10 ms·

Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation

154 points by coldcode 12y ago

bediger4000 12y ago
The reason for the gag orders: to keep the Federal Attorneys from getting a pile of bad publicity. This flies straight in the face of any kind of transparent government. If the Attorney's office gets a ton of criticism, then they're probably doing something extremely unpopular. It's good to do unpopular things in defense of minority opinions, given the USA's free speech tradition, but if the criticism is large in volume, and it stings, which apparently the twitter investigation criticism did, then the public outcry is correct. The Feds shouldn't be doing this stuff. I conclude that the gag orders are crap, and should be lifted. The Feds are doing stuff that might be legal, but is in a larger sense immoral.
- lkbm 12y ago
  Seems like the gag orders are "don't tell these suspects that we're monitoring them". Seems quite legitimate and essential in ordinary cases. But we need a robust court system that will restrict gag orders to legit things, rather than suppressing dissent.
  - lsaferite 12y ago
    Yet the Federal prosecutors were ok letting Twitter inform and, according to the article, they didn't change their mind until the public backlash.
  - bediger4000 12y ago
    According to the text of the article, that's not true. The gag orders were to prevent the attorney from getting bad publicity. I suppose that they wrote "keep suspects in the dark" or the equivalent legalese in the motion, but the real reason appears to be otherwise.
    - tedunangst 12y ago
      Is that a fact or an opinion? The "text of the article" that supports that conclusion is a quote from Googles attorney, not an unbiased source.
      - bediger4000 12y ago
        After careful re-reading, I think you are correct. I didn't read closely enough. The key paragraph is attributed to Google's lawyer. However, the whole "twitter didn't get a gag order" aspect does support the thesis that the Google gag order is to minimize criticism of the US lawyers. Since the very same person (Jacob Appelbaum) appears to be the subject of both Twitter and Google search warrants, the "we don't want to alert TERRORISTS!" excuse for the gag order doesn't hold. Also, if it's a search warrant, and not a CALEA-type on-going surveillance warrant, why would a gag order be imposed? If Google has the data, they have to turn it over or face penalties, and I'm sure they have a policy to fork over any legally-demanded data. They may have a duty to their own consciences to contest the search warrants, but I'm sure that they hand over data. I can think of one other motive for such a gag order, and that's to minimize the time that Appelbaum has to prepare a defense. That hardly seems fair, given that the USA is supposed to have a level playing field with ALL CITIZENS subject to the rule of law. I'd rather not think that the US Attorney, with all the legal and monetary resources of the federal government at hand, would stoop to cheap shots like that. I think Gidari's conclusion, although an opinion, fits the facts as we know them. The Google gag order was sought to contain or minimize criticism. Assuming that seems to give the US Attorneys the benefit of the doubt, because otherwise I'd think they were trying to cheat, which they, as officers of the court have a moral duty to avoid.
  - Crito 12y ago
    Would people involved with Wikileaks actually change their behavior if they were given proof that the US government was spying on them? I assume they are already operating under the assumption that that is the case. From what I have seen, the US government spying on that community is already taken as established fact within that community.
    - rjaco31 12y ago
      And that's basically the main point against gag orders. Or do you expect the rest of the population to also become paranoid toward their government not knowing if they are being spied on?
  - joshstrange 12y ago
    > Seems quite legitimate and essential in ordinary cases Is it though? I am of the mind that I am okay with making law enforcement's job harder if it means more transparency and the assumption of privacy for citizens. I'd rather a couple of criminals go free than that we secretly invade the privacy of one innocent person. People have a right to know when their personal data is being examined by law enforcement IMHO. Again this isn't saying they can't get access to the person's email but that the person IS notified when it happens. > But we need a robust court system that will restrict gag orders to legit things, rather than suppressing dissent. You mean another rubber stamp FISA court?
kwagmeyer 12y ago
Google was a premium partner in the Prysm NSA program. According to the first leaks, Google along with Facebook, Skype and Apple were the first to sign up to the NSA spying programs as partners. All along they're trying to paint themselves as victims of the spying, which is ridiculous really...but I guess they can still fool a large population.
- sarciszewski 12y ago
  The NSA was also wiretapping the connections between Google's datacenters, so they were victims of the NSA too. (Until we know more about their relationship with the NSA, I also don't condemn them for the PRISM allegations.)
  - ForHackernews 12y ago
    I acknowledge there's a moral and ethical distinction there, but I dispute that there's any pragmatic difference: If you use Google services, your data is compromised, period. It doesn't really matter whether the NSA or GCHQ are tapping Google's datacenters, paying off low-level employees, operating under a legal court order, or benefiting from the enthusiastic help of Google executives. The end result is the same: You cannot trust cloud services.
    - fixermark 12y ago
      The question has never been "Can you trust cloud services?" It's "Can you trust them more than the alternatives?" Yes, you can almost certainly keep your private data more secure in a system you build and monitor yourself(1). Until an NSA or GCHQ-level entity takes interest in you, and uses a 0-day exploit on your system or just physically walks in with a warrant and steals your physical media. How is that functionally different from "If the NSA / GCHQ takes interest in you, they can have the cloud service provider hand your data over?" And that's before you add the overhead of maintaining, securing, and physically protecting your own systems. (1) Note that even this step is a huge hurdle for most people; "You cannot trust cloud services" basically tells those people "Don't use the Internet."
benlower 12y ago
(Any lawyers here who could weigh in?) Could a company nullify gag orders if it was their policy to post ALL their correspondence on their website? For example, AcmeCo gets a request from the US Government to share information about one of AcmeCo's customers (e.g. WikiLeaks). AcmeCo scans and posts this letter (as it does for everything it receives including its electricity bill) on its website. Could they then circumvent the gag order this way? What would happen to AcmeCo?
- sarciszewski 12y ago
  "Could a company nullify gag orders if it was their policy to post ALL their correspondence on their website?" Not a US-based company, because we have these nefarious things called National Security Letters. The penalty for knowingly breaking the gag order with the intent to interfere with an investigation is up to five years in prison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter Do you know any business owners willing to go to prison for five years for one of their users?
  - benlower 12y ago
    Thx for sharing that. That article says nothing about SCOTUS ruling so I wonder if this will eventually be challenged at the highest court. I can't imagine a business owner going to prison as you suggest.
    - jonlucc 12y ago
      Would the case be public if a business owner were arrested? I would assume it would be in a sealed court.
  - dublinben 12y ago
    How could you knowingly break a gag order, if an automated system publicly posts all correspondence before anyone reads them?
    - 12y ago
dudus 12y ago
> But the case represents “an amazing Catch-22,” he said. > Google doesn’t “have the strongest right to challenge the > scope or the reasonableness of the warrant. The only people > who really have that are the targets of the warrant, and > they don’t know about it. So essentially the government has > carte blanche to get whatever they want.” Shouldn't in cases like this the gag order go to the target of the warrant. I imagine it could go something like this. Google hands the information and inform only the target. The target can't publicize or inform anyone else, but now have the knowledge and right to defend himself. Not informing the target would restrict his ability to defend himself. In a similar note, why even involve Google at all. Why not require the target to hand the information. Maybe the fact that the targets are in different countries a problem to this approach.
- sarciszewski 12y ago
  "why even involve Google at all" "So essentially the government has carte blanche to get whatever they want" I think your quote answered your own question.
  - higherpurpose 12y ago
    Yup. Going to the third party provider as if it owns your data is a complete bypass of the 4th amendment. To make an analogy it would be like the federal government having to serve a warrant/court order/gar order only to your local mayor to search your house without your permission. Imagine how messed up that would be. Yet, it's exactly what happens in the digital world, and somehow we've learned to take it for granted. If it's your data, the warrant should be served to you. As for terms of service and such of online services that say once you upload your data to their cloud, then it becomes "theirs", that's complete bull, and such a thing should be made illegal.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - zaroth 12y ago
      It just occurred to me, they figured out how to serve a complaint against your property (civil forfeiture) so I'm actually half surprised they don't serve warrants against the house not the house's occupants. Or even better, just serve the data itself; US Government versus 134,612 bytes of Data!
datashovel 12y ago
IMO governments need to learn how to adapt to this new "information age". That's not to say they need to try to find new ways to suppress information. They need to allow public discourse to help them define their limitations.
- charonn0 12y ago
  I don't think they can. The information age is rendering national governments obsolete.
antocv 12y ago
Google is good, not evil, they have fought for our rights, bravely and invented new genious technologies and social processes to protect our civil rights and society. Google is good, Google does what is in best interest for its users. Google stands up against an intrusive government. Being a user of Google services is supporting freedom and democracy. Google fights againt censorship and for open society. Public announcment by Good Google.
ForHackernews 12y ago
Really interesting to read this in the context of David Drummond's statements a few years ago: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2013/jun/19/google-chief-legal-officer-david-drummond-live-q-and-a http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2013/jun/19/googl...
- bediger4000 12y ago
  "Nope. No gun to my head." ha ha ha! Given US attorney's rules around client/attorney privilege, perhaps he was giving the "least untruthful answer". I kill myself!
- lern_too_spel 12y ago
  Why is it interesting? It's since become clear that Google was not in cahoots with the NSA, just like Drummond said.
mindslight 12y ago
No Google, "fighting" a restriction on speech isn't doing exactly what you're told and asking a corrupt court for permission to do otherwise. It involves loudly publicizing the corruption and giving the thugs an uphill battle. Until you do this (or radically change your products to be oblivious to users' information in the first place), you're a de facto arm of the surveillance state.
username223 12y ago
> In the fall of 2011, Google was able to tell Appelbaum that the government had sought data such as the IP addresses of the people he e-mailed with, Google needs to store your plaintext email so it can make money by showing you ads, but its data retention policies are both unnecessary and outrageous.
doctorshady 12y ago
I like how any questioning of Google's integrity is being shamelessly downvoted here.
- tonfa 12y ago
  Well, one of the target of the warrant is also supporting Google here: https://twitter.com/ioerror/status/560575339450347520 https://twitter.com/ioerror/status/560575339450347520 https://twitter.com/ioerror/status/560579349460815872 https://twitter.com/ioerror/status/560579349460815872
  - harry8 12y ago
    Nope, nothing there supports google. He's claiming to have played them to use their resources in support of his interests. He's not endorsing them at all. (Maybe he would or has elsewhere but not there).
noiv 12y ago
Lots of greyed comments here. What's going on? Google fan-boys vs. NSA fan-boys?
- e12e 12y ago
  I'd mod you up for making an interesting point, but it'd interfere with the meta-ness of your question being greyed out (a bit). I therefore leave you down-modded so you can better make your point. On this particular story there seems to be quite a lot of (random?) down-modding. It'd be nice to hear if the admins could comment. From just looking at the greyed out comments, it at least seems different from the usual hn-patterns?
  - _cudgel 12y ago
    It's not like the NSA or Google have the computing power to automatically have their AI fight it out in the public sphere. Right? RIGHT?!?
- anonbanker 12y ago
  This isn't the first thread this has been happening on. I've been noticing it for weeks now.
harry8 12y ago
If you're a google employee and you see a gag order and disagree with it you almost certainly have the skills to leak it undetectably such that you can't be prosecuted because there is no evidence. I wonder, is that the right thing to do? How would you do it technically if you thought it was? Who would you leak it to?
- fpgeek 12y ago
  Even granting your premise that a Google employee could leak the gag order undetectably (and I'm not confident about that, since the universe of people to investigate would be relatively small), there would still be serious repercussions to deal with. At bottom, there's someone at Google in charge of overseeing the gag order. If the gag order leaks and they can't figure out who's responsible, I'm pretty sure they end up going to jail - if only because a court would have a hard time telling the difference between genuinely not being able to find the leaker and stonewalling / implementing a cover-up.
  - harry8 12y ago
    I'm less cynical. I don't think they can prosecute someone without evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Every single google employee who has to act on the order and be gagged by it has to see the order and verify its authenticity or else their actions would be illegal. "it must be one of these 50 google employees" might well be completely true, but not enough to prosecute any one of them.
mikebay 12y ago
Hard to believe, when CEO is attending bilderberg meetings !!
krabjiem 12y ago
cheap PR

154 points by coldcode 12y ago

The reason for the gag orders: to keep the Federal Attorneys from getting a pile of bad publicity. This flies straight in the face of any kind of transparent government. If the Attorney's office gets a ton of criticism, then they're probably doing something extremely unpopular. It's good to do unpopular things in defense of minority opinions, given the USA's free speech tradition, but if the criticism is large in volume, and it stings, which apparently the twitter investigation criticism did, then the public outcry is correct. The Feds shouldn't be doing this stuff. I conclude that the gag orders are crap, and should be lifted. The Feds are doing stuff that might be legal, but is in a larger sense immoral.

lkbm 12y ago
Seems like the gag orders are "don't tell these suspects that we're monitoring them". Seems quite legitimate and essential in ordinary cases. But we need a robust court system that will restrict gag orders to legit things, rather than suppressing dissent.
- lsaferite 12y ago
  Yet the Federal prosecutors were ok letting Twitter inform and, according to the article, they didn't change their mind until the public backlash.
- bediger4000 12y ago
  According to the text of the article, that's not true. The gag orders were to prevent the attorney from getting bad publicity. I suppose that they wrote "keep suspects in the dark" or the equivalent legalese in the motion, but the real reason appears to be otherwise.
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    Is that a fact or an opinion? The "text of the article" that supports that conclusion is a quote from Googles attorney, not an unbiased source.
    - bediger4000 12y ago
      After careful re-reading, I think you are correct. I didn't read closely enough. The key paragraph is attributed to Google's lawyer. However, the whole "twitter didn't get a gag order" aspect does support the thesis that the Google gag order is to minimize criticism of the US lawyers. Since the very same person (Jacob Appelbaum) appears to be the subject of both Twitter and Google search warrants, the "we don't want to alert TERRORISTS!" excuse for the gag order doesn't hold. Also, if it's a search warrant, and not a CALEA-type on-going surveillance warrant, why would a gag order be imposed? If Google has the data, they have to turn it over or face penalties, and I'm sure they have a policy to fork over any legally-demanded data. They may have a duty to their own consciences to contest the search warrants, but I'm sure that they hand over data. I can think of one other motive for such a gag order, and that's to minimize the time that Appelbaum has to prepare a defense. That hardly seems fair, given that the USA is supposed to have a level playing field with ALL CITIZENS subject to the rule of law. I'd rather not think that the US Attorney, with all the legal and monetary resources of the federal government at hand, would stoop to cheap shots like that. I think Gidari's conclusion, although an opinion, fits the facts as we know them. The Google gag order was sought to contain or minimize criticism. Assuming that seems to give the US Attorneys the benefit of the doubt, because otherwise I'd think they were trying to cheat, which they, as officers of the court have a moral duty to avoid.
- Crito 12y ago
  Would people involved with Wikileaks actually change their behavior if they were given proof that the US government was spying on them? I assume they are already operating under the assumption that that is the case. From what I have seen, the US government spying on that community is already taken as established fact within that community.
  - rjaco31 12y ago
    And that's basically the main point against gag orders. Or do you expect the rest of the population to also become paranoid toward their government not knowing if they are being spied on?
- joshstrange 12y ago
  > Seems quite legitimate and essential in ordinary cases Is it though? I am of the mind that I am okay with making law enforcement's job harder if it means more transparency and the assumption of privacy for citizens. I'd rather a couple of criminals go free than that we secretly invade the privacy of one innocent person. People have a right to know when their personal data is being examined by law enforcement IMHO. Again this isn't saying they can't get access to the person's email but that the person IS notified when it happens. > But we need a robust court system that will restrict gag orders to legit things, rather than suppressing dissent. You mean another rubber stamp FISA court?

kwagmeyer 12y ago

Google was a premium partner in the Prysm NSA program. According to the first leaks, Google along with Facebook, Skype and Apple were the first to sign up to the NSA spying programs as partners. All along they're trying to paint themselves as victims of the spying, which is ridiculous really...but I guess they can still fool a large population.

sarciszewski 12y ago
The NSA was also wiretapping the connections between Google's datacenters, so they were victims of the NSA too. (Until we know more about their relationship with the NSA, I also don't condemn them for the PRISM allegations.)
- ForHackernews 12y ago
  I acknowledge there's a moral and ethical distinction there, but I dispute that there's any pragmatic difference: If you use Google services, your data is compromised, period. It doesn't really matter whether the NSA or GCHQ are tapping Google's datacenters, paying off low-level employees, operating under a legal court order, or benefiting from the enthusiastic help of Google executives. The end result is the same: You cannot trust cloud services.
  - fixermark 12y ago
    The question has never been "Can you trust cloud services?" It's "Can you trust them more than the alternatives?" Yes, you can almost certainly keep your private data more secure in a system you build and monitor yourself(1). Until an NSA or GCHQ-level entity takes interest in you, and uses a 0-day exploit on your system or just physically walks in with a warrant and steals your physical media. How is that functionally different from "If the NSA / GCHQ takes interest in you, they can have the cloud service provider hand your data over?" And that's before you add the overhead of maintaining, securing, and physically protecting your own systems. (1) Note that even this step is a huge hurdle for most people; "You cannot trust cloud services" basically tells those people "Don't use the Internet."

benlower 12y ago

(Any lawyers here who could weigh in?) Could a company nullify gag orders if it was their policy to post ALL their correspondence on their website? For example, AcmeCo gets a request from the US Government to share information about one of AcmeCo's customers (e.g. WikiLeaks). AcmeCo scans and posts this letter (as it does for everything it receives including its electricity bill) on its website. Could they then circumvent the gag order this way? What would happen to AcmeCo?

sarciszewski 12y ago
"Could a company nullify gag orders if it was their policy to post ALL their correspondence on their website?" Not a US-based company, because we have these nefarious things called National Security Letters. The penalty for knowingly breaking the gag order with the intent to interfere with an investigation is up to five years in prison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter Do you know any business owners willing to go to prison for five years for one of their users?
- benlower 12y ago
  Thx for sharing that. That article says nothing about SCOTUS ruling so I wonder if this will eventually be challenged at the highest court. I can't imagine a business owner going to prison as you suggest.
  - jonlucc 12y ago
    Would the case be public if a business owner were arrested? I would assume it would be in a sealed court.
- dublinben 12y ago
  How could you knowingly break a gag order, if an automated system publicly posts all correspondence before anyone reads them?
  - 12y ago

dudus 12y ago

> But the case represents “an amazing Catch-22,” he said. > Google doesn’t “have the strongest right to challenge the > scope or the reasonableness of the warrant. The only people > who really have that are the targets of the warrant, and > they don’t know about it. So essentially the government has > carte blanche to get whatever they want.” Shouldn't in cases like this the gag order go to the target of the warrant. I imagine it could go something like this. Google hands the information and inform only the target. The target can't publicize or inform anyone else, but now have the knowledge and right to defend himself. Not informing the target would restrict his ability to defend himself. In a similar note, why even involve Google at all. Why not require the target to hand the information. Maybe the fact that the targets are in different countries a problem to this approach.

sarciszewski 12y ago
"why even involve Google at all" "So essentially the government has carte blanche to get whatever they want" I think your quote answered your own question.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  Yup. Going to the third party provider as if it owns your data is a complete bypass of the 4th amendment. To make an analogy it would be like the federal government having to serve a warrant/court order/gar order only to your local mayor to search your house without your permission. Imagine how messed up that would be. Yet, it's exactly what happens in the digital world, and somehow we've learned to take it for granted. If it's your data, the warrant should be served to you. As for terms of service and such of online services that say once you upload your data to their cloud, then it becomes "theirs", that's complete bull, and such a thing should be made illegal.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - zaroth 12y ago
    It just occurred to me, they figured out how to serve a complaint against your property (civil forfeiture) so I'm actually half surprised they don't serve warrants against the house not the house's occupants. Or even better, just serve the data itself; US Government versus 134,612 bytes of Data!

datashovel 12y ago

IMO governments need to learn how to adapt to this new "information age". That's not to say they need to try to find new ways to suppress information. They need to allow public discourse to help them define their limitations.

charonn0 12y ago
I don't think they can. The information age is rendering national governments obsolete.

antocv 12y ago

Google is good, not evil, they have fought for our rights, bravely and invented new genious technologies and social processes to protect our civil rights and society. Google is good, Google does what is in best interest for its users. Google stands up against an intrusive government. Being a user of Google services is supporting freedom and democracy. Google fights againt censorship and for open society. Public announcment by Good Google.

ForHackernews 12y ago

Really interesting to read this in the context of David Drummond's statements a few years ago: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2013/jun/19/google-chief-legal-officer-david-drummond-live-q-and-a http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2013/jun/19/googl...

bediger4000 12y ago
"Nope. No gun to my head." ha ha ha! Given US attorney's rules around client/attorney privilege, perhaps he was giving the "least untruthful answer". I kill myself!
lern_too_spel 12y ago
Why is it interesting? It's since become clear that Google was not in cahoots with the NSA, just like Drummond said.

mindslight 12y ago

No Google, "fighting" a restriction on speech isn't doing exactly what you're told and asking a corrupt court for permission to do otherwise. It involves loudly publicizing the corruption and giving the thugs an uphill battle. Until you do this (or radically change your products to be oblivious to users' information in the first place), you're a de facto arm of the surveillance state.

username223 12y ago

> In the fall of 2011, Google was able to tell Appelbaum that the government had sought data such as the IP addresses of the people he e-mailed with, Google needs to store your plaintext email so it can make money by showing you ads, but its data retention policies are both unnecessary and outrageous.

doctorshady 12y ago

I like how any questioning of Google's integrity is being shamelessly downvoted here.

tonfa 12y ago
Well, one of the target of the warrant is also supporting Google here: https://twitter.com/ioerror/status/560575339450347520 https://twitter.com/ioerror/status/560575339450347520 https://twitter.com/ioerror/status/560579349460815872 https://twitter.com/ioerror/status/560579349460815872
- harry8 12y ago
  Nope, nothing there supports google. He's claiming to have played them to use their resources in support of his interests. He's not endorsing them at all. (Maybe he would or has elsewhere but not there).

noiv 12y ago

Lots of greyed comments here. What's going on? Google fan-boys vs. NSA fan-boys?

e12e 12y ago
I'd mod you up for making an interesting point, but it'd interfere with the meta-ness of your question being greyed out (a bit). I therefore leave you down-modded so you can better make your point. On this particular story there seems to be quite a lot of (random?) down-modding. It'd be nice to hear if the admins could comment. From just looking at the greyed out comments, it at least seems different from the usual hn-patterns?
- _cudgel 12y ago
  It's not like the NSA or Google have the computing power to automatically have their AI fight it out in the public sphere. Right? RIGHT?!?
anonbanker 12y ago
This isn't the first thread this has been happening on. I've been noticing it for weeks now.

harry8 12y ago

If you're a google employee and you see a gag order and disagree with it you almost certainly have the skills to leak it undetectably such that you can't be prosecuted because there is no evidence. I wonder, is that the right thing to do? How would you do it technically if you thought it was? Who would you leak it to?

fpgeek 12y ago
Even granting your premise that a Google employee could leak the gag order undetectably (and I'm not confident about that, since the universe of people to investigate would be relatively small), there would still be serious repercussions to deal with. At bottom, there's someone at Google in charge of overseeing the gag order. If the gag order leaks and they can't figure out who's responsible, I'm pretty sure they end up going to jail - if only because a court would have a hard time telling the difference between genuinely not being able to find the leaker and stonewalling / implementing a cover-up.
- harry8 12y ago
  I'm less cynical. I don't think they can prosecute someone without evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Every single google employee who has to act on the order and be gagged by it has to see the order and verify its authenticity or else their actions would be illegal. "it must be one of these 50 google employees" might well be completely true, but not enough to prosecute any one of them.

mikebay 12y ago

Hard to believe, when CEO is attending bilderberg meetings !!

krabjiem 12y ago

cheap PR