Feds Gagged Google Over Wikileaks Warrants Because They Were 'Upset By The Backlash' To Similar Twitter Warrants
from the that's-not-how-it-works dept
Earlier this week, we wrote about how the feds got a warrant demanding all email and other information about three Wikileaks-associated reporters. While the warrants issued in 2012, Wikileaks only found out about it a few weeks ago when Google told them, saying that an earlier gag order had been partially lifted. Wikileaks lashed out at Google for not letting them know earlier. However, in response, Google has noted that it fought the request and that it was gagged from saying anything until now.Google says it challenged the secrecy from the beginning and was able to alert the customers only after the gag orders on those warrants were partly lifted, said Gidari, a partner at Perkins Coie.But, much more interesting was a separate point made by the lawyer, Albert Gidari, over why the feds demanded the gag order:
“From January 2011 to the present, Google has continued to fight to lift the gag orders on any legal process it has received on WikiLeaks,” he said, adding that the firm’s policy is to challenge all gag orders that have indefinite time periods.
According to Gidari, whose firm has represented both firms, Google’s delay was not the result of foot-dragging but of opposition from prosecutors who were upset by the backlash that followed the disclosure of their court orders to Twitter.Gidari also claims that "Google litigated up and down through the courts trying to get the orders modified so that notice could be given."
[....]
“The U.S. attorney’s office thought the notice and the resulting publicity was a disaster for them,” Gidari said. “They were very upset” about the prosecutor’s name and phone number being disclosed, he said. “They went through the roof.”
If you don't recall, the feds attempt to get information from Twitter made headlines back in 2011 for trying to get access to Icelandic politician (and Wikileaks supporter) Birgitta Jonsdottir's account.
If it's true that this was truly the reason for the gag order, that is equal parts ridiculous, pathetic and dangerous. There are legitimate reasons for limited gag orders in specific cases at specific times. But a general, unending, broad gag order "because we don't like the backlash" is not one of them. At all. But that's what you get when there's no real oversight or pushback to the surveillance state.
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: backlash, free speech, gag order, surveillance, warrants
Companies: google, twitter, wikileaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This is really not a complicated subject
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is really not a complicated subject
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is really not a complicated subject
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is really not a complicated subject
Come off it. That kind of thinking leads to democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop doing evil shit.
It may take a while for them to realize that small leaks can no longer be contained, rather explode spectacularly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is really not a complicated subject
Federal judges apparently think it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, there isn't. A gag order, by its very definition, is a cover-up tool.
If there's any legitimate reason, I'd like to see just one example of it in use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
\THIS isn't one of those times. Gov't should NEVER be allowed such luxuries.
\\You can What-If until the cows come home, eventually godwin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stories here carry far more persuasive force and resemblance to journalism when pre-publication investigation reaches out to all parties, and not just the lawyer for one party to a matter.
[ 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 ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But that does not mean that I accept the random lawyer's statements as gospel, just that the random lawyer is currently the more trustworthy source between the two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The drunkard/crackhead? They might lie to you, intentionally or not. The person from the government? They almost certainly will lie to you, fully aware that they are doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This.
At this point, I have very nearly no trust whatsoever in the truthfulness and accuracy of their statements, and so it doesn't much matter what they have to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Obviously, you prefer the lazy "he said/she said" style of reporting that pervades mainstream media.
Techdirt doesn't subscribe to that philosophy:
Real Reporting Is About Revealing Truth; Not Granting 'Equal Weight' To Bogus Arguments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The author of the article would have you accept as fact that a gag order was sought solely because the agency did not like what allegedly happened in a prior case involving another website. If you accept this as the reason without question, then you have fallen prey to intellectual laziness. I would want to know more about the gag order, all the reasons underlying why it was requested, what the order actually said, etc. Otherwise, all you have is an unsubstantiated, single party account from a party having a strong interest in appearing entirely sympathetic to the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Umm, you do understand that this is an editorial and commentary site, right? It has never claimed to be anything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All I can find is:
>the Techdirt blog uses a proven economic framework to analyze and offer insight into news stories about changes in government policy, technology and legal issues...
Cite? Or are you just full o crap?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
None of which is possible to learn about, except perhaps the actual text of the order -- which is very likely to be the same as the texts of other gag orders and so would not reveal the reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Techdirt has ALWAYS maintained that it is an opinion blog. Not sure why you think otherwise.
The author of the article would have you accept as fact that a gag order was sought solely because the agency did not like what allegedly happened in a prior case involving another website.
Not really. Did you even read the last paragraph? Mike's opinion was prefaced with: "If it's true that this was truly the reason for the gag order...".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
From the very beginning we have *always* said that we are an opinion site. That has never changed. Why do you lie?
If you accept this as the reason without question, then you have fallen prey to intellectual laziness.
Of course, what you leave out is that *you* do this same thing all the time on stories about stories that you happen to agree with. You had no problem with DHS seizing websites because they must be infringing. You had no problem with stories about patent trolls because patents are lovely in your demented world. You have no problem with the NSA's lies about surveillance because, surely, they are right.
You are an out and out authoritarian lapdog. Yet you are the one who comes here and pedantically pretends that only you are so wise as to know what's really going on.
And then you want to flat out LIE and pretend we claimed we're not providing an opinion? You're hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, when I first stumbled upon this site and read some of its articles I believed that perhaps I had found a site that truly was interested in exploring for the benefit of its readers all sides of vexing issues. For a while this seemed to be the case, though clearly economic analysis seemed at times a bit one sided and cherry-picking of facts to fit a desired narrative began to appear with greater frequency.
My initial impression of the site gave way over time to the realization that is was shilling for a specific viewpoint, and had little interest in engaging in discussions that required a thorough knowledge of underlying facts and relevant law. Make a statement about what the law is and a quick retort followed that unnamed experts disagreed. Make a statement about factual information necessary to understand an issue and retorts followed that one was a shill, a maximalist, pathetic, and other choice words that I dare not repeat.
No, your site has begun to get drunk on the wine of its perceived popularity, and in such a state has embarked on a course where truth and objective reporting far too often takes a back seat to partisan advocacy.
While you will no doubt have a different recollection, I have attempted over the time I have submitted comments to avoid expressing any personal views pro or con concerning IP law. I have repeatedly stated I save my personal views of the law for work that I do in conjunction with law association committees in the crafting of legislative proposals, legal briefs, etc.
As for "authoritarian lapdog", if mischaracterizing what someone says gives you a feeling of self-satisfaction and superiority, then so be it. But just once take the time to actually read in an objective, inquisitive manner what was said. Quite some time ago you mocked me when I stated the underlying motivation of copyright law as expressed at the time of the 1790 Act was the encouragement of learning, the very term used in the Statute of Anne in England. This was in response to your insistence that "progress" as used in the enabling constitutional provision could only mean economic progress. Funny how some years later I came to note that what I had originally said had seemed to sink in and was being repeated in your articles. Would it have been so hard back then to eschew mocking and actually take the time to engage in a back and forth conversation with a mindset of trying to expand your knowledge of copyright law?
I am the first to admit that I do not know everything. In fact, I have stated that with age I have come to understand just how little I truly know because issues such as discussed here rarely admit to easy answers and require researching facts, law, and other relevant considerations. I would be interested in having a conversation with you when you have such an epiphany. You would likely discover that we agree far more than we disagree, and where we disagree it is usually because based upon my experience you have not considered the possibility of other factors that tend to undercut your opinions.
On a closing note, you do realize, do you not, just how easy it is to get a rise out of you? Lighten up. Take the time to ask questions of comments with which you may disagree or may not fully understand, and you just might be surprised that a mutually beneficial and cordial conversation will follow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Probably because it never has.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
More of the old mathematician dodge of "the proof is of course trivial, and left as an exercise".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Every time the MPAA does something you're the first to kiss the ground where Chris Dodd walked.
No, it's far easier to get a rise out of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I see no reason to not apply the same logic here. They can certainly rebuke the claim if they want to, but at face value, I find their silence about the matter troubling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, they sought mails from journalists reporting on crimes of the US government. So what exactly do you expect the reason to be they wanted these mails in the first place?
Asked differently: What are the chances that a criminal investigation would be hampered by the public knowing these mails were sought, versus the likelihood that this was a fishing expedition not aimed at the journalists in question, but to get their sources, and the gag order put in place to avoid backlash for their own wrongdoing?
Occam says it's the latter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Par for the course
Sounds like mainstream U.S. politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Possible hint in quote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiot politician thinking
Solution: More government censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Federal Agent Job = Embarrassment for their Familes
How can they still think they are remotely worth anything anymore when all they do is this garbage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Federal Agent Job = Embarrassment for their Familes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Um...I work for the government."
Savvy agents who didn't want to raise questions would claim to work for the State Department.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Backlash and embarrassment are the driving force
It is also my estimation that avoiding backlash and/or embarrassment accounts for around 85% of the times that the government imposes a gag, asserts "national security", or says it "can't invade someone's privacy".
The FOIA was supposed to have prevented the government from hiding malfeasance and incompetence, the primary causes of embarrassment and backlash. But it's been effectively gutted because they just wave "National Security" and FOIA is gone.
To me, personal privacy excuses are especially annoying because the government doesn't care at tinker's curse about it. They violate it often enough when it's to their advantage, but when they will be embarrassed, "Oh, gee, poor _____'s privacy, it's soooo sacrosanct!" Hypocrites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wifi banned in schools
For a start, try Dr. Magda Havas' website: http://www.magdahavas.com/ at Trent University. She's been studying/researching the field of electromagnetics for years! In the late 1980's ago I went to a lecture at the College of Dentistry at the University of Toronto, where a British physician was lecturing on electromagnetic pollution and its effect on human energy fields...with lots of supporting evidence.
And how about the Resolution that was approved by members of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (RNCNIRP) at its Committee session on 3 March 2011. "The Resolution evolved from scientific statements adopted by RNCNIRP in 2001, 2004, 2007, 2008 and 2009, taking into account contemporary views and actual
scientific data. The Resolution represents a viewpoint of the professional scientific community and is meant for public dissemination, for the consumers of the mobile
telecommunications services, as well as for the legislative and executive authorities who develop and implement health protection, environmental, communication, scientific
and safety policies." Check out: http://www.magdahavas.com/international-experts-perspective-on-the-health-effects-of-electromagnetic -fields-emf-and-electromagnetic-radiation-emr/ for a few more scientific bodies studying this subject...but then perhaps you already know that these guys are all quacks, eh!
Or try http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/12/e003836.full The British Medical Journal's cross-sectional study on GSM radiation from mobile phone base stations.
Or try reading THE BODY ELECTRIC or CROSS CURRENTS by Robert O Becker, MD; or ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS by Blake Levitt; or THE GREAT POWER-LINE COVER-UP by Paul Brodeur; or CELL PHONES: INVISIBLE HAZARDS IN THE WIRELESS WORLD by Dr. George Carlo.
No evidence, eh?
Children's skulls are thinner than adults, leaving them more suceptible to radiation of any sort. The computer industry cleaned up its act in terms of screens and computers, perhaps its time the wifi industry did it's due diligence as well... Actually, the modern car is just as bad, with very high levels of EMF's around the legs and feet.
My sense is that the profit motive and laziness, which seems to accompany those who are 'attached' to their devices is part of the issue rather than our well being.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wifi banned in schools
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know if authoritarian or totalitarian better describes these situations. I'm going to have to go with totalitarian, because the government is directly interfering and dictating the actions of citizens. Under threat of incarceration if they don't obey the commands demanded of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]