300,000 NSL's? Is that really how many terrorist plots they've foiled or even suspected? Because I'm very skeptical about that.
The fact that the government can put a gag order 300,000 times on companies and people like this is insane. Forget about "future abuses". It has already happened and keeps happening. It's pretty clear the government is very loosely using these NSL's now. Where are the checks and balance?
Let me get this straight, when you receive an NSL from the FBI (executive branch) then you are not allowed by law to contest it in court (because of the gag order) without fearing repercussions for violating the gag order by revealing the NSL to the executive branch? Where are the checks and balances??
So what happens if you tell them to go away anyway? They take you to court? Raid your datacenter? Good luck getting public support for that. Seems the problem with these secret orders is, you can't actually _enforce_ them without making them public, you can just make threatening gestures.
I'm dissapointed no tech company has decided to play hardball on this...
Wouldn't defying the court order mean you are breaking the law? I wonder what that would mean in terms of fines and possible legal implications for the directors?
I am sure the Government would say that the company is with holding data essential to counter-terrorism. With a bit of Government spin I don't see how the tech company could come off positively from making such a stand.
They would accuse you of 'supporting terrorism' and 'aiding the enemy' - both of which can come with lengthy jail terms.
Pretty sure that no matter how outraged you or I might be by this, the person in the street would believe the spin: 'I can't believe company X really wants to support terrorists by keeping information from those that are trying to make this country safe'.
Look at the lack of outrage at the treatment of Manning (or god forbid the inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay - most held without charge with no hope of a trial, simply still held because no (friendly) country will take them - and you know we can't have them going home now can we...)
Are people actually upset with Google and the other tech companies over all of this? It seems they were legally compelled to do it. Be furious at Washington, not Silicon Valley.
Funny how tech companies don't mind breaking the law on principle when it aligns with growing their company, but when it comes to principle alone, they break like twigs.
They can certainly manage to avoid compliance with at least the spirit of the law when it really matters to them. I guess avoiding paying tax is important enough to engage armies of lawyers and reorganise your corporate structure, while this isn't.
It doesn't matter. If you use their services, you are under the watch of Big Brother. Now I have to go untangle the mess that is my integration with Google. VPS in Argentina here I come!
But google also has part of the blame: it reassured people with "do no evil" and it's fights with government, instead of telling from the start that this would happen , as they would probably have known , and offering better technical protections against such things.
But in reality , it's a complex subject. Maybe they really thought that in world with global terrorism and crime , internet surveillance is the lesser of two evils.
If you don't want Google giving your data to the FBI, then don't use google. Oh - wait - Google is gonna get your data no matter what. Google Analytics.
This is isn't specific to Google, and I would go further and say that ISPs are a much juicier target than Google. ISPs have the raw access to all your traffic and wilt more easily when pressed by law enforcement (eg Carnivore).
I don't think there is an easy way to solve this. From law enforcement's perspective, big tech companies have already done the hard work of getting users' data; all they need is a warrant or a NSL or any other magic ticket. That is the problem we should solve.
I don't even understand the ignorance of this comment every major tech company had been cited as participating and especially the isp's. Google analytics is nothing in comparason to what the isp's know
Doesn't Google Analytics just collect metadata that you're sending in your HTTP requests anyway? And basic tracking cookies for distinguishing unique users/visits?
I don't think there's really a reasonable expectation of privacy for that sort of data. You're already sharing it with every other website you visit.
Companies like Google, FB, Tweeter even Amazon and Opera are intentionally built to collect, mine and analyze, then sell (or profit from) its user's data. This is just a standard way of making money - collect a huge dataset of user-generated data and then monetize it.
No wonder that authorities will use the data, because, well, it is just business as usual.)
Sure, but let's say there was a very popular e-mail company where you paid for the service. They would be keeping your e-mail anyway. Do you really think it would make any difference for NSA/FBI? They'd still get them just as easily as from Google, Apple and others.
I can't help but wonder how such a system can be practically implemented. I cannot imagine that engineers at companies like Google, Apple, MS etc, the ones working on stuff like Gmail, YouTube, iOS, would co-operate with such unethical practices.
But it has been proved again and again that authority trumps conscious.
This is a classic "technology is neutral" situation, or if you prefer, "social problems don't have technical solutions".
I'm sure some of the technologies I've worked on during my professional career could be used to do things under ethically dubious circumstances. They could also be used to do the exact same things with a sound ethical and legal basis that almost everyone would agree was reasonable. And they could also be used to do many other completely unrelated and useful things where there is no ethical dilemma at all. Context is everything.
I would guess that the majority of people who work in any kind of manufacturing or information services industry could say the same thing, probably including technicians working on communications systems at the kinds of organisation you mentioned. Most of those people have no way to know or influence the way their work will ultimately be used further down the line. Society is too big and too complex to expect action or accountability for everything at that level.
That means the only practical position is to say that responsibility for (mis)use of general purpose tools must lie with the (mis)user, and if the system isn't working, that is the level where any fixes need to be applied.
I'm surprised google didn't go public with all of this information. They have more legitimacy and support than the government at this point, and I think that if push came to shove, google would just refuse and call the NSA's bluff.
Could they just partition user data so that data locality on citizens of country X are located in country Y and therefore outside the jurisdiction of country X.
When you sign up, they could make this an option. "Do you prefer faster access to your data or have you data located in a specific jurisdiction?"
How does this effect foreign users of these services? I mean I'm pretty sure that they haven't restricted their data collection to US citizens. Is there international law about this?
Uh, the NSA's primary mission is to conduct data surveillance on foreign entities. The reason why PRISM exists is that much of this data flows through American companies' servers.
[+] [-] mtgx|13 years ago|reply
The fact that the government can put a gag order 300,000 times on companies and people like this is insane. Forget about "future abuses". It has already happened and keeps happening. It's pretty clear the government is very loosely using these NSL's now. Where are the checks and balance?
[+] [-] e40|13 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/patriot-ac...
[+] [-] flyinRyan|13 years ago|reply
Now? It's never been any other way. I wonder if they ever intended anything else.
[+] [-] EGreg|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kahirsch|13 years ago|reply
This is true since, at least, 2006.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3511
[+] [-] chiph|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jordanthoms|13 years ago|reply
I'm dissapointed no tech company has decided to play hardball on this...
[+] [-] bobsy|13 years ago|reply
I am sure the Government would say that the company is with holding data essential to counter-terrorism. With a bit of Government spin I don't see how the tech company could come off positively from making such a stand.
[+] [-] ljf|13 years ago|reply
Pretty sure that no matter how outraged you or I might be by this, the person in the street would believe the spin: 'I can't believe company X really wants to support terrorists by keeping information from those that are trying to make this country safe'.
Look at the lack of outrage at the treatment of Manning (or god forbid the inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay - most held without charge with no hope of a trial, simply still held because no (friendly) country will take them - and you know we can't have them going home now can we...)
[+] [-] AddisonRyan|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dclowd9901|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rodgerd|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] b6|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] monkmartinez|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tlrobinson|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ippisl|13 years ago|reply
But google also has part of the blame: it reassured people with "do no evil" and it's fights with government, instead of telling from the start that this would happen , as they would probably have known , and offering better technical protections against such things.
But in reality , it's a complex subject. Maybe they really thought that in world with global terrorism and crime , internet surveillance is the lesser of two evils.
[+] [-] johen|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flyinRyan|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andyl|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] afhof|13 years ago|reply
I don't think there is an easy way to solve this. From law enforcement's perspective, big tech companies have already done the hard work of getting users' data; all they need is a warrant or a NSL or any other magic ticket. That is the problem we should solve.
Disclaimer: I work on Google Analytics.
[+] [-] w1ntermute|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] angryasian|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SquareWheel|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pavs|13 years ago|reply
http://www.slashgeek.net/2012/06/15/how-to-be-completely-ano...
[+] [-] DominikR|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] easong|13 years ago|reply
Also blocks as many other tracking scripts as can be found. I've found it to be faster than ghostery etc.
[+] [-] kyllo|13 years ago|reply
I don't think there's really a reasonable expectation of privacy for that sort of data. You're already sharing it with every other website you visit.
[+] [-] gelnior|13 years ago|reply
https://www.cozycloud.cc/
http://owncloud.org/
[+] [-] kiba|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marssaxman|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dschiptsov|13 years ago|reply
No wonder that authorities will use the data, because, well, it is just business as usual.)
[+] [-] mtgx|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rpgmaker|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexandrosjanis|13 years ago|reply
The FBI has always had less access to SIGINT than the FBI.
The NSA has one purpose: SIGINT. The FBI is a much broader and, in this sphere, weaker authority.
[+] [-] mrschwabe|13 years ago|reply
http://www.pcworld.com/article/217550/google_watchdog_white_...
[+] [-] pcx66|13 years ago|reply
But it has been proved again and again that authority trumps conscious.
[+] [-] Silhouette|13 years ago|reply
I'm sure some of the technologies I've worked on during my professional career could be used to do things under ethically dubious circumstances. They could also be used to do the exact same things with a sound ethical and legal basis that almost everyone would agree was reasonable. And they could also be used to do many other completely unrelated and useful things where there is no ethical dilemma at all. Context is everything.
I would guess that the majority of people who work in any kind of manufacturing or information services industry could say the same thing, probably including technicians working on communications systems at the kinds of organisation you mentioned. Most of those people have no way to know or influence the way their work will ultimately be used further down the line. Society is too big and too complex to expect action or accountability for everything at that level.
That means the only practical position is to say that responsibility for (mis)use of general purpose tools must lie with the (mis)user, and if the system isn't working, that is the level where any fixes need to be applied.
[+] [-] neaanopri|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] malandrew|13 years ago|reply
When you sign up, they could make this an option. "Do you prefer faster access to your data or have you data located in a specific jurisdiction?"
[+] [-] Tosh108|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danso|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Quarrelsome|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grandalf|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _progger_|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrisgd|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krugmanlol|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]