Court Orders Google To Comply With National Security Letters, But Suggests It Might Want To Ask Again
from the mother-may-i dept
You may recall that back in April it was revealed that Google was fighting back against complying with a series of National Security Letters (NSLs), the notorious tool of law enforcement to snoop on people secretly, which has been abused widely. Google's decision to push back on these NSLs came following a ruling by the same judge, Susan Illston, who had ruled NSLs unconstitutional. Given that ruling, it appeared that Google hoped to get the judge to say that it didn't need to comply with 19 NSLs it had received.Instead, Judge Illston has told Google it must comply -- following secret affidavits from FBI officials. However, it appears that Judge Illston may think that Google just asked in the wrong way, and might be more willing to kill the NSLs if Google presented more specifics about the NSLs in question, rather than asking to broadly ignore NSLs in general:
It wasn't a complete win for the Justice Department, however: Illston all but invited Google to try again, stressing that the company has only raised broad arguments, not ones "specific to the 19 NSLs at issue." She also reserved judgment on two of the 19 NSLs, saying she wanted the government to "provide further information" prior to making a decision.Given that, I would imagine this is nowhere near over.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: compliance, constitutional, doj, fbi, national security letters, nsls, privacy
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the FBI has the time to wait for the court's decision
It's a clear and incontestable way to get the information they want.
Unless of course they are just abusing the NSL process to gather data that they could not get a warrant for because a judge wouldent sign it.
Considering that very few warrants are ever denied, I'm guessing this is truly abuse of privilege.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If the FBI has the time to wait for the court's decision
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Much as google's data collection gives me the willies the NSL bullshit is the bigger problem right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What?
Um, isn't that the problem with NSLs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll bet this is OVER, was just a false publicity stunt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'll bet this is OVER, was just a false publicity stunt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'll bet this is OVER, was just a false publicity stunt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'll bet this is OVER, was just a false publicity stunt.
The rest of us: "Hoo boy."
The problem with your frothing at the mouth/argument, Blue, is that (straw man) Google can't win, whatever they do. They're damned if they do, and damned if they don't. That's why we can't take your rantings seriously.
They don't need to advertise themselves any more, they're at saturation point already, so your argument is invalid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Either way, the result is the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2331832/Google-cashes-hate-videos-Internet-gia nt-puts-ads-alongside-thousands-terror-rants-YouTube.html#ixzz2UZnx6SY3
Niiiiice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The facts remain unchallenged: Google makes money from showing pro-terrorist videos.
More proof that their "do no evil" misdirection is nothing but lying, manipulative propaganda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, they're not.
Hate speech isn't "terrorism," it's speech. It's bad speech, speech you don't (and shouldn't) like, but speech nonetheless.
And the only thing Google is doing is the same thing it does to all videos on YouTube, regardless of content.
There's an interesting comment on that story:
The comment is right: it's not the advertising, it's the message. And his "solution" is censorship.
Of course, the censorship "solution" is worse for an open society than allowing people to speak, even if it's hate speech.
But I somehow doubt you have any problem at all with censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Admit it, you'll defend anything Google does, no matter how slimy it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What is being used is a common campaign -- youtube places ads alongside content if the content provider wishes to monetize these videos. Google, the owner of youtube [from what I recall, anyways] gets a share of that profit margin. It is a system that does not 'just' target hate speech or terrorism or anything of that nonsense -- nonsense which still has no credible source beyond the daily mail, a hardly credible source -- and is likely worthy of ridicule. Presuming this is credible at all, it is again, not terrorism, but hate speech -- speech that, while it bemoans things and says 'take down the government' or 'shoot Clinton in the vagina' or what-have-you, it is, at ts' core, speech. It says these things, but there is no action done. If there was action done -- a video of a terrorist killing a civilian, blah-de-blah -- then it would be unjust and wrong.
As it stands, it is not. I do not agree with it, but it does not mean it does not belong. If I were to apply my values to the values of youtube and say 'this doesn't belong here, you shouldn't be monetizing it, but if it's there I shall monetize the hell out of it.' there would be zero videos of Bryan Fischer or anyone from the American Family Association posting their bullshit for the world to see, and an influx of cat videos.
You seem to assume it is Google's responsibility to take down videos you do not like of what is presumed, hate speech and terrorism -- the latter of which has no credible source as to whether it is terrorism or not -- it is not. They also do not monetize the videos in question, though they do often put ads in the sides of the videos. The latter is done automatically, the former, through the content creator, whoever that may be.
They're not targetting specific groups or people or terrorists to make money off of them -- it is an automatic process, if you're speaking of what I assume you are speaking of -- done through a service that they have no direct control over. No direct control does not mean 'have no control' by the way; it means thousands upon thousands of lines of code that they cannot possibly sort through individually to find specific places to NOT place ads, some of which qualify as hate speech, but protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
You are being silly if you think this is the responsibility of a specific corporation, and not just the result of an automatic service that does not discriminate on ad placement by any means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This trope of pretending there is no accountability is stale and convinces absolutely no one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/opinion/sunday/the-banality-of-googles-dont-be-evil. html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So sad :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google lied about their approach toward evil. Or have changed their minds since?
from
http://www.globalresearch.ca/google-moves-to-destroy-online-anonymity-unintentionally-helping-auth oritarian-governments/5322542
and if you need more convincing try
https://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/googles-deep-cia-connections/
Furthermore, it seems to me unlikely their attempts at appearing Gov-defiant could be genuine when they so actively engage in censorship of views - not obscenity but just ideas which also don't smear/slander anyone - by whatever secret starchamber process they obey. Case in point: Alex Jones' sites with various reports (okay I have 2 big qualms with him but 70% of the time he's a very important, impassioned advocate of the Bill of Rights.. just appeared on AM radio in my area-- check yours (his 3 hours/day must be something for typical car-driving, broadcasts-beholden media consumers!)) used to come up in googl searches but they've basically just blacklisted them. Much the same on youtube.
ps. Apart from KPFA's "Guns and Butter" which I've listened to since inception, the place from where I've been hearing since forever the term "National Security Letter" is the intro to a regular segment of the Peter B. Collins podcast called "Boiling Frogs", featuring historic whistleblower Sibel Edmonds. From there, she's gone on her own in a great way, with her Boiling Frogs Post:
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/?s=NSL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google lied about their approach toward evil. Or have changed their minds since?
http://www.ixquick.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't get it.
Last time I checked, 17 out 19 is pretty conclusive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't get it.
Last time I checked, 17 out 19 is pretty conclusive.
You don't get it because you misread.
The judge suggested they could get out of all 19, not just the two she reserved judgment on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't get it.
Basically, only 2 out of 19 may meet some of the more general arguments Google was making.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"May I suggest"
Funny how this works. "It's unconstitutional, but until you prove to me why it is, you have to comply and reply to them."
I wish the 9th Circuit was not in recess...as they probably are. It's going to be a long hot summer, kids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]