Judge Says Twitter Can Move Forward With First Amendment Lawsuit Over NSL Reporting Limitations

from the granular-reporting-sinks-ships dept

Twitter's First Amendment lawsuit against the government for limitations on National Security Letter reporting will be allowed to continue. This is good news for Twitter -- and the general public -- although it's somewhat disheartening to see things have only moved this far in the three years since the lawsuit was filed.

Reporting on NSLs is limited to "bands." A social media service receiving three NSLs has to report it as "0-499." The same goes for a service that receives 300 NSLs over the same period. Twitter is fighting to have these "bands" removed, in order to more accurately report the number of NSLs it receives.

So far, the government's arguments for leaving the bands in place have been as vague as the information tech companies are allowed to release. It asserts -- without evidence -- that reporting the actual number of NSLs (or FISA orders) will harm national security. The fact that NSLs are accompanied by indefinite gag orders grants the government an insane amount of opacity relative to the level of oversight these NSLs receive. NSLs are administrative documents the FBI (and other agencies) can issue themselves, which receive no impartial scrutiny from judges or anyone outside the issuing agency.

The government's attempt to dismiss this lawsuit has failed, so Twitter will be allowed to move forward with its First Amendment lawsuit. The opening of the opinion [PDF] makes it clear the DOJ going to need to come up with a better argument if it hopes to keep this banded opacity in place. (via Ars Technica)

The Court finds the Government has not met its high burden to overcome the strong presumption of unconstitutionality on the record before the Court. The Government’s restrictions on Twitter’s speech are content-based prior restraints subject to the highest level of scrutiny under the First Amendment. The restrictions are not narrowly tailored to prohibit only speech that would pose a clear and present danger or imminent harm to national security. The Government argues that the limitations imposed on Twitter are necessary because disclosure of data concerning the number and type of national security legal process that it received in a time period would impair national security interests and is properly classified. However, the Government has not presented evidence, beyond a generalized explanation, to demonstrate that disclosure of the information in the Draft Transparency Report would present such a grave and serious threat of damage to national security as to meet the applicable strict scrutiny standard.

An unclassified declaration by the director of the FBI's national security branch appears to form the basis for the assertions the court finds lacking. It's basically what's covered above: the information is "properly classified" and releasing it would do damage to national security. Other arguments along the same lines are applied to granular disclosure of received FISA orders. The DOJ points out the First Amendment does not allow possessors of classified information to share it freely.

The court says this bare assertion isn't enough to overcome Twitter's valid First Amendment complaint:

[T]he Court does not agree with the Government’s position that simply determining information meets the requirements for classification under Executive Order 13526 ends the Constitutional analysis. That the information is classified is not, in itself, a sufficient basis for the Government’s prohibition on its disclosure…

The First Amendment requires strict scrutiny of content-based restrictions and prior restraints, regardless of the Government’s basis for nondisclosure.

It's not just the DOJ's public arguments that suck. The court points assertions made behind closed doors have also done nothing to justify the prior restraint.

Here, the declarations of Steinbach, both in camera and public, fail to provide sufficient details indicating that the decision to classify the information in the Draft Transparency Report was based on anything more specific than the reporting bands in section 1874 and the FBI’s position that more granular information “could be expected to harm national security.” The declarations do not provide an indication of grave or imminent harm arising from the disclosures in the Draft Transparency Report. Rather, the concerns raised to relate to the overall concern from one or more of any electronic communication service regardless of the specific provider or circumstance. Merely declaring a view that more granular reporting would create an unacceptable risk does not make it so, especially in light of the Government’s acknowledgement of the strong public interest in the information.

The government is apparently so used to receiving judicial deference it didn't bother to do much more than recite its national security mantras.

Rather, the declaration largely relies on a generic, and seemingly boilerplate, description of the mosaic theory and a broad brush concern that the information at issue will make more difficult the complications associated with intelligence gathering in the internet age.

If the DOJ has an actual, articulable reason for forbidding more precise transparency reporting, it has yet to deliver this argument to the court. However, it's had three years to do so and hasn't produced anything yet. It appears to feel the court should make with the NATSEC deference and toss the case. Now, it's actually going to need to produce some evidence that granular reporting will harm intelligence gathering or harm the nation.

Filed Under: doj, first amendment, free speech, gag order, national security letters, nsl, transparency
Companies: twitter

Bob Murray Demands John Oliver Be Silenced... While HBO Moves Case To Federal Court

from the hey-bob dept

We've been covering just how silly coal boss Bob Murray's SLAPP lawsuit against John Oliver is, and things keep getting sillier. Late last week, Murray's lawyers dug themselves in even deeper, asking for a gag order on Oliver and HBO (first reported by Betsy Woodruff at the Daily Beast). Specifically, they filed for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to gag Oliver. They even admit that it's a "gag order" on Oliver and HBO. This kind of prior restraint is not supposed to be allowed under the First Amendment, but Murray's lawyers already have shown some fairly wacky legal theories, so it doesn't seem likely that "what the law says" is going to stop them from asking for ridiculous things.

The document specifically requests that the defendants in the case be barred from re-broadcasting Oliver's hilarious report (which already has 6.6 million views and counting) and also that he be stopped from "publicly discussing the substance of this litigation." Of course, Oliver himself has already said on his show that, on the advice of HBO's lawyers, he won't be discussing the case until it's over, so this request is even more bizarre. But it's also silly legally. The First Amendment doesn't allow for a gag order to prevent someone from discussing a case. That's blatant prior restraint, and in the immortal words of Walter Sobchak, "the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint."

The motion, like the original lawsuit, is highly theatrical, but has little relation to the actual law. It's basically a litany of complaints about how people are mocking Bob Murray for suing Oliver.

Plaintiffs are quickly learning firsthand about the phenomenon that Time and Fortune magazines have dubbed the "John Oliver Effect." When Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, they did not appreciate the extent of the destructive aftermath that Defendants" malicious and false broadcast would cause. Mr. Murray and his employees and family have been inundated with an onslaught of threats, harassment, and intimidation by people that are simply following Defendants' lead as they view and re-view the Defamatory Statements. Murray Energy's website has been overrun with messages of "Eat Shit, Bob." Employees who once enjoyed coming to work now spend their days receiving countless phone calls and e-mails telling them they are "a worthless piece of shit," and worse. Mr. Murray's family members have even received death threats. None of this would have occurred but for Defendants' broadcast of the Defamatory Statements. Worse yet, Defendants knew that fans of the show would react in this manner. Continued publication and public access to the Defamatory Statements will only enlist additional people to Defendants' perverse "call to action," with additional grave consequences.

Moreover, the John Oliver Effect has already spilled over to directly affect this litigation: numerous media outlets are commenting on their views of this action in a biased fashion that often times provides viewers with access to the entire June 18 broadcast. Additionally, the broadcast's YouTube video has been viewed 1.9 million times more since the Complaint was filed. The pervasiveness of the Defamatory Statements is unfairly tilting public opinion in Defendants' favor so much so that third parties have specifically directed threats and harassment at Plaintiffs' counsel regarding the perceived merits of Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs' ability to assemble a fair and impartial jury diminishes every day that the Defamatory Statements are available to prejudice the individuals that might be called upon to serve justice in this matter.

Basically, this request for a gag order boils down to: "OMG, people are making fun of our lawsuit and the lawyers writing this, so please make them stop." Perhaps the reason people are making fun of you is because the lawsuit is a bad one, guys. And that's all protected free speech under this great American thing we have called the First Amendment of the Constitution. You guys are the lawyers -- you're supposed to know that stuff.

The complaint goes on to list out some excerpts from some phone calls to Murray's companies that were clearly people responding to the Oliver piece and the lawsuit. I'm sure it's no fun at all to be on the receiving end of those calls -- but, again, that's not against the law. Hell, some of the phone calls don't sound particularly harassing: "Others demanded that Plaintiffs "stop with their bullshit lawsuits" or asked "Why are you suing John Oliver?" Who knew that merely asking why are you suing someone would be held up as evidence of harassment? Who knew that Bob Murray was such a snowflake? The report also highlights a bunch of emails all saying "eat shit Bob" in some form or another (a statement that comes directly from the Oliver broadcast):

Of course, if this is really so bothersome, why doesn't Murry just set up a filter to route all emails with "eat shit" in them to trash? Seems like a pretty easy solution.

There's more in the filing in which they try to tap dance around the First Amendment claims by saying that there's no harm in censoring speech and putting a gag order on Oliver/HBO. This goes against basically all historical precedent noting that prior restraint on speech is, by itself, a form of harm. But Murray's lawyers don't want to talk about that. They pull out a classic anti-First Amendment trope, that because there are a few, very narrowly tailored exceptions to the First Amendment, their own requested exception surely must be okay:

Defendants doubtless will resist an injunction using words such as "First Amendment" and "free speech." But these rights do not give anyone the right to say anything, anywhere, to anyone. Indeed, our Nation's founding founders and The Supreme Court of the United States have repeatedly noted that false and defamatory statements deserve no Constitutional protection.

Sure. The courts have noted that defamation isn't protected by the First Amendment, but this gag order request is not asking for a blocking of just defamatory statements (hell, they barely identify any potentially defamatory statements amidst all the hand waving). They're literally asking for a gag order on discussing the case itself. The case itself is not defamatory. You can't silence a defendant from talking about the fact that you stupidly sued him. That's not what the Supreme Court is saying. Indeed, the two citations that Murray's lawyers point to from the Supreme Court notably do not support injunctions against speech. They merely note that defamation is not protected speech. But plenty of other cases explicitly make it clear that injunctions on speech should not be granted because of prior restraint. In Near v. Minnesota, the court said that a law granting injunctions on defamation was unconstitutional. In Bantam Books v. Sullivan the court famously said that "[a]ny system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity."

Murray's lawyers do nothing to counter this fairly set-in-stone precedents. They just go with the "well, there are exceptions, therefore gag order."

They also play up -- once again -- the fact that Murray has health problems, insisting that this weighs in favor of granting an injunction. Amazingly, they point to a case that said an injunction could be issued against a landlord for trying to bring in an exterminator, because it might impact a tenant's pulmonary fibrosis, as a reason to grant this injunction against speech. Really.

And indeed, pulmonary fibrosis has been specifically recognized to be an ailment that can warrant injunctive relief, including under less aggravating circumstances than those found here. See 2 Perlman Drive, LLC v. Stevens 2017 N.Y. Slip. Op. 50173(U), (N.Y. Civ. Ct. Feb 9, 2017) (enjoining landlord from employment of chemical exterminators in apartment tenanted by sufferer from pulmonary fibrosis).

Yes, that's Bob Murray's lawyers stating that people mocking Bob Murray is a more aggravating circumstance than someone getting sprayed with harmful chemicals. That takes some level of chutzpah on the part of his lawyers.

They also pull out another old trope, insisting that all this mocking press coverage might influence a jury, so surely a gag order is appropriate. Except, of course, this isn't the UK where there are superinjunctions or whatnot. The press is allowed to talk about stuff, and they're even allowed to give their opinion on things. And if that opinion includes mocking the bad decisions of Bob Murray, that too is protected speech. Amusingly, among the complaints about those biased press reports, Murray's lawyers call out Ken "Popehat" White's opinions of the lawsuit in the Daily Beast (without naming Ken):

The Daily Beast ran an article on June 22, 2017, titled "Republican Coal King Sues HBO over John Oliver's Show," in which it features a statement by an attorney describing this lawsuit as "frivolous and vexatious."

Yes, and so? That's a protected opinion backed up with lots of experience.

Either way, this request will now be viewed by a federal judge, rather than a local West Virginia court. Because, just as we (and basically everyone else) predicted, HBO has removed the case to federal court. Murray's lawyers may try to get the case sent back to the local court, but that's unlikely to work. When you have defendants in other states (and even some of the plaintiffs in other states) and a cause of action over $75k, then you have what's known as diversity, and the case should rightfully be kicked up to federal court. In fact, the Notice of Removal argues that there really isn't even any West Virginia parties in the lawsuit at all, since the only "real" plaintiffs are Bob Murray and Murray Energy -- both of which are from Ohio. Yes, the lawsuit lists a bunch of West Virginia subsidiaries of Murray Energy, but Oliver never mentioned any of them at all, so there's no legitimate claim any of them can make for defamation. Indeed, the filing argues they were just thrown into the case to pretend that it belonged in West Virginia local court.

I get the feeling we've still got plenty of future filings to look forward to in this SLAPP suit (again, West Virginia, tragically, has no anti-SLAPP law). Wouldn't it be nice if we finally got a federal anti-SLAPP law to deal with these kinds of suits?

Filed Under: bob murray, defamation, first amendment, free speech, gag order, john oliver, prior restraint

Cops Sent Warrant To Facebook To Dig Up Dirt On Woman Whose Boyfriend They Had Just Killed

from the blue-lives-are-more-equal-than-others dept

Everything anyone has ever said about staying safe while interacting with the police is wrong. That citizens are told to comport themselves in complete obeisance just to avoid being beaten or shot by officers is itself bizarre -- an insane inversion of the term "public servant." But Philando Castile, who was shot five times and killed by (now former) Officer Jeronimo Yanez, played by all the rules (which look suspiciously like the same instructions given to stay "safe" during an armed robbery). It didn't matter.

Castile didn't have a criminal record -- or at least nothing on it that mattered. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been allowed to own a weapon, much less obtain a permit to conceal the gun. Castile told Yanez -- as the permit requires -- he had a concealed weapon. He tried to respond to the officer's demand for his ID, reaching into his pocket. For both of these compliant efforts, he was killed.

Castile's shooting might have gone unnoticed -- washed into the jet stream of "officer-involved killings" that happen over 1,000 time a year. But his girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, immediately live-streamed the aftermath via Facebook. Her boyfriend bled out while responding officers tried to figure out what to do, beyond call for more backup to handle a dead black man sitting in his own vehicle. Only after Yanez fired seven bullets into the cab of the vehicle did officers finally remove his girlfriend's four year old daughter.

To "win" at killing citizens, you must start the spin immediately. Yanez spun his own, speaking to a lawyer less than two hours after killing Castile. Local law enforcement did the same thing. Documents obtained by Tony Webster show Special Agent Bill O'Donnell issued a warrant to Facebook for "all information retained" by the company on Diamond Reynolds, Castile's girlfriend. This was to include all email sent or received by that account, as well as "chat logs," which presumably means the content of private messages. The warrant also demands any communications that may have been deleted by Reynolds, as well as metadata on photos or videos uploaded to Facebook. It came accompanied with an indefinite gag order.

Why would law enforcement want (much less need) information from the victim's girlfriend's Facebook account? It appears officers were looking to justify the killing after the fact. The following sworn statement was contained in the affidavit:

Your affiant is aware through training and expertise that individuals frequently call and/or text messages to each other regarding criminal activity during and/or after and [sic] event has occurred.

This is warrant boilerplate, especially when it comes to obtaining information from accounts or devices. But this warrant should be considered anything but business as usual. Should be. Isn't. This is the actual standard operating procedure after an officer kills someone: the department goes digging through its criminal records to find any reason at all to have killed the person and to buttress "feared for safety" excuses given by officers -- awarding them points for effort based on information they didn't have when they ended someone's life.

When it comes to police shootings in America, there are no aggressors in uniform, only victims. Officer Yanez made his own excuses, theorizing Castile's willingness to smoke pot in front of a 4-year-old child indicated Castile had no respect for human life.

I thought, I was gonna die, and I thought if he's, if he has the, the guts and the audacity to smoke marijuana in front of the five year old girl and risk her lungs and risk her life by giving her secondhand smoke and the front seat passenger doing the same thing, then what, what care does he give about me?

Following his testimony's logic, smoking pot in front of a child has so severely damaged Castile's moral compass, he apparently would have thought nothing about shooting an officer over a non-functioning tail light. There's no logical boundary cops won't cross to pin the blame on the dead. Hence the Facebook warrant to dig up dirt on his girlfriend in hopes of adding a bit more post facto righteousness to the shoot.

The only upside -- and it's incredibly small given the surrounding circumstances -- is Facebook refused to hand over the information on the grounds that the indefinite gag order was unconstitutional. Faced with this pushback, Minnesota police withdrew the warrant. But in the end, Yanez was acquitted and Philando Castile is still dead -- a man who did nothing more than try to comply with an officer's orders.

Filed Under: diamond reynolds, fishing expedition, gag order, jeronimo yanez, philando castile, warrant
Companies: facebook

Facebook Reports More Than Half Of Gov't Demands For Content And Data Come With Gag Orders Attached

from the greater-transparency-reveals-more-secrecy dept

US government requests for Facebook data are up, according to the company's latest biennial transparency report. Total requests jumped from 23,000 to 26,000, as compared to the first six months of 2016. Overall, it's an increase of about 12,000 requests over 2015's total.

At this point, Facebook is fielding about 1,000 more requests a month as compared to 2015. While there's not a whole lot of detail in the presented data, the social media platform is now able to report something it hadn't been able to do before the passage of the USA Freedom Act. Both of the 2016 reports now show what percentage of data requests come with a gag order attached.

According to the report, more than half of the orders received in 2016 came with gag orders: 56% for the first half of the year and 50% in the second. Gag orders are standard operating procedure for National Security Letters but those only make up a small percentage of the requests Facebook receives: less than 1,000 total for all of 2016.

A majority of the requests are search warrants, which often come with limited-time gag orders. Or at least they should be limited-time. As we saw in Adobe's recent court win, search warrants appear to be arriving with indefinite gag orders when only delayed notification is justified. Facebook has been pushing back against over-broad requests and government secrecy, but its success has been limited.

Also of interest is the lack of FISA orders. For the first time since Facebook began reporting these numbers, it received no FISA orders for content or non-content data. This would seem to confirm an apparent Section 702 blockage at the FISA court. As was noted here earlier, the FISA court apparently approved zero government requests under Section 702 (internet content/non-content collections) in 2016. The last approved order of 2015 would have carried over into the first couple of months of this year, which may be why Facebook shows FISA requests in the first six months of last year, but nothing past the point of that order's expiration.

So, the government has begrudgingly agreed to a little more transparency, but is ensuring much of what's behind the numbers remains firmly in its grasp. Gag orders accompany at least half the requests the government sends out, and the number of requests continues to increase. At this point, Facebook fields a couple thousand gagged orders a month, with most, presumably, tied to sealed cases and indictments, which kind of makes a mockery of this whole "open court" system. Considering Facebook maintains control of users' accounts, communications, and data on its platform, it makes little sense to withhold notification for extended periods, if not indefinitely.

Filed Under: first amendment, free speech, gag order, government requests, nsl, surveillance, transparency, warrants
Companies: facebook

Search Warrant Gag Order Successfully Challenged In Court

from the UPDATE-GAG-ORDER-NOW? dept

Update: Adobe has clarified that this was not a National Security Letter (NSL), but rather a search warrant along with a "Delayed Notice Order" (DNO) that had no expiration. The principles are the same, but the vehicle was different. We have updated the article below and apologize for the error.

Another government request for info with a never-ending gag order is on its way to being published. There's no way of telling when it will arrive, but it will be sooner than the government's clear preference: never.

Adobe is the unlikely recipient of a search warrant and accompanying gag order. The decision in a recently unsealed case says indefinite gag orders aren't Constitutional, which is good news for the recipients of the thousands of NSLs the FBI issues every year.

Thankfully, the court in Adobe’s case recognized the serious harm to free speech these gags represent. It held that orders barring companies from notifying their users about government data requests are both prior restraints and content-based restrictions on speech subject to strict scrutiny. That’s a very high bar. The court found that the indefinite gag order imposed on Adobe fails strict scrutiny because the government could make “no showing[] that Adobe’s speech will threaten the investigation in perpetuity.”

The decision [PDF] raises the government's hopes before dashing them quite expertly. It opens by agreeing with one of the government's assertions:

Adobe first contends that 18 U.S. § 2750(b) (“Section 2705(b)”) requires that the Court provide a date certain for the NPO’s [Notice Preclusion Order] expiration. The government contends that Section 2705(b) allows for NPOs of indefinite duration. The Court agrees with the government.

But it's this assertion -- the one the court agrees with -- that allows Adobe's free speech arguments to prevail.

Adobe next contends that the NPO is a content-based prior restraint that is not narrowly-tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. As such, Adobe argues, the NPO violates the First Amendment. (Appl. at 4-5.) The government argues that (1) Adobe does not have a right under the First Amendment to notify the Subscriber of the Warrant’s existence; and (2) even if Adobe did have such a right, the government’s compelling interests justify the NPO as currently tailored. The Court finds that a narrower tailoring of the NPO is warranted.

[...]

As written, the NPO at issue herein effectively bars Adobe’s speech in perpetuity. The government does not contend, and has made no showing, that Adobe’s speech will threaten the investigation in perpetuity. Therefore, as written, the NPO manifestly goes further than necessary to protect the government’s interest.

The court also isn't interested in helping the government shift the burden to Adobe as to why this NPO shouldn't be in place indefinitely. In fact, it finds the government's attempt to do so undermines its "this doesn't implicate the First Amendment" arguments.

The government further argues that the NPO is already limited by the Court’s discretion to set an end at some later date. As this “judicial[] limit[]” allows “both Adobe and the government to apply for the order to be lifted after its raison d’etre fades, the NPO is as narrowly-tailored as required.” (Oppo. at 17.) This argument ignores the fact that Adobe is not privy to the government’s investigation. Thus Adobe will not know when the NPO’s “raison d’etre fades.” Moreover, virtually every statute, regulation, order, or other government-imposed restriction on speech can be attacked in a judicial proceeding. Therefore, the government’s argument – in essence, “The order is narrowly-tailored because Adobe has the option of challenging it in court” – demonstrates nothing of relevance.

In any event, putting the onus on the speaker to lift a no-longer-justified content-based restriction is hardly narrow tailoring. Adding the fact that the speaker cannot know when the restriction’s “raison d’etre fades” effectively equates to no tailoring at all. An RCS provider might decide to forego speaking rather than incur the trouble and expense of potentially futile court trips. That the government could in theory, apply to have the NPO lifted is no answer. As the NPO does not apply to the government, the government would have little incentive to do so. Accordingly, on the record before the Court, the government’s argument does little more than illustrate the NPO’s potential for burdening or chilling Adobe’s speech.

Other similar litigation is still ongoing and this decision bears little precedential value, especially in other circuits. But every judicial citation attacking indefinite gag orders helps, especially as these challenges are becoming more common as a result of the USA Freedom Act's creation of new redress options for gag order recipients.

Filed Under: first amendment, gag order, national security letter, nsl
Companies: adobe

Microsoft Latest Service Provider To Pry A National Security Letter Free From Its Gag Order

from the slow-drip-transparency dept

Microsoft is the latest to publish a National Security Letter, following Google, Yahoo, Twitter, Calyx, Cloudflare, and… the Internet Archive. Microsoft's NSL [PDF] was issued by the FBI (of course) and demanded the usual subscriber info.

In the post accompanying the disclosure, Microsoft points out the USA Freedom Act is the only reason it's been able to release the NSL. This is one of the benefits of the recent law: a better, faster way to compel review of NSL gag orders, which used to take place almost never.

In addition, Microsoft notes FISA orders are on the rise. Of course, its reporting is limited to useless "bands," so the only thing that can definitely be determined is Microsoft's FISA interactions have at least doubled.

For the latest Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) data reported, Microsoft received 1,000-1,499 FISA orders seeking content disclosures affecting 12,000-12,499 accounts, compared to the 0-499 FISA orders seeking disclosure of content impacting 17,500-17,999 accounts reported for the previous period.

What's included in the NSL is more of the same: demands for subscriber info backed solely by the authority of the FBI agent who typed it up. No judicial approval needed. What isn't in there are demands for a bunch of info the FBI has no business asking for, like in those served to Yahoo. In one of Yahoo's NSLs, the government demanded the service provider go above and beyond statutory requirements and hand over everything from subscriber phone numbers to "upstream providers" associated with the named account.

It also contains the old, pre-USA Freedom Act boilerplate about challenging the gag order -- something the FBI continued to append to post-USA Freedom Act NSLs until the Internet Archive shamed it into admitting it was using outdated language.

Going forward, the government should expect the challenges to continue. Microsoft notes it's currently in court contesting the feds' increasing use of gag orders -- something it justifies using a law meant to protect the privacy of electronic communications: the ECPA.

The trickle of un-gagged NSLs is encouraging. Even if the releases trail far behind issuances (both in number and elapsed time), the fact that we're seeing any at all remains a small miracle. If service providers are enjoying these very occasional forays out from under gag orders, they might want to consider sending a few fruit baskets Snowden's way.

Filed Under: gag order, national security letter, nsl
Companies: microsoft

Just Prior To Hearing Over NSL Gag Orders, Court Allows Cloudflare & CREDO Mobile To Be Named As Plaintiffs

from the about-time dept

In December, we wrote about how (thanks to EFF's lawyering) mobile phone provider CREDO Mobile was finally (after many years) allowed to reveal the National Security Letter (NSL) it had received from the DOJ back in 2013. As per usual, the NSL had a complete gag order, barring the company from admitting it had received such a letter. Then, just about a month later, Cloudflare was similarly ungagged over an NSL it had received in 2013 as well.

On Wednesday, EFF will be back in the 9th Circuit appeals court arguing that these NSLs are First Amendment violations, but for the first time, it can actually name those two companies as its clients. Even though those NSLs were finally allowed to become public in the last few months, the case itself still did not include their names, until Monday, when the court was told by the DOJ, that since the FBI had concluded the various investigations, and because it had enabled each of the companies to reveal those specific NSLs they had received, that it no longer required the plaintiffs' names in the case to be sealed. Of course, we don't know how many other NSLs are still gagged (possibly even with these two companies). Indeed, the EFF's announcement certainly hints at more:

On Wednesday, EFF Staff Attorney Andrew Crocker will tell the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that these gags are unconstitutional restrictions on CREDO and Cloudflare’s free speech and that the FBI’s belated decision to lift some of the gags only underscores why judicial oversight is needed in every case. The gag orders barred these companies from participating in discussion and debate about government use of NSLs—even as Congress was debating changes to the NSL statute in 2015.

Hopefully, the appeals court recognizes the serious First Amendment issues at play here.

Filed Under: doj, fbi, first amendment, free speech, gag order, national security letters, nsl, nsls
Companies: cloudflare, credo mobile, eff

NY Legislators Looking At Installing A Free Speech-Stomping 'Right To Be Forgotten'

from the order-your-Constitution-Doormat-today! dept

New York state legislators apparently think the state's so cosmopolitan it may as well be Europe. As Adam Steinbaugh points out on Twitter, though, local comparisons aren't nearly as flattering.

[If you can't read/see the tweet]

New York legislature working diligently on overtaking California and Arizona on demonstrating least understanding of the First Amendment

There's nothing like being negatively compared to Arizona (remember the short-lived "First Amendment-protected activity is against the law" bill?) to take the gloss off the latest legislative ridiculousness. A new bill in the state legislature would make New York an outlier in constitutional protections (or no, it wouldn't, because it wouldn't survive a constitutional challenge, but for the sake of argument…). For no conceivable reason, the bill seeks to implement a New York-located "right to be forgotten." How that's supposed to work out when it's not the law in the other 49 states remains unexplained.

§ 50-f. Right to be forgotten act.

1. Upon the request from an individual, all search engines, indexers, publishers and any other persons or entities that make available, on or through the internet or other widely used computer-based network, program or service, information about the requester, shall remove information, articles, identifying information and other content about such individual, and links or indexes to any of the same, that is "inaccurate", "irrelevant", "inadequate" or "excessive" within thirty days of such request, and without replacing such removed information, article or content with any disclaimer, takedown notice, hyperlink, or other replacement notice, information or content, or cooperating with any other person or entity who does any of the foregoing. For purposes of this section, "inaccurate", "irrelevant", "inadequate", or "excessive" shall mean content, which after a significant lapse in time from its first publication, is no longer material to current public debate or discourse, especially when considered in light of the financial, reputational and/or demonstrable other harm that the information, article or other content is causing to the requester's professional, financial, reputational or other interest, with the exception of content related to convicted felonies, legal matters relating to violence, or a matter that is of significant current public interest, and as to which the requester's role with regard to the matter is central and substantial.

This is a horribly-written, horribly-broad, no good, terrible-all-around proposal. I have no idea what sort of information could be described as "inadequate" or "excessive," and the chances are information that's truly "irrelevant" will sink to the bottom of search engine rankings soon enough.

The bill does not define any of these terms (well... not in any meaningful way), nor does it address how information that fits its inadequate definitions will be removed from the web when a great deal of hosting services lie far outside the law's jurisdiction.

On top of that, there's the question of what's "material to public debate/discourse." Who gets to decide what's still material? The person bringing the complaint? If so, the law is entirely subjective and provides no affirmative defense for those facing charges/fines under the law. It's as if the legislators crafting this law looked at the DMCA and decided it just wasn't abusable enough. Citizens clearly deserve a second, more streamlined route for the removal of criticism, unflattering photos, or whatever doesn't further the marketing of a person's brand.

Then there's the prior restraint. (This bill is truly breathtaking in its sheer level of unconstitutional shittiness.) The law forbids those served with a "right to be forgotten" order from discussing the government's content removal demands.

...without replacing such removed information, article or content with any disclaimer, takedown notice, hyperlink, or other replacement notice, information or content, or cooperating with any other person or entity who does any of the foregoing.

It's not just prior restraint on those served with an order. It's prior restraint that effectively silences everyone in the law's jurisdiction. Site A's order and subsequent content removal can't be discussed anywhere on that site. And Site A can't point to other sites discussing Site A's content removal, even if these other sites lie outside the law's jurisdiction.

This bill should -- if there's any amount of brain activity in the NY legislature -- die a swift and unceremonious death. But nothing this bad stays dead forever. It will return in some other shape or form months or years later because some people truly believe information doesn't want to be free -- it wants to be forgotten.

Filed Under: first amendment, gag order, new york, ny, prior restraint, right to be forgotten

Twitter Reveals Two National Security Letters After Gag Orders Lifted; Rightly Complains About Gag Orders

from the first-amendment? dept

In the last few months, we've seen multiple internet companies finally able to reveal National Security Letters (NSLs) they had received from the Justice Department, demanding information from the companies, while simultaneously saddling those companies with gag orders, forbidding them to speak about the orders. It started last June, when Yahoo was the first company to publicly acknowledge such an NSL. In December, Google revealed 8 NSLs around the same time that the Internet Archive was able to reveal it had received an NSL as well. Earlier this month, Cloudflare was finally able to reveal the NSL it had received (which a Senate staffer had told the company was impossible -- and the company's top lawyer was bound by the gag order, unable to correct that staffer).

And now we can add Twitter to the list. On Friday, the company announced that the gag order on two NSLs had been lifted. There's one from 2015 and another from June of last year. Twitter appears relieved that it's finally able to reveal these, but quite frustrated that it was gagged at all.

If you don't recall, Twitter has been much more aggressive than basically all of the other tech companies in challenging these gag orders. Back in 2014, Twitter sued the government, claiming it was a First Amendment violation to enforce these gag orders. That was after most of the other major internet companies had come to an agreement over how and when they could report such requests. Twitter, thankfully, felt that the agreement between the DOJ and internet companies was way too stifling and has fought it:

Twitter remains unsatisfied with restrictions on our right to speak more freely about national security requests we may receive. We continue to push for the legal ability to speak more openly on this topic in our lawsuit against the U.S. government, Twitter v. Lynch.

We continue to believe that reporting in government-mandated bands does not provide meaningful transparency to the public or those using our service. However, the government argues that any numerical reporting more detailed than the bands in the USA Freedom Act would be classified and as such not protected by the First Amendment. They further argue that Twitter is not entitled to obtain information from the government about the processes followed in classifying a version Twitter’s 2013 Transparency Report or in classifying/declassifying decisions associated with the allowed bands. We would like a meaningful opportunity to challenge government restrictions when “classification” prevents speech on issues of public importance.

Our next hearing in the Lynch case is scheduled for February 14, 2017. Concurrently, Twitter is using the statutory means provided in the USA Freedom Act to seek more transparency into similar NSL requests, and will provide updates as they become available.

That last paragraph makes it fairly clear (though it should have been obvious) that Twitter is still gagged on more NSLs. And that's kind of a key thing in all of these recent "releases" of NSLs. They're only released when the government lifts the gag orders on them -- and that's very troubling. There is a long history in this country of the government abusing its powers to spy on the public. If it alone gets to decide when to reveal the nature of its surveillance efforts, then the public really has no insight or understanding into just how widespread the practice might be.

And the most ridiculous thing in all of this is that it's hard to fathom any actual justification for this kind of thing. Yes, you can understand not necessarily revealing an ongoing investigation into a crime, but the gag orders go much further, barring companies from even admitting how many NSLs they receive. It's hard to see how revealing that kind of information -- in any way -- compromises law enforcement or intelligence investigations. The only thing it serves to do is to hide from the public the scale of the surveillance.

Filed Under: doj, first amendment, gag order, national security letter, nsl, nsls
Companies: twitter

Trump Muzzles Federal Employees; Reporters Start Asking For Leaks

from the we'll-see-how-this-goes... dept

Reports started coming out this morning that the new Trump Administration had told the EPA that it needed to stop doing anything publicly without first getting approval from the White House (in addition to freezing grants and contracts). According to a memo that was sent around to EPA staff:

If you can't read that, the key parts say:

• No press releases will be going out to external audiences.
• No social media will be going out. A Digital Strategist will be coming on board to oversee social media. Existing, individually controlled, social media accounts may become more centrally controlled.
• No blog messages.
• The Beach Team will review the list of upcoming webinars and decide which ones will go forward.
• Please send me a list of any external speaking engagements that are currently scheduled among any of your staff from today through February.
• Incoming media requests will be carefully screened.
• No new content can be place on any website. Only do clean up where essential.
• List servers will be reviewed. Only send out critical messages, as messages can be shared broadly and end up in the press.

Why yes, such messages may end up in the press.

Of course, it quickly became clear that this was not just for the EPA. The USDA received similar marching orders. Same with the Department of Health & Human Services and possibly others as well, including the Department of Commerce, being told it can't even publish the basic research it releases for US companies.

It's possible to say that this is just the Trump administration hitting the pause button to figure out what's going on before moving forward again, but many in these agencies are quite worried that they're going to be muzzled for political reasons. Most of the people working in these agencies are civil servants, not political appointees, and their work is not at all political. The press releases and blog posts are generally to release new findings, research and data from taxpayer funded studies. This shouldn't be controversial or reviewed for political motives.

Of course, this kind of thing is hardly unprecedented. For many years, we wrote about the ridiculousness of then Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper gagging Canadian scientists from talking about factual research that was politically inconvenient (including a study on fish stock). This kind of gagging on "politically sensitive" but factual science was only lifted last year once Justin Trudeau came into office. Of course, just a few months before that, the UK similarly started muzzling scientists to stop them saying anything the politicians didn't like.

One hopes the Trump administration will not be putting in place similar policies.

Of course, if that is the plan, it should be a huge boon for investigative journalists. And they're already hunting for sources. As the reports on the gag order came out this morning, lots of reporters stepped up on Twitter with notes on how to contact publications with information:

So, perhaps this kind of gag order will lead to a golden age of whistleblowing. Unfortunately, it may also lead to further crackdowns on whistleblowers. Once again, as we've explained over and over again the past few years, the Obama administration was the most aggressive and proactive in cracking down on whistleblowers and the press, and they've now handed off that power and precedent to the Trump administration, which will have a pretty big opportunity to use it.

Filed Under: commerce department, donald trump, epa, gag order, hhs, leaks, reporters, usda