Google Releases Data On FBI Spying

An anonymous reader writes "According to Wired, 'National Security Letters allow the government to get detailed information on Americans' finances and communications without oversight from a judge. The FBI has issued hundreds of thousands of NSLs and has even been reprimanded for abusing them.' It's significant, then, that Google has released data about how many NSLs they've received annually since 2009. The numbers are fuzzed — the FBI apparently worries that if we know how often they're spying on us, we can figure out who. But Google is able to say they've received from 0-999 letters each year for the past four years. And we know it's likely near the upper end of that range because they list the number of accounts affected, as well: always over a thousand."

Comments

We Need to Roll Back the PATRIOT Act

[Karl Cocknozzle]

We've gone way too far with empowering the government. The time is now to roll back the "emergency" terrorism powers the government gave itself after 9/11. We are not "at war" with Al Qaeda in the United States. There are plenty of opportunities to catch terrorists without infringing on the rights of law-abiding Americans who have done nothing wrong.

These powers were voted into place in a panic and now we're living with the consequences.

Re:We Need to Roll Back the PATRIOT Act

[Anonymous Coward]

Finish the PATRIOT act? Why do you hate America?

You would vote for the COMMIE act, for sure.

Re:We Need to Roll Back the PATRIOT Act

[Presto Vivace]

Compare this aggressive surveillance with the slap on the wrist of HSBC, and it is hard to believe that this is really about national security.

Re:We Need to Roll Back the PATRIOT Act

[rmdingler]

A decade ago, the Municipality where I reside enacted a quarter cent sales tax increase to build a sporting complex that was to "sunset" away as soon as the debt was paid off. (Advertised as a huge economic plus to the entire community, blah blah blah...) It has become crystalline to any observer not too poor to pay attention that the City will never willingly allow this revenue source to dry up. The justification process has already begun at Council meetings: maintenance issues will have to be resolved by increased property tax evaluations if this tax increase is allowed to fade, etc. Whether you are talking about a tax or a way to circumvent a citizen's Constitutional freedoms, once they're in your overlord's hands, they're gone baby gone.

Re:We Need to Roll Back the PATRIOT Act

[dkleinsc]

One of my basic insights of life: When someone is running around screaming "emergency", a lot of the time they simply want people to shut down the smart part of their brain and do something they otherwise wouldn't.

Some examples of what people often mean when they say "This is an emergency!":
- Your boss: "Please work lots of overtime for no compensation."
- A salesperson at your company: "Please work lots of overtime so I can get a big fat commission."
- A salesperson selling to you: "Please don't think too hard about either the product or the price."
- A politician: "Please stop complaining about this bill I'm going to shove through that hurts you and helps my friends."
- A non-profit: "Please donate more time and money to our group, preferably without asking too many questions."
- Some (thankfully not all) spousal partners: "Please give me more control over our shared resources so I can buy the things I want." Or "Please make me feel appreciated."
- A friend or family member: "Please give me more of your time, money, and attention."

So that's why you have to define what an emergency is and what it isn't. My personal definition: A problem where human lives or a very large amount of property is at stake, and swift action will demonstrably reduce the damage. That means that a heart attack is an emergency, a server down is a problem but not an emergency. In the case of the Patriot Act, all the useful emergency actions had been done several weeks earlier, and the emergency part of what happened was over when Congress passed the bill.

Re:We Need to Roll Back the PATRIOT Act

[TheGratefulNet]

you are only half right. the people were in a panic. the lawmakers were cool, calm and licking their chops. police and military also salivated at the New Normal(tm).

only the people were told to 'be afraid!'. the rest, well, their dreams came true! more money for their buddies. why build roads here and improve our infrastructure when we could, you know, have an all new buying spree on spy shit, tanks for police, and tasers. lots and lots of tasers and chemical weapons (cough, I mean, its essentially just a food product..). cause, tasers and weapons grade sprays really help fight FOREIGN enemies...

Re:We Need to Roll Back the PATRIOT Act

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol (but not really) at the person who thinks the PATRIOT act (or supporting it) has anything to do with patriotism or protecting US "freedoms".

Re:We Need to Roll Back the PATRIOT Act

[emho24]

It would be interesting to start up a White House petition asking for the repeal of the patriot act. "Interesting" may be a poor choice of words on my part, the official response would probably be more amusing than interesting.

Two fun White House petitions might be:
- repeal the Patriot Act
- dismantle Homeland Security

I never believed the hype about it

[dkleinsc]

"National Security Letters" were quite plainly search warrants and subpoenas without Fourth Amendment protections back when they were first proposed. And that's all they'll ever be: If the FBI had real evidence that somebody was a bad guy, they could have easily gone to a judge and said "We'd like to investigate this person, and here's why."

Instead, we're heading into Kafka land: People investigated and/or locked up without charges, without evidence they can confront, without a chance of freedom, and punishment of death when it's all over.

Re:I never believed the hype about it

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure they do. They are then called bigots and racists because these are Obama policies and the only reason to oppose an Obama policy is if you are a bigot.

By the way, Holder yesterday announced that it is within Obama's power to drone strike a US citizen on US soil without a trial based on whatever he deems is approprate. You've lost democracy cheering for the dictator while screaming names at the rebels.

Re:I never believed the hype about it

[Anonymous Coward]

Holder says drone strikes on US soil are legal. But then again I've been told by former president Carter that I'm a bigot so you shouldn't listen to me.

Re:I never believed the hype about it

[moeinvt]

Your and the government's line of reasoning is laughable.

Yes, force is sometimes justified. The "circumstances" you're describing are cases where a criminal poses an IMMEDIATE DANGER to those around them. An armed robbery clearly meets that legal standard.

You and the government are trying to equate that with the practice of dropping a missile on someone who isn't actively engaged in any criminal act just because the White House assumes the person is a terrorist.

You say "of course" the president can order this? Where in The Constitution is the president empowered to assassinate U.S. citizens without charge or trial? The fact that he is exercising this power doesn't mean he can LEGALLY do it. In fact, the ACLU has been demanding that the White House publicize their legal justification. They have thus far refused.

This practice is totally illegal and totally un-Constitutional.

Color me surprised. Thanks Patriot Act!

[rmdingler]

'In the interest of National Security' is a fast and loose term that has too often been used to escape the cleansing sunlight of oversight.

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

FBI releases data on Google spying.

Only less than a 1000?

[Isca]

I'm actually surprised it was only under 1k since there are so many google account holders.

Taking a step back for just a moment, I can see an actual suspect (one in which they have gone and gotten a warrant on) having a mail account that has mailed xxx number of other emails - if they really think their warranted suspect is a terrorist threat then they will want to look into the email accounts/gchat logs of those he emailed.

I think the concept of needing to do this is ok in certain investigations but it needs needs more judicial oversight with checks and balances. Even if it's a judge saying "what investigation is this attached to?" and tying it to a subpoena'd suspect. I'd also like to make sure that this is only used for national security issue. I wouldn't want this flipping over into normal run of the mill criminal activities. I'd even go so far as to say "If evidence is found in this way it's off limits" as evidence so it doesn't have the temptation of being abused.