declan

93 ms·

871.
by declan 13y ago
Yep, but it was more than any other company in the history of this country has ever disclosed. And give them another 48-72 hours from now to divulge more info.
872.
Microsoft releases stats on law enforcement and national security orders(blogs.technet.com)
6 points by declan 13y ago|4 comments
873.
by declan 13y ago
Incorrect. Google disclosed NSL summary stats months ago. As you say, FISA stats are next. I'd expect them this evening.
874.
by declan 13y ago
Yes, it's pretty clear that the DNI lied to Congress. But it is untrue that FedGov can force companies to lie. Neither AT&T nor Verizon lied: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589012-38/nsa-surveillan...
875.
by declan 13y ago
More than that, they vigorously oppose such requests in court, as my article here revealed: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57518086-38/facebook-fight...
876.
by declan 13y ago
Yes, but you're missing something. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo also offered blanket denials. So the fact that FB has a former CSO with some FBI background has nothing to do with the other companies. Put another way, DNI lying != FB
877.
by declan 13y ago
Ah, thanks. Didn't know it was the first hit. If you, the recipient, want to challenge the order as invalid, you're free to do so, and there's an appeal process. I was the first to disclose two weeks ago that Google is fighti
878.
by declan 13y ago
I agree with your point re: the odds of it happening. It puts things in perspective. Entire books have been written about the legal standards required. It's difficult to summarize here. One short answer is that the Fourth Amendment is
879.
by declan 13y ago
<marshray> cited a CNET article I wrote this week as a threat to "put them on trial." As the author, I disagree. If FB received a FISA Sec. 702 order for the contents of nycterrorcell@facebook.com's account, and they di
880.
by declan 13y ago
You should look at this in the context of the company's earlier blanket denials.
881.
by declan 13y ago
There's a lot to be said for cleaning house in D.C. But contrary to your suspicion, there is no law requiring companies to misreport info to the public. Even AT&T, which illegally opened its network to the NSA, never lied about it,
882.
Facebook releases stats to reassure users about NSA spying(news.cnet.com)
1 points by declan 13y ago|0 comments
883.
by declan 13y ago
It's not always the case. But sending a witness questions in advance: a) increases the odds you can nail them for perjury and b) takes away the opportunity to say "I haven't been briefed on this and I'll get back to you
884.
by declan 13y ago
Especially after the NYT's disclosures in December 2005, which included mention of email. And an earlier disclosure by a U.S. politician (this is from memory) about intercepting Al Qaeda satellite phone calls, which was probably a disc
885.
by declan 13y ago
It was a clever move by Wyden to try to catch him in a perjury trap.
886.
by declan 13y ago
I thought it tasted funny.
887.
by declan 13y ago
This is sad but probably true.
888.
by declan 13y ago
First, by citing NSLs, you're unintentionally proving the point of the article. Google recently began disclosing how many NSLs it received. NSLs do not require the recipient to lie. Second, two courts have ruled that NSL gag orders are
889.
by declan 13y ago
You're confusing Verizon's response in the last week with Verizon's response in 2006. The article talks about the 2006-era responses from AT&T and Verizon. The one in the last week isn't especially interesting when y
890.
by declan 13y ago
One thing I've seen on HN and elsewhere is the accusation, and I'm not saying you said this, that goes something like this: "Of course Larry and Mark are lying! They'd be required to lie because of <handwave> gover
891.
NSA surveillance retrospective: AT&T, Verizon never denied it(news.cnet.com)
103 points by declan 13y ago|19 comments
892.
by declan 13y ago
Thanks! Alas, only a few people thought so!
893.
DOJ is weighing Google's request to lift NSA gag order(news.cnet.com)
4 points by declan 13y ago|0 comments
894.
by declan 13y ago
I like the theory, but you don't need to send an open letter for standing. The FISCOR already granted standing exists for providers.
895.
by declan 13y ago
Here's some background on what's actually going on: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588752-38/google-to-feds...
896.
by declan 13y ago
Not a bad summary. (I wrote one of the articles you cited.)
897.
by declan 13y ago
If you read the title at the top of the page at the link you provides, you'll see it's "Providing material support to terrorists." Manning has not been charged with terrorism.
898.
No evidence of NSA's 'direct access' to tech companies(news.cnet.com)
28 points by declan 13y ago|3 comments
899.
by declan 13y ago
As a reporter, I think it's great. I wish we'd see senior folks from Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, AOL, and Apple doing the same right now.
900.
by declan 13y ago
When AT&T was asked politely by the NSA to open its networks under the warrantless surveillance program, the company refused to confirm or deny. They actually offered arguments like this one from an AT&T attorney: http://

More ›