Finally Revealed: Feds Sought Info From Google & Sonic.net About Wikileaks Helpers

from the of-course dept

At the beginning of this year, we gave Twitter kudos for not rolling over when the government came calling with a so-called 2703(d) order (like a search warrant, but with much fewer protections for privacy) related to information concerning people associated with Wikileaks. We also wondered who else had received such an order and had not stood up to it. Some of the info is starting to come out, and it appears that both Google and ISP Sonic.net received such requests, at least concerning Jacob Appelbaum. Sonic.net notes that it, too, fought the request, but lost. It then fought to have the request made public, which finally happened, though some details are still under seal:

Sonic said it fought the government's order and lost, and was forced to turn over information. Challenging the order was "rather expensive, but we felt it was the right thing to do," said Sonic's chief executive, Dane Jasper. The government's request included the e-mail addresses of people Mr. Appelbaum corresponded with the past two years, but not the full e-mails...

It's unclear if Google similarly fought the order. The company says it won't comment on specific cases. It's nice to see that Sonic was willing to fight for its users (which continues to cement the company's reputation as being one of the few user-first ISPs). It still remains likely that the government sent these orders to many others as well. In the case of Twitter there were multiple people being investigated, not just Appelbaum, though it's unlikely most of those others used Sonic.net. So chances are, other ISPs and other service providers received the orders, and whether or not they fought the government may never be known. In the meantime, the government continues its fishing expedition against Wikileaks, but apparently still hasn't found a smoking gun.

Filed Under: jacob appelbaum, personal info, privacy, searches, wikileaks
Companies: google, sonic.net, wikileaks

When You're About To Fly, Who Do You Fear More: Al Qaeda... Or The TSA?

from the you're-doing-it-wrong dept

Kashmir Hill highlights a great quote from Elie Mystal discussing the insanity of the TSA's "standard procedures" in cases such as the groping of a dying woman:

TSA. You are supposed to be protecting us, but at this point you are... terrorizing us.

But I think the even better quote comes from Julian Sanchez, discussing these same two articles:

At this point, is the average person boarding a plane more fearful of Al Qaeda or TSA?

It's a damn good question, though I think we all know the answer.

Filed Under: privacy, searches, tsa

Prosecutors In Vermont Don't Want Limits On Computer Search Warrant

from the why? dept

The EFF has the unfortunate story of how prosecutors in Vermont, doing an investigation into an identity theft, requested an incredibly broad warrant to seize computer equipment, CDs, mobile phones and other devices in someone's home. The judge realized this might be way too broad, and limited the warrant, "putting reasonable bounds on the search, as well as including basic privacy protections for information and data not connected to the identity theft under investigation." It's hard to see how anyone could argue against such limits... but apparently, the prosecutors feel otherwise. They filed a petition in the Vermont Supreme Court to allow the original, overly broad warrant be allowed instead. I can't fathom the argument for such a fishing expedition. Warrants are supposed to be narrowly executed around the specific crime being investigated. The court limits made sense here, and yet prosecutors seem to be admitting that they want to go fishing for anything else they can find as well.

Filed Under: computers, privacy, searches, vermont, warrants

TSA Takes Security Theater On The Road: Mobile Groping Teams Can Pop Up Anywhere

from the somehow-this-makes-me-feel-less-safe dept

Via Julian Sanchez, we learn that the TSA has apparently been taking its security theater on the road, with special mobile teams, as a part of its VIPR (Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response) program. These teams apparently show up unannounced, and start their usual groping and scanning procedures at bus stations, train and subway stations, and occasionally even on passenger cars.

While the TSA is claiming it's doing this to "prevent terrorism" (of course), some are noting that the TSA is working closely with ICE on these efforts, and it often seems like these "random" searches are specifically targeting potential illegal immigrants, rather than actual terrorist threats.

Of course, no one has a problem with the general idea of stopping terrorism or enforcing the basics of the law. But it does seem highly questionable, on basic 4th Amendment points, for the TSA to just magically drop in a team that gets to search people without any other basis beyond "we're here from the TSA, and we're here to grope."

Filed Under: privacy, searches, tsa

Studios Apparently Would Prefer Searches Only Turn Up Pirated Copies, Rather Than A Legit Option

from the do-they-not-think? dept

There have been some stories about how YouTube is preparing to work with a bunch of big movie studios to sell access to movies. It's been offering up some movies for a year or so, though it hasn't really caught on. The hope is that with big Hollywood pictures, people might care more. I'm not convinced it will be that big of a deal -- especially for folks who use Netflix -- but it's an easy enough thing to do. Except... apparently two of the major studios, Fox and Paramount, are balking at the deal, because they don't like that people can find unauthorized copies of their movies via Google's search functionality. This makes no sense. Basically they're saying they'd rather that when people search on their movies, that their only options are unauthorized versions, rather than having a legitimate version at the top of the list. This is not how you "compete" with unauthorized versions.

Filed Under: movies, piracy, searches, streaming, studios, youtube
Companies: fox, google, news corp., paramount, viacom, youtube

Once Again, Court Says Homeland Security Is Free To Seize & Search Your Computer Without A Warrant At The Border

from the bad-rulings dept

We've noted, repeatedly, how troubling it is that customs seems to feel no duty to obey the 4th Amendment at the border, and that the courts have allowed this. It's even worse when it comes to searching digital devices, such as laptops. As we've explained before, what you have access to via your laptop is entirely different than what you pack in a suitcase for entering the country:

1. You mostly store everything on your laptop. So, unlike a suitcase that you're bringing with you, it's the opposite. You might specifically choose what to exclude, but you don't really choose what to include. With a suitcase, you specifically choose what to include.
2. The reason you bring the contents on your laptop over the border is because you're bringing your laptop over the border. If you wanted the content of your laptop to go over the border you'd just send it using the internet. There are no "border guards" on the internet itself, so content flows mostly freely across international boundaries. Thus if anyone wants to get certain content into a country via the internet, they're not doing it by entering that country through border control.

And this becomes even more ridiculous in the era of cloud computing, where a drive may be mounted over the network, and thus never actually cross the border at all -- and yet, Homeland Security seems to think it has the right to search all of this, and the courts have mostly agreed.

And, once again, we have yet another appeals court ruling that says this is fine even if the laptop is taken away from the customs station and brought into the country. We've had similar rulings in the past, and this one involves laptops that were taken away from the border and brought to another location, 170 miles away, where they were searched. The lower court said this evidence could not be used, but the appeals court reinstated the evidence, claiming that tossing out such evidence "would only reward those individuals who, either because of the nature of their contraband or the sophistication of their criminal enterprise, hide their contraband more cleverly or would be inclined to seek entry at more vulnerable points less equipped to discover them."

But that makes no sense. I mean, if you're good at hiding your "contraband" that's already true. Nothing about this ruling changes that. All this ruling does is say that it's okay for border officials from Homeland Security to search through your stuff without reasonable suspicion. It's not about rewarding people who better hide things, it's about the basic requirement of the 4th Amendment that there be probable cause before the government can take your stuff and search it. Only the dissenting judge seemed to recognize this basic issue in the ruling, which is embedded below, noting: "I add my voice to the chorus lamenting the apparent demise of the Fourth Amendment."

The majority ruling claims that it's not setting up an "anything goes" situation at the border, but it's difficult to see how it's placed any limits at all on Homeland Security. It claims that it's fine to search laptops at the border, because Homeland Security and ICE have a compelling reason to keep material out of the US that it doesn't want crossing the border. But, when it comes to digital content, that's just silly. No one is crossing the border with a laptop to "get content into the country." They can do that using the internet just fine. Claiming that searching the contents of a laptop are like searching a suitcase is as if you are technically illiterate.

Of course, since this is a child porn/child abuse claim, it's easy to say that it's a "good thing" that the search caught this guy -- which it did. And I'm happy he was eventually arrested. But I'm still troubled with how the evidence was collected, and anyone who crosses the border with their computers should be equally concerned. Don't let the fact that this case was about child pornography detract from the important issues about your own privacy rights concerning information stored on a laptop.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, border, computers, homeland security, ice, searches

Guy Who Undressed For TSA Search (With 4th Amendment Written On Chest) Sues Over Airport Detention

from the this-won't-go-far dept

We've seen various ways that people have protested TSA searches, but for one guy who decided to undress (as he suggests, to help the TSA out) and, as a part of that, display the 4th Amendment written on his chest, it led to him being detained and told he was under arrest (though, he didn't miss his flight): However, he's now suing the government over all of this, claiming that the whole thing violated his 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment rights, along with false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. While I'm sympathetic to what he's trying to do, I can't see this getting very far at all. Judges have given the TSA great leeway (for better or -- in many cases -- worse) in what they do, and there doesn't seem to be anything particularly unique about these challenges. Perhaps I'm wrong and it's actually a good case, but it just seems unlike to impress a judge.

Filed Under: arrests, privacy, searches, tsa

Canadian TSA's Non-Apology Apology To 82-Year-Old Woman

from the that's-not-an-apology dept

We just had a story about how the Canadian version of the TSA, the CATSA, had treated an 82-year-old woman to ridiculous security procedures -- berating her for not originally telling them about the gel in her prosthetic breast (there due to her mastectomy because of breast cancer) and then arguing with her because she physically could not lift her arms in the new naked scanners. Reader Joe points out that the CATSA eventually did offer an apology... of sorts. It's not a real apology, in that they don't say they're sorry for what they did. They're just sorry the lady got upset:

"We apologized for not having met her expectations and expressed our regrets for the unpleasant experience, and that doesn't change, regardless of the results of the review."

So they're not sorry for the actions. They're sorry she expected more from them. How nice. Separately, the article points out that the CATSA will not reveal publicly what their investigation into the matter finds, meaning it doesn't really matter what the investigation finds. They also won't reveal the CCTV tapes -- which could make sense on privacy grounds, but also sounds like they perhaps don't want people seeing what actually happened.

Filed Under: canada, catsa, searches

So Who Else Did The Government Demand Info From In The Wikileaks Investigation?

from the and-why-didn't-they-fight-it? dept

We've already pointed out that Twitter deserves serious praise for standing up to the government's gag order on an information request for some folks associated with Wikileaks. Others noticed the same thing. As Ryan Singel at Wired noted, Twitter beta tested a spine, and that sort of response should be standard. Singel (and some of our own commenters) also pointed out that Twitter was following in the footsteps of Nicholas Merrill, the head of Calyx Internet Access. Merrill, famously, fought a gag order on a National Security Letter he received from the FBI.

Still, as we pointed out in our original post on this, it should make you wonder who else got these gagged data requests from the feds and just rolled over and handed over the info. It appears that others are wondering this as well. There's quite a bit of speculation that both Facebook and Google likely received similar court orders (with similar gags included), and of course neither company will comment. Hopefully, in the future, they'll recognize from Twitter's lead that it's not just possible to stand up to these requests, but it's also a damn good idea.

Filed Under: government, privacy, searches
Companies: twitter

Customs' Hamfisted Attempts To Intimidate Wikileaks Volunteers

from the witch-hunts dept

Computer security expert (and US citizen) Jacob Appelbaum, who is well known for his work on Tor, had been having some issues lately concerning his involvement as a volunteer with Wikileaks. He was among those who had their info requested by the Feds via Twitter. And he's been having issues traveling to and from the US lately. Last July, he was detained upon flying into the country and it looks like something similar has happened again, where he was detained, searched and questioned after flying into Seattle from a vacation in Icleand.

He was careful to travel with no computers or gadgets whatsoever, other than some USB keys with encrypted versions of the Bill of Rights. He noted that the initial customs agent, to whom he handed over the declaration form was friendly until she pulled up his account, and from there things went sour. He asked to speak to a lawyer, which was denied on the grounds that he wasn't being arrested.

Apparently he was told initially that he was pulled aside as part of a "random" search, which leads Appelbaum to joke about the actual randomness -- which was also shown to be false when one of the agents mentioned his pre-flight Twitter activity.. He also pointed out that those detaining him were disappointed that he wasn't traveling with computers or mobile phones, and that Iceland had plenty of computers, such that he didn't need to bring his own.

In the end, after about half an hour's detention and search, they did let him go. Some might consider that to not be that big of a deal, but it clearly has something of a chilling effect. He notes that the mental stress of being in such a situation is not at all enjoyable. This is unfortunate. If he's done something wrong, arrest him. If he has not, harassing him every time he crosses the border is just obnoxious.

Filed Under: customs, detained, jacob applebaum, searches
Companies: wikileaks