3 ms·

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 robu

by 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?

by lkbm 12y ago

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?