FISC Says It Will Declassify Ruling That Forced Yahoo Into PRISM
from the how-much-black-ink-will-they-use-up? dept
Last month, we noted that, while it was known that a tech company had fought back against a surveillance effort by the government and lost, it hadn't yet been revealed who that company was. The NY Times then revealed that it was Yahoo!, and it involved whether or not Yahoo! would be involved in PRISM. Yahoo tried to fight it, lost, and had to comply -- but the details (of course) remained entirely sealed. It appears that's changing. Yahoo! has been asking the government if it can reveal more info, and eventually the government (at the very least) allowed Yahoo to admit that it was the party in the case. After that, Yahoo asked FISC if the ruling could be declassified, and the court has now told the government to review the ruling to figure out what can be declassified.The Government shall conduct a declassification review of this Court's Memorandum Opinion of April 25, 2008, and (2) the legal briefs submitted by the parties to this Court in this matter. After such review, the Court anticipates publishing that Memorandum Opinion in a form that redacts any properly classified information.Of course, given the government's history of over-redacting, I fully expect a document with a ridiculous amount of black ink applied (invest now in black ink!). However, I do wonder if this is part of the various FISC judges realizing that there's been a fairly strong outcry against their secret court with a big rubber stamp.
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: declassify, doj, fisa, fisc, nsa, nsa surveillance, prism, surveillance
Companies: yahoo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Guess which side the public took when it came to Yahoo.
Mayer should be vocalizing the unfair treatment the media touted with the company's role with the NSA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's more likely to look like the May 2013 response to the ACLU.
www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/what-government-says-when-it-says-nothi ng
Or skip the article and go right to the released document: www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/email-content-foia/DOJ%20Crim%20Div%20docs/CRM-1.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: optimism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With luck...
One can only hope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to un-redact
I don't know but I think once I have the electronic version up, if I put white out on my screen then that should counteract the blank ink and I should be able to see what the document says.
Just make sure I get to see it and I will let you know.
Provided OoTB hasn't already done this several times over and proved it won't work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]