If 'Just Metadata' Isn't An Issue, Why Can't Tech Companies Reveal 'Just Metadata' About NSA Surveillance?
from the simple-questions dept
You may have heard the news today that a bunch of big tech companies -- including Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Twitter, Mozilla, Reddit, Tumblr and others -- have sent a strong letter to a variety of government officials, both in the administration and Congress, demanding greater transparency, and the ability to reveal more information about the government's various surveillance programs that compel the tech companies to participate:We the undersigned are writing to urge greater transparency around national security-related requests by the US government to Internet, telephone, and web-based service providers for information about their users and subscribers.This follows on a somewhat somewhat similar letter from Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner and Zoe Lofgren to Attorney General Holder and Director of National Intelligence Clapper, urging them "to authorize U.S. companies to release information regarding national security requests for user data."
First, the US government should ensure that those companies who are entrusted with the privacy and security of their users’ data are allowed to regularly report statistics reflecting:Second, the government should also augment the annual reporting that is already required by statute by issuing its own regular “transparency report” providing the same information: the total number of requests under specific authorities for specific types of data, and the number of individuals affected by each.
- The number of government requests for information about their users made under specific legal authorities such as Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, the various National Security Letter (NSL) statutes, and others;
- The number of individuals, accounts, or devices for which information was requested under each authority; and
- The number of requests under each authority that sought communications content, basic subscriber information, and/or other information.
As an initial step, we request that the Department of Justice, on behalf of the relevant executive branch agencies, agree that Internet, telephone, and web-based service providers may publish specific numbers regarding government requests authorized under specific national security authorities, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the NSL statutes. We further urge Congress to pass legislation requiring comprehensive transparency reporting by the federal government and clearly allowing for transparency reporting by companies without requiring companies to first seek permission from the government or the FISA Court.
Both letters point out that they're just looking for the ability to reveal specific numbers about orders received and user accounts impacted, but obviously not further information that might reveal the details of any investigations. Basically, they're asking for "just the metadata."
You may have spotted the irony, pointed out by Ashkan Soltani: Defenders of many of the government's surveillance programs have repeatedly trotted out the "just metadata" argument for why all of this surveillance is no problem, claiming that mere metadata doesn't reveal anything important. Yet, when it comes to their own metadata about their own surveillance programs, suddenly it will reveal all their secrets? (And I won't even get into the fact that only some of the surveillance programs are "just metadata").
So, which is it, feds? Is "just metadata" nothing too important, or does it reveal everything?
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: jim sensenbrenner, metadata, national security letters, nsa surveillance, surveillance, tech companies, zoe lofgren
Companies: apple, facebook, google, microsoft, mozilla, reddit, tumblr, twitter, yahoo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I find it obvious but rather interesting to see Microsoft in there. They took an enormous blow to the trust people had in them and now privacy issues are kind of mandatory effort for them. Then you see their support for absurds like CISPA and others.. Sure they are doing it right now but it'll take a whole lot of sustained efforts in that direction if they want to revert the image they got right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
More than they can muster without a complete change in corporate culture. Microsoft's image is the result of their behavior since the '80s. There's decades of damage to undo there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great point.
Maybe a summary of Masnick's simple questions about NSA spying is warranted.
Here's my takeaways:
1) If everything is both legal and authorized, why is disclosure harmful?
2) If collection of metadata does not violate privacy, why can't public know details (but not content) of NSA spying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The bear in the room
In this case the companies probably aren't even allowed to deny the allegations being made against them. That's not just bad for transparency, it's bad for business.
It's similar to a politician getting a speeding ticket, but his opponent saying he was arrested for drunk driving with underage girls in the car. If he can't say anything about why he was pulled over (national security) then he can't refute the claims.
The analogy isn't perfect, but it gives you an idea of why almost everyone wants the numbers released.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The bear in the room
Yes, but only because they'd all be dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They can't allow it.
They demand big business pay a living wage, yet don't pay their own employees anything close to what they foist on business.
They demand we participate in an insurance scam they are exempt from.
They build schools for us they don't send their own children to.
They keep raising our taxes expecting us to pay more when we make less.
They print money and reduce our buying power and throw us in jail if we print money.
They lie and tell us they are transparent, yet regularly have secret courts making bad law we are forced to abide by.
They scare us with theatre, raise the price of travel while they fly on military craft we paid for.
They use our money to spy on us, and tell us it's for our own good? Oh and then they lie about it.
They have laws they expect us to abide by and they and their supporters break them with impunity.
I could go on and on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They can't allow it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They can't allow it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They can't allow it.
I personally think it should be $12/yr and indexed for inflation and the only reason I'm not saying $15 is because it wouldn't be "fair" to states like Mississippi that pride themselves on extremely low costs of living. By "fair" I don't think we should be extolling the virtues of states that intentionally decrease programs for their high number of poor in exchange for lower taxes to attract businesses that exploit their poor citizens who have no programs to help them out of poverty. I only say it because it would economically wreck those states to raise minimum wage too high. Plus, high-pay states like CT, MA and NY that do need the $15+ amount will adjust their minimum wage up to $15+ anyway if the federal wage is at $12.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oooh, sent a "strong letter"! Now I totally believe these mega-corps are on our side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oooh, sent a "strong letter"! Now I totally believe these mega-corps are on our side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grow A Few !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When dealing with the NSA you have to remember that they're compulsive liars. So when they tell you something, they actually mean the complete opposite of what they're telling you.
lawful = unlawful
harmless = devestating
constitutional = unconstitutional
Yah dig?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snowden
[ link to this | view in chronology ]