Facebook and Microsoft Disclose Government Requests For User Data

wiredmikey writes "Facebook and Microsoft say they received thousands of requests for information from U.S. authorities last year but are prohibited from listing a separate tally for security-related requests or secret court orders related to terror probes. The two companies have come under heightened scrutiny since reports leaked of a vast secret Internet surveillance program U.S. authorities insist targets only foreign terror suspects and is needed to prevent attacks. Facebook said Friday it had received between 9,000 and 10,000 requests for user data affecting 18,000 to 19,000 accounts during the second half of last year and Microsoft said it had received 6,000 to 7,000 requests affecting 31,000 to 32,000 accounts during the same period." Meanwhile, an article at the Guardian is suggesting the government may have better targets to pursue than Edward Snowden. "[U.S. director of national intelligence James Clapper] has come out vocally to condemn Snowden as a traitor to the public interest and the country, yet a review of Booz Allen's own history suggests that the government should be investigating his former employer, rather than the whistleblower."

Comments

Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

"[U.S. director of national intelligence James Clapper] has come out vocally to condemn Snowden as a traitor to the public interest and the country"

No. The people responsible for spying on American citizens are the ones who have betrayed their country and the public interest. They're the ones who should be caught, tried, and imprisoned. Government officials who violate the US constitution are traitors. People like Snowden are heroes.

Re:Treason

[girlintraining]

o. The people responsible for spying on American citizens are the ones who have betrayed their country and the public interest.

I doubt they see it that way. And in any case, it's easy to blame somebody else... or a group of people... but let me ask: Did you vote in the last election? Did you write to your congress critters at any point during the long procession of decisions that has led us to this point? Held up a sign on a street corner? Had a meaningful discussion with a stranger about this? Met with anyone to discuss the problem? Democracy doesn't run very well on apathy... it's rather like pouring diesel into a gas tank... the results aren't pretty and the engine usually dies as a result.

They're the ones who should be caught, tried, and imprisoned.

Might I suggest that since we already have the highest incarceration rate of any country on the planet we start looking to solutions to social problems that don't involve sending people to our criminal education centers? Because that's pretty much what prison is: It's a place you go to meet like-minded people and learn all kinds of shit you wouldn't otherwise learn... and are then normalized to the idea that what you did was okay. And then you're released back into society where you're promptly told you have few housing or employment options, no friends, and very often just the clothes on your back. Oh... and a fresh new education.

. Government officials who violate the US constitution are traitors.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom â" go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!" -- Samuel Adams

If you aren't participating, you're part of the problem. As part of the problem, you must be a traitor. As a traitor, you should be executed. (grabs a big rock) So, how do you want to die, sinner?! ... In other news, extreme statements like calling people "traitors" can result in extreme reactions, like stoning to death. Of course, a more civilized discourse would avoid using words like "traitor" to describe government officials carrying out their official duties, and perhaps might focus instead on the actual constitutional definition of what a traitor is... since you did invoke the Constitution afterall. Since you're obviously unfamiliar with the relevant passage...

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

People like Snowden are heroes.

Snowden himself disagrees with your assessment.

Re:Treason

[Darinbob]

And the 25,000 brave drivers who died on the road, who can forget them. That's 2000 a month. We should outlaw automobiles.

Re:Treason

[Anonymous Coward]

But what about 9/11 ? This country can't afford to lose another brave 2,000 in this war, or any more buildings.

Oooh, is that what passes for insightful nowdays?

US Casualties in Iraq -- 4488
US Casualties in Afghanistan -- 2220

If this country cannot afford to lose more people in wars, maybe they should stay out of wars?

Re:Treason

[1000101]

People like Snowden are heroes

Snowden himself disagrees with your assessment.

Charles Barkley doesn't think he's a role model either, but guess what... he is. When people do extraordinary things, there is a significant chance that millions of people will hold such actions in high regard and elevate said person to 'role model' or 'hero' status. Snowden is a hero for the simple fact that he ousted illegal activity by a government organization. If the actions weren't illegal, but were just 'super secret', Snowden would be a traitor and should hang. But no, all he did was risk his own life to expose quite possibly the worst betrayal of trust the U.S. government has ever bestowed upon its citizens.

Re:Treason

[bkmoore]

We had ample warning prior to 9-11. The FBI was even keeping track of Mohammad Atah while he was taking flying lessons in Florida. It was the higher-ups in D.C. who didn't take the threat seriously and refused to act on this information.

Another example, the shoe bomber, who was thwarted at the last minute by passengers. His father had grown suspicious about his son, and warned the U.S. embassy in his country. Another real lead that was not followed up on.

After every successful terrorist attack, there is always some soul searching about how this attack could have been prevented. I don't see how spying on Americans by default would have changed things on 9-11. In the end, people have to make decisions based on the incomplete information that is available and chose which leads could be true threats and which ones are probably not. That's where the break down in U.S. security is; effectively interpreting the information available. Not that there is not enough information in the first place.

If the U.S. really wants to be safe from Muslim extremists, the U.S. should focus on building better relations with the Muslim community. The first step would be to stop betraying those values we preach to others. The second step would be to improve access for young people int he middle east to educational opportunities in the U.S. through an expanded visa and scholarship program. The third step would be to improve primary and secondary education in the middle east. I know schools aren't as sexy as an armed Global Hawk drone. But the best information comes from people on the ground who are in contact with potential terrorists. If the U.S. were seen in a more positive light, we would get better information as a result. Lastly, intervening in Syria and taking sides in yet another middle-eastern civil war, is just plain stupid.

Re:Treason

[bkmoore]

Pragmatic response would be, the best information about threats would come from people in "that group." If you want access to useful information on which to build good intelligence, you would need to have good relationships with "that group." Or you could be like Israel, and put "them" behind a fence, and watch your reliable information sources dry up and your cost of collecting information rise exponentially. The Maginot Line defense seldom works in the real world.

Re:Treason

[crutchy]

This country can't afford to lose another brave 2,000 in this war

if those 2,000 brave fools hadn't signed up in the first place they wouldn't have died

and for anyone who thinks that without the brave fools terrorists would take over the world... wake the fuck up and get a clue dipshits... when you invade and blow up other countries, you piss people off and they fly planes into your buildings... so... stop blowing people up and you won't need to worry... it's not rocket science for fuck's sake

I don't understand this

[FuzzNugget]

"[U.S. director of national intelligence James Clapper] has come out vocally to condemn Snowden as a traitor to the public interest and the country"

I simply cannot wrap my head around this. How is it in public's interest to be constantly surveiled in violation of the bill of rights?

Re:I don't understand this

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Wait. I thought Snowden was a liar. So how could he be a traitor to [USA] public interest?

Re:I don't understand this

[girlintraining]

I simply cannot wrap my head around this. How is it in public's interest to be constantly surveiled in violation of the bill of rights?

It gets better. Mr. Clapper said, under oath and before Congress, that Snowden "didn't have the access" necessary to make his claims. He then goes on to state that he's a traitor. Well... he's lying about one of these two things: Either Snowden had access to classified information and is a credible source... or he didn't have access, in which case he can't be a traitor, because he's not giving away government secrets, since he never had them to begin with.

I suspect this is the NSA version of "We don't have a problem and we're working to fix it as quickly as possible," and by fixing, of course we mean throwing someone under the bus. Since Snowden is at the bottom of the food chain, we'll start there, and continue feeding people to the lions at progressively higher levels of the bureauacracy until the "problem" goes away. And the problem of course isn't that the NSA is doing this, but that they got pants'd by some kid. Remember, it's not wrong if it's legal! -_-

Re:I don't understand this

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I simply cannot wrap my head around this. How is it in public's interest to be constantly surveiled in violation of the bill of rights?

That is what happens when the people in power become convinced of their own righteousness. It is not an evil plot, it is simply the natural result of fact that basically no one ever thinks of themselves as the bad guy. So if they are the good guys, then whatever they do must also be good. They convince themselves that any harmful side-effects truly are minimal (easy to do when the side-effects don't impact them directly) and are a necessary cost for the greater good.

read carefully

[stenvar]

If you read carefully, saying that specific requests have come in for 20000 users doesn't mean that there aren't other mechanisms in place to collect a lot more data without specific requests. For example, the NSA could be collecting data where Facebook's servers connect to the Internet. Past reports and disclosures on NSA activities (as well as the activities of other spy agencies) suggest that this is likely routine practice. Facebook doesn't even deny this, and of course even if they did, it's questionable whether such a denial was meaningful. In addition, it's clear that the NSA and other agencies actively collect data from all open sources that they can. And, of course, you have to assume that the Utah data center is going to be used to store something, and it ain't gonna be data obtained from just 20000 Facebook-related requests, because those would fit on my hard drive.

So I don't know what these disclosures are supposed to accomplish. They really don't change anything. At the root of the problem is really that there isn't enough transparency and that people have lost trust. What we need and should demand is complete legal, fiscal, and legislative transparency on our spy organizations, what they are legally allowed to do, who sets limits on them, and how much we're spending on it. I don't see why understanding in such general terms what these organizations do should hinder their ability to catch terrorists. And if such disclosures really interfere with their capabilities, that suggests by itself that they are doing something they shouldn't be doing.

Re:read carefully

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

doesn't mean that there aren't other mechanisms in place to collect a lot more data without specific requests. For example, the NSA could be collecting data where Facebook's servers connect to the Internet.

Apparently SSL encryption at all of the large internet corps is handled by dedicated front-ends - and the network between the SSL front-ends and the real guts of entities like facebook, google, etc are all in the clear. That makes for a perfect location for the NSA to drop their sniffers in, no need to compromise any SSL certs at all, no forward secrecy, etc, just wide open traffic perfect for raw harvesting.

And, of course, you have to assume that the Utah data center is going to be used to store something, and it ain't gonna be data obtained from just 20000 Facebook-related requests, because those would fit on my hard drive.

I think that bears repeating - the NSA ain't building data silos (there are others, like one in san antonio, texas) that consume as much electricity as a small city for nothing. They are collecting literally tons of data on us, its gotta be coming from somewhere.

Re:read carefully

[stenvar]

A lot of this "big scary NSA" non-sense is based on a misconception that just because the NSA is capturing this information means they're using it, or even looking at it.

The fact that this information is easily available at all, and potentially without a court order, is a threat to our political system. You can be sure that the president gets national security reports on all major political figures, both allies and foes alike. Tax evasion, extramarital affairs, homosexuality, illegitimate children, drug habits, whatever are all considered security relevant and would of course be reported. And all of those also happen to be wonderful means for exerting pressure on people to vote his way or drop out of political races. This is too powerful a political weapon to give to the executive branch.

money siphoning

[gl4ss]

well.. if nothing else it's highly relevant that the programs work pretty much as a funds siphoning device(in addition to being secret, useless and rights infringing).

you would think that if they had any brains they would legislate such programs to be done with governmental employees only, no? wouldn't it make sense that only military/police/nsa personnel would be allowed to work on the project? 200k/year for technicians! imagine how much the company was billing the government for that 200k - put it at mildly at 400k. for a technician in a role they shouldn't be buying from a private contractor in the first place in a project that should not be touched by private contractor hands in the first place.. now it runs on basis of "hey here's xxx million - do what you please with it! hire friends! give stupid support contracts!".

you know what's worse than a spy program? a spy program ran by dicks for money. it's as stupid as hiring your own veterans as private contractors for military operations.

i'll just leave this here

[Anonymous Coward]

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD

Re:i'll just leave this here

[Dereck1701]

I think a lot of people have given up on the White House petitions site, the responses thus far on positions the administration does not approve of have been less than stellar. They are often a boilerplate response roughly approximating "we understand your concerns and will take them under advisement" which is bureaucrat for "get lost".

If they arn't doing anything wrong?

[Dereck1701]

What are all of the three letter agencies so afraid of? I mean, If they aren't doing anything wrong they shouldn't be concerned with some reasonable transparency. As long as they don't have anything to hide, right?

Its always amazing how some federal agencies seem to think it is so important to have unfettered access to others information so they can "keep a vigilant eye out" yet they so detest anyone making sure that their own activities remain above board. Especially in light of the obvious revolving door between the private sector companies which stand to make billions, and the three letter agencies dolling out those fees. As noted in the Guardian article James Clapper the current director of National Intelligence, one of the loudest voices of "disapproval" against Snowden's actions, was Vice-President of Booz Allen Hamilton not too long ago. That coupled with his lies to congress in regards to these programs............ If we're looking for traitors I'm far more concerned with the ones who are fleecing the American taxpayers out of hundreds of billions of dollars and lying to government inquests than one individual who released classified documents in an attempt to inform the public about possibly illegal acts.

The ultimate crime:

[Black Parrot]

making public officials look bad.

Statistics - reporting half year

[skegg]

Is it appropriate to report half a year's worth of data?

Facebook said Friday it had received between 9,000 and 10,000 requests for user data... during the second half of last year

Though not unheard of, six months is an uncommon period to report; isn't the general expectation that they would report a full year's worth? Of course that would result in the requests being approximately doubled. My concern would be people will remember the amount as "9,000 and 10,000 requests per year".

This reminds me of politicians who also skew the time period to make dollar amounts appear larger or smaller.
To make dollar amounts appear larger, they increase the time period ("we're investing $4 billion over ten years").
An innovative approach recently used by Australian Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus to convince Australians that politicians were only awarding themselves a tiny increase in public money was to use the following: the increase is only a dollar per vote per year.

I suspect the choice of "six months" was a deliberate attempt to skew the perception of the requests.