Australian Spies Want To Hack Tor After Realizing It Routes Around Their Surveillance

Court Orders Google To Comply With National Security Letters, But Suggests It Might Want To Ask Again

from the mother-may-i dept

Fri, May 31st 2013 1:30pm — Mike Masnick

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

35 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2013 @ 1:36pm

At least someone is questioning/fighting the power hungry government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert Freetard, 31 May 2013 @ 1:38pm

If the FBI has the time to wait for the court's decision
If the FBI has the time to wait for the court's decision why don't they just get an actual warrant?
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2013 @ 1:40pm

Cue OOTB Missing the point and attacking google.

Much as google's data collection gives me the willies the NSL bullshit is the bigger problem right now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 31 May 2013 @ 1:45pm

Wait
NSLs were ruled unconstitutional but Google still has to comply? How does that work?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2013 @ 1:46pm

Re: If the FBI has the time to wait for the court's decision
the problem with obtaining a warrant is the paper trail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 31 May 2013 @ 2:12pm

What?
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

Um, isn't that the problem with NSLs?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 31 May 2013 @ 2:33pm

Re: Wait
Welcome to Wonderland, USA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2013 @ 2:59pm

Re: Wait
It's opposite year
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 31 May 2013 @ 3:10pm

I'll bet this is OVER, was just a false publicity stunt.
Google is a corporation, kids, an amoral, conscienceless entity that has growth as its only goal. Its visible purpose is SPYING. Words are cheap, and if one simply doesn't grant a presumption of honesty to Google,then it looks exactly like a secretive mega-corporation deep in conspiracy with gov't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris-Mouse (profile), 31 May 2013 @ 3:51pm

Google looks more like secretive mega-corporation that doesn't want to share the valuable data it has collected. I'll leave it to you to make your own decicion as to wether the reason is to protect your privacy or to be greedy and keep everything for itself.
Either way, the result is the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
New Mexico Mark, 31 May 2013 @ 3:59pm

Re: I'll bet this is OVER, was just a false publicity stunt.
ootb is not a very well written chat bot, but it is funny to watch sometimes. I'll bet it's written in BASIC... with lots of goto's.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2013 @ 4:01pm

Re: I'll bet this is OVER, was just a false publicity stunt.
You will make a great case study in a psych field one day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2013 @ 4:13pm

Looks like Google is now making money off terrorism:

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 thread ]
aikiwolfie (profile), 31 May 2013 @ 4:28pm

So sad :(
It's really sad people in the nation that proclaims it's self to be the leader of the free world are fighting over a tips jar in court. Even worse, they still have a tips jar!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bakunin (profile), 31 May 2013 @ 5:04pm

Google lied about their approach toward evil. Or have changed their minds since?
Indeed, whenever I see folks trying to feel good about GOOG, I cringe yet again as I recall that they long got away with their motto supposedly being "Do no evil." Their business model is not one of selfless giving {newsflash?!} So, poking about for a link or 2 to support my argument, I happen upon:

Google Moving to Help Destroy Anonymity
Google�s motto is �Do No Evil�. And Google notes in a patent application:
When users reveal their identities on the internet, it leaves them more vulnerable to stalking, identity theft and harassment.
So you might assume that Google is fighting to protect anonymity on the web.
But Schmidt�s new book reveals that Google will support the destruction of anonymity (via Wall Street Journal):
Within search results, information tied to verified online profiles will be ranked higher than content without such verification, which will result in most users naturally clicking on the top (verified) results. The true cost of remaining anonymous, then, might be irrelevance.
Search Engine Journal explains:
[Passages from Schmidt's book] confirm what many industry writers have been passionately clattering away about for months now. Google+ is an identity verification network. As the network continues to grow, content associated with a verified identity will rise to the top of Google search rankings.
(Google+ is now the world�s second most popular social network.)
In other words, Schmidt acknowledges (in the first quote above) that authoritarians want to destroy anonymity � and Google will help them do so.

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 thread ]
elemecca (profile), 31 May 2013 @ 5:17pm

Re: What?
We haven't quite gotten to the point that gag orders issued by the executive branch apply to a federal judge with specific jurisdiction. Yet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2013 @ 5:33pm

Re:
DailyMail.

Really?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 May 2013 @ 7:03pm

Re: Re:
lol. great comeback there. Really convincing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
horse with no name, 31 May 2013 @ 9:55pm

I don't get it.
The judge ruled on 17 out of 19, and reserved judgement on only two of them, and yet the entire story seems to imply that Google could get out of all of them.

Last time I checked, 17 out 19 is pretty conclusive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Jun 2013 @ 3:18am

Re: I don't get it.
The judge ruled on 17 out of 19, and reserved judgement on only two of them, and yet the entire story seems to imply that Google could get out of all of them.

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 thread ]
Lurk-a-lot (profile), 1 Jun 2013 @ 3:59am

Re: Re: Re:
It's a damned sight more convincing than the Daily Mail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 1 Jun 2013 @ 5:08am

Re: Google lied about their approach toward evil. Or have changed their minds since?
An alternative to Google:

http://www.ixquick.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2013 @ 7:16am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
No it isn't.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2013 @ 8:19am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Speaking of lying, manipulative propaganda...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2013 @ 10:02am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You guys just can't seem to challenge the facts. Pathetic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FM HIlton, 1 Jun 2013 @ 4:39pm

"May I suggest"
It wasn't a complete wipe out for the government-they got the judge to order Google to comply with the NSL's, and if Google does not, they're going to be held in contempt of a court order.

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 thread ]
horse with no name, 1 Jun 2013 @ 5:58pm

Re: Re: I don't get it.
I think is only if Google wants to split each one seperately and try to argue and address very specific issues to each one, which may not be in their interest. Google wanted a blanket way out. Having to argue each one on it's individual merits may not be what they want to do.

Basically, only 2 out of 19 may meet some of the more general arguments Google was making.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 1 Jun 2013 @ 6:35pm

Re:
Looks like Google is now making money off terrorism:

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 ads are automatically added to youtube videos, when you have a certain setting enabled... OR is your point that, you really think we ought to be incensed by the ads more than videos themselves? Why doesn't the Daily Mail campaign for Google & Facebook to remove this racist hatred...Millions would back it in heartbeat!!!

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2013 @ 8:00pm

Re: Re:
I have a problem with terrorist recruitment, and any normal person that doesn't worship at the altar of the King of IP exploiters, does as well.

Admit it, you'll defend anything Google does, no matter how slimy it is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Coyote (profile), 1 Jun 2013 @ 8:19pm

Re: Re: Re:
I, too, have an issue with free speech. It may not be something I agree with, so surely it must be taken down, despite being of no [discernible] harm to anyone at the time or recording, nor presumes a direct correlation with violent acts. It is merely 'speech' -- speech that I do not agree with and otherwise revile, but still speech. To suggest that a singular search engine that one can look and find videos -- videos which can and are hidden, or otherwise decked in the smallest of spaces of a vast network -- is responsible for hosting these videos and making money off of them.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Jun 2013 @ 10:20pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you're a fool if you think they have no control over it. This nonsense about it automatically happening implies it was never programmed to occur; which of course, it was.

This trope of pretending there is no accountability is stale and convinces absolutely no one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2013 @ 12:01pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even Julian Assange knows what's up with Google:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/opinion/sunday/the-banality-of-googles-dont-be-evil. html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2013 @ 7:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The facts aren't the problem, the willfully ignorant interpretation of those facts is the problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pragmatic, 3 Jun 2013 @ 5:54am

Re: I'll bet this is OVER, was just a false publicity stunt.
OOTB: "OMG conspiraciez! Communists! Aaaaagh!!11eleventyone111!"

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 thread ]
Bud, 5 Jun 2013 @ 4:14am

Re: Wait
One should read "secret affidavits from the FBI" as "monetary payoffs".
[ link to this | view in thread ]