at the same time... Is that something you would risk and give up if you were in this position? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judge

wavesounds 13y ago

So the Government can't limit the amount of money corporations can spend on influencing political campaigns but, when it feels like it, it can silence them without even explaining why. Yeah that makes sense.

sage_joch 13y ago

If Twitter and Yahoo really wanted to disclose this information, there is nothing the government could do to stop them. Civil disobedience is one of the most important tools we have against Orwellian governments. And doing the right thing is infinitely more important than following authoritarian orders.

why-el 13y ago
I think fighting through ACLU is more fruitful. What you are asking for could cause both companies to shutdown, effectively killing one of the few places (Twitter in this case) through which the same distress you are feeling against governments is voiced throughout the world.
- tokipin 13y ago
  I think if Twitter was forced to shut down, a PR shitstorm of amazing proportions would erupt. There is no way the government would win that battle. And that's part of the point of civil disobedience: publicity.
  - why-el 13y ago
    Fair point. :) I could see that scenario unfolding.
marincounty 13y ago
The IRS could make the head honchos' lives miserable. This seems to be all their Achilles heal? And when it comes to their money--it all gets a bit fuzzy.
- ensignavenger 13y ago
  The IRS yes, but also the SEC has a history of retaliating against executives who don't cooperate with the Feds.
insuffi 13y ago
I'm sorry, but that's wishful thinking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojS4zGDc4JI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojS4zGDc4JI - QWest http://www.wired.com/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-lifted/ http://www.wired.com/2010/08/nsl-gag-order-lifted/ Does QWEST CEO going to jail for refusing to cooperate ring any bells?

xname 13y ago

Chinese government can silence Twitter and Yahoo? Weird.

dm2 13y ago

I don't know what information they are trying to suppress but in my opinion gag orders are wrong and the US government should have to thoroughly justify any action that goes directly against the US constitution. Say the plans for the US Navy's railgun, or advanced nuclear specifics, or advanced drone technology, or time-travel technology is leaked out, should the US government be able to do everything in it's power to wipe that information from the internet to ensure that it has the #1 military in the world? I don't know the answer to that question. But I do know that if a terrorist group got that information and used it to cause massive amounts of destruction that people would have wished the US government did more to protect it's military secrets. The Patriot Act really messed things up. Does anyone have a solution? Does it involve getting more ethical people into congress? I have a solution, and it's called Online Voting. We are probably one of the few online communities that can actually make it happen, yet it's never even mentioned. Start by testing it in select states, then if it's successful move towards implementing it nation-wide. I have proposed it before but people just tell me how it's impossible because of security. There HAS to be a valid solution, being able to validate your votes, having numerous checks in place, having open-source code, I don't know, but hopefully someday we can all work together to make it a reality. We could even work to eliminate Congress eventually, have every single thing that normally goes before Congress voted by individuals. Yes, the president could overrule votes (such as building a spaceship for trillions of dollars), but near unlimited transparency just seems to be the obvious answer. There will be a ton of resistance, because those in power don't want to give up power. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think we should at least try it.

dmur 13y ago
We don't know what happened, that's the problem. FTA, "To make matters worse, the government won't disclose its reasoning for requesting the gag, effectively shutting the public out of the courthouse without any explanation." It's idealistic to think that no information should be able to be quashed by the government, but it's not idealistic to think that their motives for doing so should be made public.
- dm2 13y ago
  I had the "motives made public" line in there but moved it to the top of my comment. Suppressing leaks of top-secret military technology is acceptable, suppressing secrets that could harm the image of the US government or individuals because they did something bad is something that shouldn't be allowed. People must be accountable for their actions, otherwise they are cowards.

ama729 13y ago

I don't understand the outrage here, aren't gag orders pretty much standard police tool? I mean, if you are taping the new Al Capone/Ben Laden/Ted Bundy, then surely you don't want Twitter to reveal it no?

ds9 13y ago
It would make no sense to let the provider say "we're monitoring Al Capone", as this would alert Al Capone. But they're not even allowing the provider to say "certain users are subject to wiretapping at government order". On a huge service like Twitter this would not alert anyone in particular. Even the above is not as much of a concern - but the same mechanism can silence the providere about more drastic intrusions which compromise the whole service - such as coercing private encryption keys. Lookup the whole Lavabit thing.
- DanBC 13y ago
  You should assume that all governments are hostile and trying to get your data. You then decide if you care. If you do care you instLl and carefully use encryption software and keep your private keys under your control.

anigbrowl 13y ago

(In one case, the government withdrew its gag order application after Judge Facciola invited Twitter's participation.) ...and? How did this play out in the context of the original subpoena?

omarhegazy 13y ago

I'm reading through these comments and really laughing my ass off at the bold, crazy rhetoric being used here. Orwellian governments! Everyone is just a complacent cog! America is it's own worst enemy! No more freedom! I mean, I admit, this specific act seems pretty dumb on the government's part. I have no idea why the government would silence Twitter or Yahoo. And given that they didn't care enough to explain, seems like it was probably a legal bug. Maybe some 60 year-old anti-Internet Congress member that thought SOPA was genius got cranky one day and sent some phone calls. I don't know; doesn't seem like anyone that truly has power in government cares, or else they'd succeed in silencing. This doesn't seem like "an extraordinary effort by the government"; this is the same government that dropped two nukes in order to end a worldwide war, so if they really cared about what your favorite anti-government Reddit liberal had to say in in a 140-character long witticism, they'd be able to really shut it down. But I have a feeling that these alarmist and dramatic comments regarding FASCIST AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENTS HOLDING THE TRUE ARTISTS DOWN! have much more to do with the general reddit.com/r/technology culture of shitting on everything the government has been doing since last June. And that culture is much more retarded and out-of-hand than anything PRISM could possibly be. It seems like what the government is doing with user data since PRISM is very similar to what advertisers have been doing with user data since Fucking Forever, the government doing it for it's ideals regarding terrorism and advertisers doing it for the moolah. But the point is the same -- massive data collection and other forms statistical analysis that you dramatic fucks label "spying" in order to seem passionate and cool has been going on for a while. Just that the government is a much bigger and more complex system than your average advertiser, so you seem like a hip and happening individual by attacking it. Most people really don't give a shit about massive data collection. I mean, sure, everyone's a Reddit slacktivist nowadays, throwing around words like "spying!" and "privacy!" but no one really cares, or else we'd all be using rsync + ftp and BitMessage and all that idealistic free software stuff that RMS peddles. People just want to seem special and cool and smart and advanced when they post about how EVIL the government is for spying on all of us. But no one honestly cares, or else no one would use Facebook and Google and Apple products. And should you care? Is it really that significant, your tiny, indistinguishable contribution to our advertising overlords that isn't even tied to your personal identity? Is it really that creepy or a violation of privacy? It's not like the government knows that specifically Omar Hegazy and E1ven, they don't care about everyone's specific identities (but that would be truly creepy). I mean, even if they have your specific data tied to your real name, it's not like the NSA has people actually listening and looking at your conversation and spying on who you are and what you do. That would be statistically impossible. There are 316 million American citizens, 204 million e-mails sent per minute, and 1.26 billion Facebook users, and only 75 thousand NSA employees. Could they really be reading all your e-mails tied to you the person, are they even capable of that? They wouldn't be able to spy on each and every one of you even if they tried, and that wouldn't make sense, either. So I'm pretty sure the only thing that knows about you you is the program transferring stuff from Google's servers to NSA servers, and you can trust that one to not be sentient enough to care. So. They're not spying on individual people, cause they physically can't - but that would really be creepy. They're checking on aggregate statistics. And when you're just another brick in the wall of statistical analysis, is it really all that creepy? Do they really know all that much specifically about you? But why are they looking at aggregate statistics, you ask? Good question. Don't laugh -- I think it's terrorism ? I mean sure, that seems like such a cop-out answer from our perspective. But how do we know that the only reason that terrorism isn't a threat anymore isn't because of the American government putting it's foot down? Couldn't it be that the government's seemingly creepy obsession with fighting against terrorism is the reason Al-Qaeda and such have failed so hard that we just laugh at the possibility of them being a threat? If terrorism isn't a threat anymore, couldn't it be that shows that the government's way is working? I mean, this bin Laden guy. His family was filthy fucking rich, man. They were connected to Saudi royalty. These Al-Qaeda guys had fucking planes, man. And they reaaaaalllllly didn't like us. So obviously, if we just did nothing about it, they probably would've struck again ... But I don't know. I haven't done enough research on this topic myself. Maybe the government's obsession with terrorism is a bit too much and while we should be worrying about this issue in order to keep it from happening, maybe 20x the military budget of the next 10 countries on the list combined is a bit too far. Or maybe it's just the right amount. I don't know, I read programming books in my free time, not political discourse. But it's just so obvious from their alarmist bullshit that these Reddit libertarians haven't done their research either. They just want to seem like they have.

Zigurd 13y ago

It is very very hard to sympathize with the companies involved. If they wanted to, they could implement secure communication where ephemeral keys or user-controlled keys are used, and open source clients would guard against the placement of "bugged" client software. Then they could hand over cyphertext on demand, and not take on the job of supposedly protecting people who in their estimation merit protection. Protect all the bits.

hadoukenio 13y ago

Stupid but serious question... If I get a National Security Letter am I allowed to show it to my lawyer? If so, is there any limit to the number of people in my legal council? If NOT, what's stopping having everyone in the country as my legal council. Then, as I can only show the National Security Letter to my lawyers, I can then host the NSL on my website for everyone to see. Crazy or illegal?

gknoy 13y ago
I'd say that you'd have a hard time arguing that you had made the entire world your legal counsel. There's no contract in place, etc.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
scintill76 13y ago
Ladar Levison claimed, "There's information that I can't even share with my lawyer, let alone with the American public."[0] I'm not familiar enough to say whether this level of gag is legally documented, or has been upheld, etc. [0] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/lavabit-founder-under-gag-order-speaks-out-about-shut-down-decision/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/lavabit-founder-u...