Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Orders Google To Comply With FBI's Warrantless NSL Requests

Posted by Soulskill on from the completely-unwarranted dept.

An anonymous reader writes "CNet reports that a U.S. District Court Judge has rejected Google's attempt to fight 19 National Security Letters, which are used by the FBI to gather information on users without a warrant. Quoting: 'The litigation taking place behind closed doors in Illston's courtroom — a closed-to-the-public hearing was held on May 10 — could set new ground rules curbing the FBI's warrantless access to information that Internet and other companies hold on behalf of their users. The FBI issued 192,499 of the demands from 2003 to 2006, and 97 percent of NSLs include a mandatory gag order. It wasn't a complete win for the Justice Department, however: Illston all but invited Google to try again, stressing that the company has only raised broad arguments, not ones "specific to the 19 NSLs at issue." She also reserved judgment on two of the 19 NSLs, saying she wanted the government to "provide further information" prior to making a decision.' This does not affect the Electronic Frontier Foundation's challenge to the constitutionality of the letters in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals."

44 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Funny

    Putting the Constitution aside a moment ... oh, wait, they've already done that. Carry on citizen.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Hmm ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whoa, you're brave even mentioning the constitution. Don't you know that puts you on federal watch lists, one of which has been found out: IRS.

    2. Re:Hmm ... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We're not putting the Constitution aside, we're putting it on display for all to see... in a cellar... without lights or stairs... in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard".

      But the point is that it's on display for all to see.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:Hmm ... by steelfood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No. It's on display for all to see.

      In the paleoanthropology section of the Smithsonian.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  2. Reading only this summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Looks like the judge doesn't like these things but can't do much about them, at least not in broad strokes.

    That itself is curious.

    Of course, that these things exist at all is pretty bad, and that the justice department is out of control is even worse.

    Then again, not being an American[tm], little I can do about it.

    1. Re:Reading only this summary... by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's more like shes saying "I want to strike these down, but if I do it will be a big deal and I don't like the way you submitted your objections. So please resubmit them in the proper way so when I strike this down it'll really stick"

      or at least, that's what I'm hoping for.

    2. Re: Reading only this summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the idea of yours invading other countries to "liberte" them is hilarious to the rest of the world.

    3. Re:Reading only this summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's more like shes saying "I want to strike these down, but if I do it will be a big deal and I don't like the way you submitted your objections. So please resubmit them in the proper way so when I strike this down it'll really stick"

      or at least, that's what I'm hoping for.

      It sounds like Google was trying to nip the entire issue in the bud by arguing against NSLs as a concept ("broad strokes"). The judge has basically said "you can't do that, try pointing out problems with these specific NSLs and I'll block them but that's all you'll get out of me".

  3. What's the government's problem? by nanospook · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If their concerns are valid, why don't they simply get a warrent?

    --
    Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
    1. Re:What's the government's problem? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Informative

      If their concerns are valid, why don't they simply get a warrent?

      Because a warrant has provisions for letting people know about them.

      NSLs are super duper top secret, and you can't tell anybody about them. As in, there's no real oversight of them, and as long as they keep them secret they can do anything they want to.

      Surely you don't expect an open and honest process? They wouldn't be looking at these people if they didn't already know they were terrorists ... what are you, some kind of hippy?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:What's the government's problem? by Qzukk · · Score: 2

      Their concerns aren't valid, they're just casting 200,000 letters out and hoping to get a fish.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    3. Re:What's the government's problem? by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's just it. For the most part their concerns aren't valid. The government just wants to go on a witch hunt, and won't tolerate any interference. This is not the the main problem. The main problem is that we won't do anything about it and will reelect the same people who put all of this into place, as we have always done.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:What's the government's problem? by Antipater · · Score: 2

      The original intent of NSLs was counter-espionage purposes during the Cold War. They wanted to track down Russian spies without tipping them off. Additionally, the information requested is supposed to be the sort that you don't need a warrant for - phone numbers dialed but not a transcript of the phone call, email addresses but not the email text, etc. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy on that stuff.

      Unfortunately, since the Patriot Act, they've started, shall we say, overstepping their bounds. Just a little.

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
    5. Re:What's the government's problem? by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      O here we go again.....
      "reelect the same people who put all of this into place"
      And we elect new people and they do the very same thing, despite what they touted on the campaign trail.. Voting is an illusion and voters are tools..
      Do you think the DOJ is going to give up this level of power because there are new faces in office? Wake up already..

    6. Re:What's the government's problem? by intermodal · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, as a matter of fact. I am some kind of hippie. Are you going to investigate everyone who owns a Volkswagen now? I guess I shouldn't be giving them ideas...

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    7. Re:What's the government's problem? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      So what if the 'new' people do the same thing. That's no excuse to reelect them again. You do it until you get it right. But those who wait for mass media to spoon feed who they should vote for can fuck off.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    8. Re:What's the government's problem? by intermodal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If there is one thing we need to challenge as a nation, it's the concept of government secrecy. The way it has encroached into areas that it has no business in (i.e. things which aren't like avoiding having Germany know about our radar/sonar/aircraft effective ranges/location of troops during World War II) is highly troubling. Today, even the remote possibility of something being vaguely and obtusely connected to something that might be mildly inconvenient gets turned into a "secret", a capability that has been shown not just to increase abuse of government power and constitution-breaking activity, but to lead to the defense of the indefensible.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    9. Re:What's the government's problem? by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 2

      It's a damn fucking shame too. But hey as long as they catch those terrorists and let me get back to my [insert sport here] and [insert mindless degrading reality show here], I'm all for it. If you have nothing to hide, what is to fear?

    10. Re:What's the government's problem? by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 2

      And therein lies the problem, my good sir. How do you get those who enjoy being spoon-fed the horeshit that comes from mainstream media to realize the error of their ways without them first (a) losing interest, or (b) sticking their head in the dirt and singing "la la la" -- in either case losing them before you get them to think critically? We're basically fucked, b/c that won't happen. The vast majority is willing to give up rights, freedoms, etc. as long as they're protected from "turrists" and can go on living their pacified, infinitesimal lives.

    11. Re:What's the government's problem? by sqrt(2) · · Score: 2

      The real problem is ultimately one of economics. A government agency, once created and staffed, is unlikely to ever be shuttered, as its employees and staff become dependent on it for their livelihood. Knowing that they'd be unable to find equal paying work in the private sector, they search with desperation for some task to give their apparatus the appearance of relevance. Finding very little credible national security threats (despite what the government would have you believe we are living in an era of peace and plenty unprecedented in all of human history, and the trajectory is more of the same), they resort to the tactic analogous to the private sector's "cold calling." Just look everywhere you can and maybe some business will turn up, it's better than sitting idle which is what you'd be doing anyway--and idle workers are usually fired in the name of efficiency. Except it's not better, when the office in question searching for business is involved in national defense, any kind of police or martial activity, espionage, etc. In these spheres of human action, the zealous drive to reduce the number of idle hands only invents more tools of the devil which we sought to avoid in the first place.

      Perhaps if people weren't required to work so much for their own livings we could reduce this compulsion to create problems where there are none simply to keep all the warm bodies occupied to some task. Why has productivity skyrocketed in the 20th and 21st centuries yet working hours remain flat, and in many cases have increased with employers increasingly demanding, and indeed feeling entitled to, access to workers' off hours. Why is our society still insistent on forcing everyone to have a job to pay for their own subsistence even as our technologically sophisticated civilization is running out of useful work to which the everyman can be put? When will we accept that the busywork they end up finding for themselves actually creates more human suffering, reduces liberty, and retards economic progress more than it enables self-sufficiency and ennobles the human spirit?

      There will come a time when the average man will see human technology, created by generations of his species' best and brightest each standing on the shoulders of the last, eclipse even his wildest estimate of his own personal potential in all aspects. What will be left to him when his leaders and betters, perhaps literally looking down on him from their towers lofted to the sky and stars, that he must still find some useful work to put himself in order to enjoy the material plenty which surrounds? What recourse will be left to him, but that which is common to even the lowliest of animals, the drive to fight, and kill, and take, and feed, to preserve the spark of life another moment. For this alone is certain: man does not die quietly just because he is told. He will go on fighting to the end--yours or his.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    12. Re:What's the government's problem? by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      To bad the Nixon administration didn't think to do that back in 1972. Those democrats may have been communists, there was really only one way of finding out.

      what nixon did is now legal. he wasn't such a crook after all.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    13. Re:What's the government's problem? by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      NSLs are super duper top secret, and you can't tell anybody about them.

      I don't get this. If providers/libraries/etc really wanted to get rid of NSLs they'd just have a message show up on on the webpage every time you login saying "we can confirm that we've never received an NSL asking for your data." Then one day you log in and the message changes "in your particular case we can neither confirm nor deny that we've received an NSL asking for your data." As far as I can tell this would fully comply with the letter of the law.

  4. WTF by JDG1980 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How can the NSL process possibly be construed as anything other than a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment? It's basic, black-letter law: warrants have to be issued by the judicial branch, not the cops themselves. Are the courts really going to allow the Fourth Amendment to be read out of the Constitution by a meaningless invocation of "national security"?

    1. Re:WTF by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How can the NSL process possibly be construed as anything other than a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment?

      Executive Orders.

      It's basic, black-letter law: warrants have to be issued by the judicial branch, not the cops themselves

      But these aren't warrants, they're letters. Much more powerful, because they say so.

      Are the courts really going to allow the Fourth Amendment to be read out of the Constitution by a meaningless invocation of "national security"?

      Have you not been paying attention? The 4th amendment has been interpreted so narrowly that if it isn't actually 'paper' and on your person, it's not covered by the Constitution. And the whole border check thing within 100+ miles of any border. And free speech zones. And holding US citizens without trial. And assassinating citizens.

      They've been bypassing the Constitution for almost 12 years now, when and how they see fit.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:WTF by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Almost 12 years? Is this some reference to 9/11? Or is that just when you started paying attention?

      No, that's just when they started doing it blatantly and saying it was their right. I have no doubt it was done before, but since then it's been pretty egregious.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As much as I don't like it, that argument won't stop the FBI SWAT team from busting through your door at 3am.

    4. Re:WTF by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      This insistence on sticking to the letter of the constitution smacks of Tea Partyism. Let's get to the root of the matter, let's give up on the constitution. It contains archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions. Moreover, it is worshipped by right-wingers and anything that they like is dodgy by definition.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:WTF by thrich81 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For one example, thousands of Japanese-American citizens interred during WWII can tell you all about bypassing the Constitution. Everyone has their underpants in a wad now bemoaning the recent "shredding of the Constitution". Well it was no better in the past and if anything, the abuses were worse before -- try the Anti_Sedition laws of WWI or Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus. So, yeah, these NSLs are a problem, but no worse than what came before and the Constitution is as strong as it ever has been, for what that is worth. Eternal vigilance is required to keep it that way. The previous abuses were eventually recognized for what they were.

    6. Re:WTF by clonehappy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. I don't have any rose-colored glasses, nor do I harken back to any halcyon days where the government was just completely honest, free from corruption, and always did what was in the best interest of the people. The United States government has never done that.
       
      However, I do firmly believe that 9/11 had to happen before they could "come out" with what they had been doing for years. Of course, there were terrorist attacks before 9/11, but those were mostly small time acts perpetrated by Americans. The people in charge know that we won't give up our liberties (again, knowingly) because one of our own did something crazy. We know other Americans, and we know that the majority of them aren't up to any no good.
       
      No, to give up our rights, we needed someone who didn't have any constitutional protections. A foreign enemy, but one that could be living right here amongst us. They could be using our email systems our cellular networks, our internet service providers!!!
       
      You see, the terrorists hated our freedoms. And they were using them against us! So of course, the only obvious solution is to get rid of the freedom. With freedom, comes risk. Once the average citizen had become stupid, fat, and lazy enough to care more for their own comfort and perceived safety than being free, it was time to drop the hammer on us. Now that the precedent has been set, any legal victory or victory over the minds of people that can be attained by the minority who treasure their freedom and can actually see and understand what is happening can be countered simply by giving some relatively small incident wall-to-wall media coverage for a few weeks, then letting the "pundits" sit and tell everyone how anti-American it is to not want to do "x". (x being reading everyone's emails, listening to everyone's phone calls, banning guns, placing a large urban area under martial law, or warrantless this or national security letter that...the list goes on and on.)
       
      So, essentially, any time the people on the side of good win back one step of freedom or due process, we take 5 more steps down the road to slavery. This is why it's so egregious now. Someone essentially disabled the firewall (the public caring and fighting for freedom), then used a root exploit (a perceived massive threat to safety sold to us by the media) on the constitution.
       
      The only way to fix it is to remove the offending exploit (stop caring about every little incident that occurs) and put the firewall back up (make people care about freedom again). Unfortunately, given how we are all asleep at the wheel, there's a snowball's chance in hell of that actually happening. As long as the average citizen has food, booze, sex, and "Ow, My Balls!" on the TV, why would they want anything more?

    7. Re:WTF by Jockle · · Score: 2

      The people in charge know that we won't give up our liberties (again, knowingly) because one of our own did something crazy. We know other Americans, and we know that the majority of them aren't up to any no good.

      Since most people are imbeciles and subscribe to the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mindset, that seems unlikely. You're giving most drones too much credit.

    8. Re:WTF by moeinvt · · Score: 2

      I definitely think 9/11 was an inflection point where the erosion of our civil liberties and government power grabs accelerated sharply and in unprecedented ways.

      Prior to that, the 1994 gun ban was the biggest assault on The Constitution in recent history. That's sort of when I started paying attention. I realize that The Constitution had been pretty well trampled on before then, but I can't think of anything, say from the '70's and '80's that even comes close to what's happened since 2001.
      Did you have something in mind, or were you considering 1787 to the present?

    9. Re:WTF by zippthorne · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, given how we are all asleep at the wheel, there's a snowball's chance in hell of that actually happening. As long as the average citizen has food, booze, sex, and "Ow, My Balls!" on the TV, why would they want anything more?

      That's actually by design, too. Why else do you think we have been so interested in importing vast, uncountable numbers of people from countries where they're already accepting of overbearing government....

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  5. Terrorists Won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So wait, non elected officials are making secret extra-legal requests that they also say we cant talk about 97% of? And they don't even have enough evidence to get a proper warrant for them? And they are targeting innocent until proven guilty American citizens and possibly political adversaries? And the requests will never re unsealed so we may never know if there was mischief at play or legitimate national security risks? And we have a secret closed door tribunal that not even Google can talk about?

  6. Civil disobedience by Hatta · · Score: 2

    If Google wishes to hold true to their motto, "Do No Evil", they can start by disobeying these orders. Compliance with unjust authority is evil.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Civil disobedience by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 2

      What, they haven't disobeyed the blatantly illegal gag order? Why the hell not?

      Because NewEgg's attorney doesn't work for them.

      "Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that." --Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng

  7. To anybody who votes dem or republican by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What are you complaining about? You knew that's what these people do, and yet you keep voting for them... WTF?!

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  8. Re:I wrote to my representative by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

    You should have replied.

    Maybe we should stop bullying, invading and occupying all those other countries then."

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  9. Ridiculous by moeinvt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    NSL's are supposed to be reserved for matters regarding terrorism or homeland security. IIRC, the original PATRIOT Act stated that an NSL must come directly from the AG or FBI director. That's obviously false if there were 190K of them done in a 3 year period. Can any random FBI employee write one of these? That's ridiculous, because one of the fundamental ideas of The Constitution is that cops do NOT get to write their own search warrants.

    The gag order provision is also a clear violation of the Right of free speech. The feds search your customer's data and you can't tell ANYONE, including your colleagues, let alone the affected customers? Under penalty of prosecution? Likewise ridiculous.

  10. Doesn't help google but... by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I love the rsync.net "solution" to this problem, the Warrant Canary:

    http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt

    Wonderful idea. Sure, we can't tell you if one of these secret letters is given to us, but, until we get one, we can tell you it hasn't come...with signed, date verifiable messages.

    Of course, only works for relatively small companies that are not getting requests as a matter of course.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  11. Is the FBI going to send NSLs to redtube? by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 2

    Cause that's where some really embarrassing shit is stored about me.

    --
    Sig. Sig. Sputnik
  12. Most transparent administration in history... by JBMcB · · Score: 2

    ... for everything that doesn't really matter.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  13. Disbar, impeach, and imprison that shyster. by jcr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The fourth and fifth amendments are perfectly clear, and this so-called judge has just helped the government to pretend that they're not. The PATRIOT act is not a law at all, it is an act of usurpation.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  14. Re:continuously stating to not having received an by mspring · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just learned this is called a Warrant Canary.

  15. Total nonsense! by tlambert · · Score: 2

    And the idea of yours invading other countries to "liberte" them is hilarious to the rest of the world.

    The US is going around the world installing democracy. If it can be proven that democracy can work in places where there were previously repressive regimes, then they will try it in North America.