Google, Without Admitting It Gets FISA Orders, Files Lawsuit To Challenge FISA Gag Orders
from the well-that-ought-to-be-interesting dept
Google appears to be stepping it up a notch in trying to fight back against the claims that it is somehow opening up its system to the NSA or other law enforcement folks. As you now know well, one of the leaks from Ed Snowden a few weeks ago was about a system called PRISM, which is associated with how tech companies provide information to the federal government in response to FISA court orders. The initial reports, claiming that the NSA had full direct access to servers and could see what people were doing in real time, appear to have been extremely overblown, as it now seems clear that this was much more narrow. But there's still a big question of how narrow. Google sent an open letter to the DOJ, asking for permission to reveal basic numbers on how many FISA requests they receive and how many people have had information passed along to the government under the program. The government then gave "permission" in a way that actually further obfuscated things, only allowing the release of numbers when combined with all sorts of other government requests.Now, Google has filed a lawsuit against the government, arguing that gag orders on FISA requests violate the First Amendment. The filing itself is an interesting read, in part for its first footnote:
Nothing in this Motion is intended to confirm or deny that Google has received any order or orders issued by this Court.Of course, that might lead some to suggest that Google can't actually have standing, but there's an interesting legal argument here. Basically, Google is arguing that the perception that it's opened up its network to the NSA, as suggested in various reports, and which it cannot refute fully without revealing some details of FISA orders it has received, has caused it harm.
Google's reputation and business has been harmed by the false or misleading reports in the media, and Google's users are concerned by the allegations. Google must respond to such claims with more than generalities. Moreover, these are matters of significant weight and importance, and transparency is critical to advancing public debate in a thoughtful and democratic manner.Given that, Google is seeking a declaratory judgment from the court that it has a First Amendment right to publish the total number of FISA requests it receives and the total number of users associated with those requests, though obviously not anything more. I'm sure the government will come back with all sorts of excuses as to why this is horrible, but it certainly presents an interesting legal challenge to the FISA court's gag orders.
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: first amendment, fisa, fisa court, free speech, gag order, prism
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Is there anything preventing them from releasing just the other requests? I promise not to math.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
* note that the number of FISA orders is counted in a range along with the number of toilet paper units sold throughout the world. Why? Well, it's classified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ten to Twenty BILLION?
WTF are they doing? Sending multiple orders to each and every person on the planet?
Why haven't I gotten mine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ten to Twenty BILLION?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
S.1130
The text of Senator Merkley's bill S.1130 -- Ending Secret Law Act (Introduced in Senate - IS) is finally up on Thomas.
Further, today, during the House Intelligence hearing, Representative Adam Schiff (California) stated that he would be introducing, in the House, a companion bill to Senator Merkley's S.1130.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AC and rdd.me
get your yellow-bellied ass off the net, you're making our other AC's look bad...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An excellent piece of defending without admitting:
Mike's italics: "Google is arguing that the perception that it's opened up its network to the NSA".
So there you go! All just a mis-perception of what Google says are "false or misleading reports in the media".
One of the benefits of weaseling is that it's difficult to expose, because no matter what the outcome is, the weasel can argue techicalities to always end up right.
I expect that as this suit drags through the courts we'll incidentally learn for sure that NSA does have access to Google's number crunchers, but that Google isn't lying now because it's not "direct access" to their "servers". Or some further narrowing of "users". In any event, don't expect Google to just flat out admit it's a spy agency.
Denying forever is totally consistent with Google being a spy agency. As is this court case: it's good publicity now, could always get decided (or be maneuvered so) that they must keep it secret, and even if ever the truth emerges, no worse of damage. So if you game this out, it says nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An excellent piece of defending without admitting:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An excellent piece of defending without admitting:
There, I managed to contribute more to this than your ongoing Google paranoia.
Seriously, if you were picking on other 'big search' or ad-monetised content (FB etc) you might seem reasonable, but you seem incapable of moving off your MS-sponsored talking points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This! http://v.gd/3K4FAn
So scared of the truth! It's totally awesome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are using the tactics of a person who has lost the argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He's acting like a child throwing a temper tantrum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
AJ is the bastard son of ootb and darryl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, that might lead some to suggest that Google can't actually have standing, but there's an interesting legal argument here. Basically, Google is arguing that the perception that it's opened up its network to the NSA, as suggested in various reports, and which it cannot refute fully without revealing some details of FISA orders it has received, has caused it harm"
Actually, its posible that by confirming they receive FISA requests (and specifically FISA requests) they would actually violate the gag order and therefore be sanctioned without the merits of the case ever being debated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No sense in that footnote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While the criticism may be warrented it still needs some clarification of extend, broadness and exactness. Untill then, stick to the broad strokes when criticising and be careful about demonising politician-speak. Often you can analyse what the politician say too much and come to the wrong conclusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
With the capturing of phone data, the one specific detail that we do have is more than enough to warrant great outcry: they're compiling a database of data about all of our communications. Further revelations may indicate that the outcry be increased, but they cannot possible indicate that the outcry so far was too much.
The capturing of internet traffic data is less clear-cut, but the details we have right now are certainly enough to warrant expressions of concern.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://tr.im/44w44
Why is mike such a hardcore censor? I thought he hated censors??
Hmm..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Umm.... Don't mean to burst your bubble but wouldn't that mean you wouldn't be able to post? On my server, I would have marked your IP as spam long ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can bet that Mike will be working extra hard to censor it.
why is he so scared of criticism? why is he working so hard to censor me??
You decide.
stay tuned!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Frankly, I could get more intelligent discourse on Free Republic, Spearhead or InfoWars...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow. This is bad on so many levels.
Then the DoJ sends me an NSA order to hand over all my data, which, as part of my business model, I'm obligated to my end-users to keep private. Then they gag me from actually saying that I turned all that data over. Ergo:
~ If I obey the order, I betray my client base.
~ If I refuse the order, I am in contempt of justice.
Yeah, the NSA really fucked over our tech community since we just cannot trust service in US jurisdiction ever again to keep our data private.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow. This is bad on so many levels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]