How DOJ Gagged Google Over Surveillance of Wikileaks Volunteer(firstlook.org)
firstlook.org
How DOJ Gagged Google Over Surveillance of Wikileaks Volunteer
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/20/wikileaks-jacob-appelbaum-google-investigation/
5 comments
Whilst the rights of Americans is important and the 4th amendment a key continent those rights, we should not forget that the privacy invasions are not limited to those in the US.
More importantly, those outside the US have NO rights under the US constitution. To the contrary we have about as much rights as a chimpanzee, unless we are at war with the US and if we are lucky we won't be declared non-combatants, imprisoned in some black or quasi illegal prison for 15 years and ideally will be treated fairly under the Geneva Convention.
More importantly, those outside the US have NO rights under the US constitution. To the contrary we have about as much rights as a chimpanzee, unless we are at war with the US and if we are lucky we won't be declared non-combatants, imprisoned in some black or quasi illegal prison for 15 years and ideally will be treated fairly under the Geneva Convention.
Absolutely. I don't mean to minimize what US agencies do to non-citizens. But if we don't stand a chance, it's laughable to assume anyone else does.
Here's Appelbaum's reaction to the disclosure from Google: https://storify.com/bbhorne/jacob-appelbaum-s-legal-disclosu...
It's interesting to get a glimpse into the lengths that Google goes to push back against government requests.
It's interesting to get a glimpse into the lengths that Google goes to push back against government requests.
Google's an easy target, and their competition has hyped concerns about privacy and surveillance.
But this story just confirms years of reports that Google really does behave more honorably than many multinational corporations.
Google pushed back forcefully and repeatedly against these court orders. I don't know how they've managed to build this culture, but it shows it can be done.
But this story just confirms years of reports that Google really does behave more honorably than many multinational corporations.
Google pushed back forcefully and repeatedly against these court orders. I don't know how they've managed to build this culture, but it shows it can be done.
You're right. I ignore most peoples' concerns about a Google boogeyman - but I also understand that for free email, calendar, docs, photo storage, etc., there is a price. I'm comfortable helping Google improve their algorithms and seeing text ads - the value in return is incredible.
But knowing that while Google mines my life, they'll even stand up against the U.S. government to protect that data... It makes me feel even better about the choice I made.
But knowing that while Google mines my life, they'll even stand up against the U.S. government to protect that data... It makes me feel even better about the choice I made.
This makes Julian Assange's rant about Google and Eric Schmidt all the more concerning. The two should be working together instead of against each other. It's clear where Google's morals lie. It's just hard to tell at times as they are bound by the rule of law (and business).
> push back against government requests
should be rephrased to:
> push back against this government request
We don't know if Google fights these by default or if this was the exception. Until we know further, we shouldn't assume either way.
should be rephrased to:
> push back against this government request
We don't know if Google fights these by default or if this was the exception. Until we know further, we shouldn't assume either way.
There's more than one instance where examples have come up: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/google...
(thread resurrection!)
According to Mother Jones in 2013[1], Google hands over the data roughly 89% of the time. I think it's fair to say that when they fought it this time, it was an exception.
[1] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/google-microsoft...
According to Mother Jones in 2013[1], Google hands over the data roughly 89% of the time. I think it's fair to say that when they fought it this time, it was an exception.
[1] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/google-microsoft...
His point is still correct. "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.'"
Do you have a source for this quote? Google didn't turn up anything meaningful but I'd like to give proper attribution when I hang it on my wall.
The attribution is arguably to Raymond Wolfinger who actually said the opposite, "The plural of anecdote is data", supposedly at a seminar at Stanford in the 60's or 70's. It also could be attributed to Roger Brinner, who said it to congress while testifying in 2012. I'd argue that it belongs unattributed, since it makes logical sense and no one ever attributes the phrase "the sky is blue" to anyone either.
http://blog.revolutionanalytics.com/2011/04/the-plural-of-an...
http://freakonomics.com/2010/04/29/quotes-uncovered-whats-th...
http://www.c-span.org/video/?307248-1/lessons-president-calv...
http://blog.revolutionanalytics.com/2011/04/the-plural-of-an...
http://freakonomics.com/2010/04/29/quotes-uncovered-whats-th...
http://www.c-span.org/video/?307248-1/lessons-president-calv...
I communicated with Jason when I asked him for a Google Wave invite (which he kindly gave me). I assume I'm also therefore on a list.
I imagine that the NSA is building a database with every single person on the planet sourced from multiple databases, both PRISMed, FISAed and stolen, and each person has a 'risk' and 'delinquency' factor, just like credit ratings. They also have an 'influence' factor and next to it a link that takes the operator to the available naked pics of the subject for blackmail purposes.
I imagine that the NSA is building a database with every single person on the planet sourced from multiple databases, both PRISMed, FISAed and stolen, and each person has a 'risk' and 'delinquency' factor, just like credit ratings. They also have an 'influence' factor and next to it a link that takes the operator to the available naked pics of the subject for blackmail purposes.
If I was the bad guys I would definitely do that. In fact, it's not enough to have a risk factor because there are many types of risk (terrorism risk, standard crime risk, political risk, and even whistle-blower risk, for those with access to classified information).
Someone with a bit of UI design skills should make a mocknup of this. A visual idea conveys so much more to the general public than words.
Please clarify. Is it your position that the general public would be better informed of the actual state of the world if someone created a non-functional prototype of something you imagine to exist? Or is your intent not to inform them of the actual state of the world, but to convince them of your beliefs about it?
No, I'm talking about fictional examples of near possible future dystopian scenarios. For a good example you can look up some guy called Orwell.
Visual fictional examples often work even better. See Alan Moore.
The concept of the entire world's population in an NSA database is of course unrealistic, but would it be a realistic end goal? I don't see why not.
Visual fictional examples often work even better. See Alan Moore.
The concept of the entire world's population in an NSA database is of course unrealistic, but would it be a realistic end goal? I don't see why not.
Presumably a number of people at Google had access to the orders, if only to implement the government's surveillance.
What's always baffling to me is how seldom stuff like this is leaked -- all it takes is one person with the right access, conscience and the technical skills to work out how to siphon off their own unofficial copy, then put that unofficial copy anonymously on the internet when the appeals to do it legally have been exhausted.
What's always baffling to me is how seldom stuff like this is leaked -- all it takes is one person with the right access, conscience and the technical skills to work out how to siphon off their own unofficial copy, then put that unofficial copy anonymously on the internet when the appeals to do it legally have been exhausted.
No one wants to go through what Chelsea Manning went through. Psychological torture and completely ruining someone's life is a powerful deterrent.
Manning was in a different position because he was military. Putting your signature on that recruiting document both increases the legal expectations on your conduct and decreases the rights you have after you break the rules.
True, Manning was in a different position.
But you may be surprised to find how little respect LEOs have for your rights if they decide to target you. Once you become a target, they have one job- to hunt you down and throw you in jail. The training, culture, and expectation is that of a predator (and you are the mouse).
But you may be surprised to find how little respect LEOs have for your rights if they decide to target you. Once you become a target, they have one job- to hunt you down and throw you in jail. The training, culture, and expectation is that of a predator (and you are the mouse).
Knowing something of many secrets that aren't even protected by an order and how little they often spread... it's no surprise to me.
Consider how often it happens that someone will collapse in public and many people will pass before someone renders aid. It's easy to feel like you're not responsible for preventing harm, especially when you're part of a big organization and the harm is being caused by a government.
Consider how often it happens that someone will collapse in public and many people will pass before someone renders aid. It's easy to feel like you're not responsible for preventing harm, especially when you're part of a big organization and the harm is being caused by a government.
I was thinking along similar lines. Does anybody know more about the penalties for violating a gag order, like this?
Is there some trick that could be built-into sensitive services like email, maybe some kind of per-account warrant canary?
Is there some trick that could be built-into sensitive services like email, maybe some kind of per-account warrant canary?
The penalties for violating a gag order can be very high indeed. Research "National Security Letters" Or think of Aaron Scwartz. If you get on the bad side of LE, they can hunt and harrass you for years.
There was one service which suggested people/organizations report in once per week that they had NOT received a NSL. Presumably when a company did not report this, it would suggests that they had. I'm not sure what happened to the service.
There was one service which suggested people/organizations report in once per week that they had NOT received a NSL. Presumably when a company did not report this, it would suggests that they had. I'm not sure what happened to the service.
But Google’s attempt to overturn the gag order was denied by magistrate judge Ivan D. Davis in February 2011. The company launched an appeal against that decision, but this too was rebuffed, in March 2011, by District Court judge Thomas Selby Ellis, III.
Anyone have the actual decisions that were given? I can't seem to fine them.
Anyone have the actual decisions that were given? I can't seem to fine them.
It seems to me that secrecy is the default state of the federal government now, not the exception, and between the NSA and gag orders keeping me (or you) from knowing you're privacy is being violated, my right to defend myself and redress against the government are both violated.
The Founding Fathers knew the price paid by the general public when government acted for its own gain first, and held dominion over the population. Their attempt to reign in its powers and make it truly a collective representation of the will of the people was in reaction to oligarchy and monarchy - both of which make the relationship between the people and their government adversarial at best.
The U.S. government - and more and more, state and local governments - feel entirely adversarial to the people they claim to represent. Lobbies, super pacs, laws written by the entertainment industry and so on make it pretty clear we're bound to an oligarchy which attempts to masquerade itself as a democracy. There is rarely cooperation between the general public and their government - more often, the general public finds itself universally against (SOPA) or universally disgusted by (NSA, Snowden) the actions of the government that claims to be their mouthpiece, working for justice for all.
So long as the judiciary upholds the government's power grabs against the people, there's little that can be done.
Edit: kudos to Google for fighting as hard as they could for the Fourth Amendment (and First). At least someone is. Secrecy was desired because of the huge public backlash the last time they acted so egregiously. Instead of the Judiciary acknowledging how out of bounds the last action was, they instead agreed public knowledge of bad acts was an unnecessary burden on government overreach.
Edit 2:
However, the Justice Department asserted that “journalists have no special privilege to resist compelled disclosure of their records, absent evidence that the government is acting in bad faith,”
I contend that this seizure of private data, with a threshold of evidence far below a Fourth Amendment level, ignoring historic protections for journalists based on the absolute importance of their work in keeping the government in check, is the government acting in the worst faith possible.