7 Things You Missed If You Didn't Read Wired's Big Story On How The NSA Is Killing The Internet

from the it's-not-almost dept

Tue, Jan 7th 2014 2:18pm — Mike Masnick

Steven Levy, who specializes in massive articles looking into aspects of the tech industry, has a new one for Wired, called How the NSA Almost Killed the Internet. It basically looks at how the NSA legally coerced the tech companies into having to comply with certain court orders to hand over information, and how the tech companies have been gagged from explaining what's going on. And then... he gets the NSA's side of the story. Much of what's in there is stuff that you probably already know (especially if you read Techdirt regularly), but I wanted to call out a few tidbits that I hadn't seen or heard anywhere else before:

Google doesn't charge the government for requests for information:
FISA requires the government to reimburse companies for the cost of retrieving information. Google says it doesn’t bother to charge the government. But one company says it uses that clause, hoping to limit the extent of the requests. “At first, we thought we shouldn’t charge for it,” says an executive of that company. “Then we realized, it’s good—it forces them to stop and think.”
This is kind of a "damned if you do/damned if you don't" situation. I know plenty of folks in the civil liberties community go back and forth on it. When companies do charge, then you see articles about how companies are "making a profit" off of violating our privacy. If they don't charge, then you see arguments about how they're making it too easy for the government to get info. Either way, the standard has been to charge basic costs, so it's interesting to see that Google doesn't charge at all, probably betting on the fact that if they did, it would be misrepresented. Of course, the fact that they don't might be misrepresented as well.
The NSA has no response to fear of future abuse of programs beyond "we'd never do that." Seriously.
Critics charge that while there is not yet any evidence of massive abuse of the NSA’s collected data, there is also no guarantee that a future regime won’t ignore these touted protections. These officials discounted that possibility, saying that the majority of NSA employees wouldn’t stand for such a policy. “If that happened, there would be lines at the Inspector General’s office here, and at Congress as well—longer than a Disneyland line,” Ledgett says. (The fates of several NSA employees-turned-whistleblowers indicate that anyone in that hypothetical queue would be in for a ride far wilder than anything in Anaheim.)
Sure, except there's a very long history of the NSA and the FBI doing exactly the opposite (the claim of no evidence of massive abuse is not actually true). And, as Levy notes in that final parenthetical, the way whistleblowers are treated these days would probably shorten that line quite a bit.
Keith Alexander admits that companies were compelled to comply and admits that we should stand up for the companies not to be harmed by all of this:
“This isn’t the companies’ fault. They were compelled to do it. As a nation, we have a responsibility to stand up for the companies, both domestically and internationally. That is our nation’s best interest. We don’t want our companies to lose their economic capability and advantage. It’s for the future of our country.”

Those words could have come from a policy spokesperson for Google, Facebook, Microsoft, or Yahoo. Or one of the legislators criticizing the NSA’s tactics. Or even a civil liberties group opposing the NSA. But the source is US Army general Keith Alexander, director of the NSA. Still, even as he acknowledges that tech companies have been forced into a tough position, he insists that his programs are legal, necessary, and respectful of privacy.
This is just bizarre. If he doesn't want the companies to lose their economic capability and advantage, maybe he shouldn't have undermined a large portion of it.
Companies were given about 90 minutes to respond to the (misleading) claims in the original PRISM article that they had given the NSA direct access to their servers.
“We had 90 minutes to respond,” says Facebook’s head of security, Joe Sullivan. No one at the company had ever heard of a program called Prism. And the most damning implication—that Facebook and the other companies granted the NSA direct access to their servers in order to suck up vast quantities of information—seemed outright wrong. CEO Mark Zuckerberg was taken aback by the charge and asked his executives whether it was true. Their answer: no.

Similar panicked conversations were taking place at Google, Apple, and Microsoft. “We asked around: Are there any surreptitious ways of getting information?” says Kent Walker, Google’s general counsel. “No.”
This remains one of the most unfortunate bits about the Snowden leaks. While I think that Barton Gellman, Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras have done an incredible job with most of their reporting, the original PRISM stories that appeared in the Washington Post and Guardian both came out rushed and were misleading, which is still impacting how people are reporting on these things today. The PRISM program and Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act have serious issues that need exploring, but it's all been distorted by the misleading initial claims, which implied things that just weren't true.
The NSA claims it uses the very same encryption that it tries to push everyone else to use. Yes, the same encryption that Snowden docs have revealed was compromised by the NSA.
And the NSA insists that, despite the implications of those Snowden-leaked documents, it does not engage in weakening encryption standards. “The same standards we recommend are the standards we use,” Ledgett says. “We would not use standards we thought were vulnerable. That would be insane.”
Sorry, but no one believes that one at all. The clear takeover by the NSA of NIST standards shows that's clearly not true.
The NSA still doesn't realize how serious all of this is. They still think it's just been blown out of proportion.
They understand that journalism conferences routinely host sessions on protecting information from government snoops, as if we were living in some Soviet society. And they are aware that multiple security specialists in the nation’s top tech corporations now consider the US government their prime adversary.

But they do not see any of those points as a reason to stop gathering data. They chalk all of that negativity up to monumental misunderstandings triggered by a lone leaker and a hostile press.
Patent troll Nathan Myhrvold is also completely clueless about national security:
Former Microsoft research head Nathan Myhrvold recently wrote a hair-raising treatise arguing that, considering the threat of terrorists with biology degrees who could wipe out a good portion of humanity, tough surveillance measures might not be so bad. Myhrvold calls out the tech companies for hypocrisy. They argue that the NSA should stop exploiting information in the name of national security, he says, but they are more than happy to do the same thing in pursuit of their bottom lines. “The cost is going to be lower efficiency in finding terrorist plots—and that cost means blood,” he says.
This is stupid on so many levels. First, the old argument that it's somehow equivalent of tech companies and the NSA to make use of information -- a claim that Levy ridiculously repeats multiple times in his article -- is a line that has been debunked so many times it's really beneath Levy to give it any life at all, let alone refuse to point out how stupid it is. Companies provide a direct service to users, and they make a decision: If I give this information, I get this service in return. It's a decision made by the consumer, and a trade-off where they decide if it's worth it. We can argue that people should have more information about the costs and benefits, but it's still a trade-off where the final decision is their own. The NSA, on the other hand, is not providing a choice or a trade-off. They're just taking everything in exchange for nothing. And, oh yeah, they have guns and can put you in jail -- something no company can do.

Second, Myhrvold incorrectly buys completely the line that all this data collection has been helpful in stopping terrorists. There's just one problem: there is no evidence to support that. Besides, based on his idiotic reasoning, we might as well just do away with pretty much all our rights. For example, I'm pretty sure that we could all have protected Myhrvold more completely if there were video cameras streaming video of everything he did within the privacy of his own home, cars, office or just walking around, right? We could certainly make sure that no one was attacking him or, better yet, that he wasn't about to attack anyone. The cost of not spying on every moment of Nathan Myhrvold might mean "blood." So, based on his own logic, we should violate his privacy, right?

All in all there's a lot in the article that's worth reading, but those were a few key points that really stood out.

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: keith alexander, nathan myhrvold, nsa, rick ledgett, steven levy, surveillance, tech industry
Companies: google, yahoo

46 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 2:48pm

The NSA has already lost any creditability it had. It could have just come out and said yeah, we do these things but due to National Security we can only talk about it to approved personnel and then made sure the unrestricted data got spread out. By this time it would have all blown over with just a few humps and bumps.

Instead they chose to lie, to misdirect and obfuscate, and trying to slide out of it waiting for it to all die down. They were caught in the lies with more Snowden revelations. They wasted whatever good will they might have had. Now there is nothing they say I will believe. Face it, it's worse than we've been told as Gellman, Greenwald and Poitras have made it very plain they are not releasing it all due to serious consequences to people on the ground (agents) that could be named. The NSA and the GCHQ are given a chance before these articles go out to stop them. That we don't want them going out, isn't a valid reason.

There is no oversight. None whatever when the Oversite Committee can be lied to. There is no whistle blower protections as we have seen time and again with spy trials over whistle blowing. There is no reign in, no check, no amount of money they won't spend to get what they want. Given that you would now like me to believe that all this data collection won't be used to move judges and congress critters to favor them? I don't buy that for a moment but as a speculation it would explain why Obama as a senator was against this type of spying but as president can't back it enough.

No feel good pull back on the NSA will satisfy the public, the major corporations, nor the global community such as Obama is sure to present. It will have to be real and honest change. Election season is coming and some politicians are fixing to feel the heat over it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Shore (profile), 7 Jan 2014 @ 3:04pm

Charge!
Google should charge the government. "We are not allowed to tell you how many court orders we complied with, but we made $10,000 last year for complying. BTW, we charge $1 per request."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trevor, 7 Jan 2014 @ 3:07pm

What if...
What if Google charged an extremely steep price (like, say, $200,000) per request?

They can argue that the cost includes loss of investor opportunities and trust, and loss of potential contracts because their reputation took the hit (Much like Boeing losing out on a 7 Billion dollar contract...), and the price would be hard to justify asking for hundreds of thousands of records?

Also, Google (being not evil and all) could give that money to charity, or the ACLU, or the EFF and make a big deal about it in the press, so the government backs off.

Or would that reveal the number of requests they got if they revealed how much they charged/received?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 7 Jan 2014 @ 3:12pm

The incremental cost or profit for Google is near zero.
And that "Google doesn't charge the government" is COMPLETE DIVERSION! Takes focus off FACT that Google is providing the information to useless discussion of whether or not charging is the right approach! SHEER CORPORATIST PR BALONEY!

GOOLE IS MAKING PROFITS OFF VIOLATING OUR PRIVACY! Every day, every second, EVERY WAY IT CAN! That's it's central "business model!"
The Google-Borg. Your privacy becomes our profit.

11:11:57[m-122-3]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 3:20pm

Re: What if...
They could just say that they charged $100m last year.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 3:27pm

Re: The incremental cost or profit for Google is near zero.
Speaking of useless diversions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 3:31pm

I'm a little confused, why is the Wired article written in the past tense? These are all still ongoing issues, aren't they?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 7 Jan 2014 @ 3:38pm

Re: The incremental cost or profit for Google is near zero.
Google is optional. The NSA is not. End of story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
krolork (profile), 7 Jan 2014 @ 3:50pm

In a couple of years, the internet will be more secure. The NSA doesn't realize that they started the beginning of their end.

Look back at Mega Upload. Did they raid him using illegal means? Probably. So Kim Dotcom made a new service better and more secure. Truecrypt had a crowd finding campaign to audit the program and verify it is all good.

This will only push the Internet into its next version. A more secure version. And in excited.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 3:59pm

I hate Wired, every single time a controversial trollish story is posted they lock down the comments. They troll then they lock it down so people cannot tell them just how fucking stupid their view is.

It's only a select few and for the most part the majority of writers do a good job.

Still I refuse to user their site as long as they censor people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 4:03pm

I can't wait for all the new privacy services to start appearing and accepting new customers. I'm personally excited about LEAP (https://leap.se/en) and Mailpile (https://www.mailpile.is/), encrypted email services. I believe these products are designed to resist metadata logging as well.

I'm switching over from Gmail and Hotmail to one of these new privacy services, as soon as one comes online.

I just noticed that neither of these new privacy services appear to be located in the USA. That's probably a good thing, because I hear there's a new "mandatory" metadata logging policy coming to the United States soon.

That's too bad. It's probably going to prevent American tech. companies, from competitively competing with other online services in the global market.

Anyone who values their privacy, is going to choose a service where they have control over what information they voluntarily hand over to a third party.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 4:47pm

Every time someone from the NSA says they aren't abusing their power, I want to shout "LOVEINT!" at them until they shut up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 4:53pm

Secrets
So Zuckerberg asks his executives if it's true, the NSA access to their infrastructure, and they said NO.
What else could they say. Where does the chain of lies stop and start. I still don't get it. Who in the company is allowed to know the truth?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 7 Jan 2014 @ 5:26pm

Re: What if...
Whatever the case, it's taxpayers' money. What does the government care?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 6:05pm

corporate law
I am under the assumption a corporation cannot do anythinh unless it is profit oriented, otherwise its sharholders can sue. Much like if Walmart does some charity thing its not really about charity, its about possitive publicity etc., how is free compliance to the gov profititable?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 6:17pm

"They still think it's just been blown out of proportion. "

No, what's been blown out of proportion is the NSA's attempts to go after Snowden and the governments over classification of everything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 6:18pm

Re:
Government's *
[ link to this | view in thread ]
madasahatter (profile), 7 Jan 2014 @ 6:33pm

National Stupidity Agency
One item that stands out is the NSA appears to believe the Chinese, Russians, Germans, Indians, etc. are too stupid to find their backdoors and keys. Maybe not immediately but eventually. Encryption and code-breaking have been a technical race for a long time with one side gaining the upper hand then losing it. To think any encryption/security system is unbreakable or the other side is too stupid to crack yours is asking for a disaster.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 7 Jan 2014 @ 6:35pm

Re: corporate law
'Give us the information otherwise we'll drag you to 'court', cost you a ton of money, force you to give us the information anyway, and prohibit you from saying a word about it'.

The government doesn't really do 'subtle' when it comes to those that don't toe the line and do what they're told.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 7 Jan 2014 @ 6:37pm

Re: National Stupidity Agency
It's either hubris, where they believe that no other agency or group out there could possibly take advantage of the security weaknesses they are causing/installing, or indifference, where they just don't care.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 7:07pm

Thailand Mirror
In Thailand meanwhile, a coup leader named Suthep marched on Bangkok trying to get the elected government thrown out and 400 of his chosen people in power. That failed.

Various bodies stuffed full of coup-man's cronies of his are trying to get power other ways.

Electoral Commission (whose only job is to run elections) wants to act as 'moderator' between the two sides, (government and coup plotter). On threat of stopping elections by not doing its job.

National Anti Corruption Commission is investigating ministers and senators for proposing a fully elected Senate as an 'attempt to seize power'. They made it half 'appointed' when they took power in the military coup of 2006.

Southern provinces (Sutheps power base) has so far failed to register candidates for elections. Preventing anyone from running for elections, and if 95% of seats aren't voted in, they can't form a government ending democracy.

Lots of termites coming out of the woodwork trying to seize power from the elected government and stop elections.

Take a look. This is your future if you don't keep your agencies under democratic supervision and control.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mrtraver (profile), 7 Jan 2014 @ 7:19pm

"And, oh yeah, they have guns and can put you in jail -- something no company can do."

Unfortunately I don't think this is true any more.

Apple has armed enforcers from ICE do their dirty work. http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130429/07214322874/homeland-security-participates-t rademark-raid.shtml

RIAA has the FBI. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140107/01242425782/full-story-behind-riaa-fbis-insanely-wasteful- prosecution-dude-who-streamed-guns-n-roses-album.shtml

MPAA has their own Swedish police force http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070219/183214.shtml

I'm sure there are others, these are just three I was able to find quickly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Truth, 7 Jan 2014 @ 7:38pm

Dearest Micheal,

Google is 100% complicit with the NSA, and all the jewpaint you can muster up will not conceal this inexorable fact.

Sincerely,

Truth
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 10:12pm

Killing the internet??? really ??
" It basically looks at how the NSA legally coerced the tech companies into having to comply with certain court orders to hand over information, and how the tech companies have been gagged from explaining what's going on."

and how on earth is that "killing the internet"?? does anyone bother to explain that, or is that just a sensationalist claim? to get page views?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 10:14pm

I also like how you correctly stated "LEGALLY coerced the tech companies" nice admission..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 10:19pm

Re: Re: The incremental cost or profit for Google is near zero.
"Google is optional."

Yea, RIGHT !!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 10:48pm

Re: Re: Re: The incremental cost or profit for Google is near zero.
No, seriously. However, Google has the best overall in all classes except actual privacy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 10:59pm

Re:
How was San Fierro?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2014 @ 11:59pm

Re: Re: Re:
You could just fuck off the Internet. There, no more Google.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 8 Jan 2014 @ 2:05am

Re: The incremental cost or profit for Google is near zero.
Quick ootb, throw your computer out of the window so Google can't monitor you!

*crosses fingers hoping he does it*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 8 Jan 2014 @ 2:34am

Oh Yeah
And, oh yeah, they have guns and can put you in jail -- something no company can do.

Really?

How about this case?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2014 @ 3:51am

Re:
Instead they chose to lie, to misdirect and obfuscate,

In their defense, that's what the us citizens pay them for. They are spies, after all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2014 @ 5:01am

This is the companies' fault
"This isn�t the companies� fault. They were compelled to do it."

It is the companies' fault, for incorporating in a jurisdiction (the USA) where they could be compelled to do it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2014 @ 6:17am

Re: This is the companies' fault
Exactly. It also means even those companies that haven't yet been revealed as spies can't be trusted anymore, because they could be "compelled to do it" at any time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ike, 8 Jan 2014 @ 6:27am

PR solution to charging for "violating privacy"

When companies do charge, then you see articles about how companies are "making a profit" off of violating our privacy.
Charge, but make it explicit that all proceeds are donated to privacy watch dogs or some other third-party.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Pettitt (profile), 8 Jan 2014 @ 9:26am

Charge then Donate
The perception issue around charging is easy to solve, charge the government, then donate the money to EFF.

In fact I think that's going to be my new company policy (not that we actually get requests)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2014 @ 9:30am

Government, contractors, all dangerous
" (the government has)...guns and can put you in jail -- something no company can do."

With the increasing use of mercenaries (for instance Blackwater, Academi or whatever they're calling themselves this week) by the federal spook agencies, and the fact that these private security companies are able to simultaneously hold contracts with commercial corporations, combined with the willingness of the DOJ and DHS to do the bidding of said corporations, I wouldn't assume that no corporations are capable of using violence or imprisonment against you and getting away with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Truth, 8 Jan 2014 @ 9:56am

Re: Re:
Even badly mapped polygons surpass the realism of Mr. Masnick's fantasy world where Google does no wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2014 @ 10:18am

Re: Re: The incremental cost or profit for Google is near zero.
Yes, you must do it quickly! If you don't Google will steal your information and make way more money, which is bad! [snicker]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 8 Jan 2014 @ 10:38am

Re: Re: Re: The incremental cost or profit for Google is near zero.
Yes, that's right. It is 100% possible, and not even hard, to use the internet without sending a byte of data to a Google server. I have said how, in detail, here in the past and you can find instructions pretty much everywhere on the internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lu�s, 10 Jan 2014 @ 2:44am

The evidence that the NSA has access into internal networks of American companies is now out there for everyone to see. You can try to defend your companies in every way you want, they'll take the hit all the same, and rightly so. The only one that acted ethically was Lavabit.

As other commentators noted, a new internet will emerge out of this, and surely one where Americans have much less grip on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Udi Benhamo, 6 Feb 2014 @ 1:12pm

Wow!!!
Great article....a true eyeopener.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David Miretsky, 6 Feb 2014 @ 1:14pm

Thanks for the article
Unbelievable. What the government does is just unbelievable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Payam Tizabgar, 6 Feb 2014 @ 1:17pm

Thank you
This is one of the best articles i have read lately. Thanks
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chef Josette, 15 Apr 2014 @ 5:56am

Thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Invisitab, 24 Apr 2014 @ 1:17am

Thank you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]