DOJ Says Tech Companies Can Sort Of Release FISA Numbers, But.. In A Way That Decreases Transparency
from the that's-not-good dept
Last week, we noted that Google had publicly requested from the DOJ that it be allowed to reveal information about the FISA surveillance requests it gets, and put them in its well-respected transparency report. Facebook, Microsoft and Twitter quickly followed with similar requests. Late Friday, the DOJ "gave permission," but in perhaps the most useless way possible. Facebook was the first to post the data that the DOJ allowed it to post, and you might immediately see the problem:As of today, the government will only authorize us to communicate about these numbers in aggregate, and as a range...Right. So you may notice that this tells us absolutely nothing about the FISA requests. Because the only way that it could actually reveal anything was to bury them in with every other possible type of request. Facebook did, properly, point out that this wasn't really all that transparent:
For the six months ending December 31, 2012, the total number of user-data requests Facebook received from any and all government entities in the U.S. (including local, state, and federal, and including criminal and national security-related requests) – was between 9,000 and 10,000. These requests run the gamut – from things like a local sheriff trying to find a missing child, to a federal marshal tracking a fugitive, to a police department investigating an assault, to a national security official investigating a terrorist threat. The total number of Facebook user accounts for which data was requested pursuant to the entirety of those 9-10 thousand requests was between 18,000 and 19,000 accounts.
This is progress, but we’re continuing to push for even more transparency, so that our users around the world can understand how infrequently we are asked to provide user data on national security grounds.Microsoft posted something quite similar. And equally useless.
Here is what the data shows: For the six months ended December 31, 2012, Microsoft received between 6,000 and 7,000 criminal and national security warrants, subpoenas and orders affecting between 31,000 and 32,000 consumer accounts from U.S. governmental entities (including local, state and federal).Microsoft, too, noted the limitation that the DOJ gave them:
We are permitted to publish data on national security orders received (including, if any, FISA Orders and FISA Directives), but only if aggregated with law enforcement requests from all other U.S. local, state and federal law enforcement agencies; only for the six-month period of July 1, 2012 thru December 31, 2012; only if the totals are presented in bands of 1,000; and all Microsoft consumer services had to be reported together.There is one interesting tidbit:
We have not received any national security orders of the type that Verizon was reported to have received that required Verizon to provide business records about U.S. customers.Considering that this surveillance program -- the so-called "business records" search, which comes from Section 215 of the Patriot Act with a still-secret interpretation by the FISA Court that appears to allow blanket requests for pretty much all data -- is the much more serious issue, it's nice to see Microsoft being able to say that it has received no such orders.
Google and Twitter also both received the same "permission," but both quickly realized that this was not transparency at all. Lumping in FISA requests with everything else does absolutely nothing to reveal the extent of those FISA requests. In fact, it obfuscates them:
“We have always believed that it’s important to differentiate between different types of government requests,” a Google spokesperson said in a statement. “We already publish criminal requests separately from National Security Letters. Lumping the two categories together would be a step back for users. Our request to the government is clear: to be able to publish aggregate numbers of national security requests, including FISA disclosures, separately.”Twitter responded with a simple tweet (you expected more?) from legal director Ben Lee, saying:
We agree with @Google: It's important to be able to publish numbers of national security requests—including FISA disclosures—separately.So, once again, we have the federal government pretending to be transparent, when it's really not. It's only trying to hide the actual number of FISA requests and the number of users impacted. Frankly, this whole demand for excess secrecy over these things makes no sense at all. What could we possibly be "alerting our enemies" to if there were broad general numbers of the number of FISA requests that were sent to Google, Twitter, Facebook and Microsoft? Sure, the actual information requested should remain secret. But the number of requests? That makes no sense at all.
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: doj, fisa, fisa court, fisa requests, fisc, transparency, transparency report
Companies: facebook, google, microsoft, twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Here we go again, distancing evil NSA from friendly Google.
This "leak" is almost definitely a limited hangout psyop. Anger is being focused at the NSA and diffused from the corporations. All will go on same as before, except that now the people are accustomed to a new level of tyranny.
Paraphrasing Naomi Wolf on Facebook: What's the point of having the NSA sweep up all this data if the people don't know about it and aren't in fear?
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike's "no evidence of real harm" means he wants to let secretive mega-corporations continue to grow.
01:36:53[b-297-8]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
As long as you're milking this, it'd help if you gave us the text of the Act that you're talking about. E.g., http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1861
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So what, now we are supposed to trust what they are telling us?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It seems to me that request were made for more transparency, and they got more transparency. It isn't complete and total transparency, but it's more than before. Let me ask you this: Why is it so important to you that you have these exact numbers? I get the sense that you're just complaining for the sake of complaining. Can you shed some light on what you'd do with those numbers? Can YOU be more transparent?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Google
Hmm...I wonder where I might find a collection of such information...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This isn't 'more transparency'. This is a 6 year old responding to 'share the pizza' by licking all of the slices and handing one to his brother.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Here we go again, distancing evil NSA from friendly Google.
Did that face palm moment give you a concussion
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
To recap:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I would argue that no data point is too small to conceal. By confirming that they have received no such orders, they enable a wily opponent to triangulate the data and obtain a "road map" of US intelligence activities.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
presenting the counts
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Here we go again, distancing evil NSA from friendly Google.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, that you've set the bar so low recently is not a free pass.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But... But... TERRORISM!!
But as it is now with the lack of transparency citizens are left to assume that these arguments of blanket data collection without probable cause and without a warrant are unjustified and certainly unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Here we go again, distancing evil NSA from friendly Google.
On a more serious note, while Google is certainly not the bad guy in this story, they are by no means entirely innocent. Their own continued data mining, and target advertising programs collect massive amounts of sensitive information on their users. Its no small wonder why the NSA harasses them for this data...
On the other hand, perhaps the most important distinction is that Google, being a corporation has to abide by at least *some* laws, while the NSA has no such restriction, it can make, interpret or ignore laws as it sees fit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go again, distancing evil NSA from friendly Google.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So what, now we are supposed to trust what they are telling us?
Yes, if these companies have the data (as in the case of Google and Twitter) they should go ahead and publish them separately in spite of the "law." Then let the government go after them...and maybe awaken the sheeple because the bad guy is messing with their Google/Twitter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Here we go again, distancing evil NSA from friendly Google.
Marked as funny! You intended to be funny, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Here we go again, distancing evil NSA from friendly Google.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
However, I think it is pretty clear that what is being asked for by Google/Twitter is a possibility to show something about the extend of the actual contriversial parts. Since that is not a possibility here, it is a very low value transparency, not showing anything at all about the extend of the more problematic requests. That makes the transparency next to worthless for these companies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Here we go again, distancing evil NSA from friendly Google.
Take a loopy tour of out_of_the_Blue! You always end up nowhere near the topic at hand!
Where OOTB "I make up connections where none exist" lives up to his name to derail attempts to talk about topics he dislike.
01:36:53[b-297-8]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Here we go again, distancing evil NSA from friendly Google.
This is Cathy: http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/google_witch_hunters.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Or is that a secret too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Under the socialist system, the government owned the corporations, and ran the country to suite the elite.
Under capitalism, the corporations own the government, and run the country to suite the elite.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Can't they work around this?
Can't they say, "We have received 100,000 goverment request, including FISA requests."
And then say, somewhere else, "We have received 50,000 X request, 20,000 Y requests, and 3,000 Z requests. We cannot disclose the number of FISA requests we have received."
That, technically, would not be telling us how many FISA requests they've received, but reading between the lines, the number would look a lot like 27,000.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"We've received between (read: more than) 15576 and (read: less than) 15578 requests during the specific time frame."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seems simple to me, they would have obeyed the rules, yet still got the info out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Here we go again, distancing evil NSA from friendly Google.
I keep seeing comments saying that this Cathy person is OOTB.
Is there any proof of this connection or is it just someone's hunch?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Loophole
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Here we go again, distancing evil NSA from friendly Google.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: So what, now we are supposed to trust what they are telling us?
Well do that, but then publish the non-classified numbers separately. Being that it's not classified or sealed, it's a first amendment violation to prevent them from disclosing regular law enforcement requests.
Simple subtraction gives you the rest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Technically between 70,000 and 900 million contains the real number in the range.
[ link to this | view in thread ]