Slashdot Mirror
Google Files First Amendment Challenge Against FISA Gag Order
The Washington Post reports that Google has filed a motion challenging the gag orders preventing it from disclosing information about the data requests it receives from government agencies. The motion cites the free speech protections of the First Amendment. "FISA court data requests typically are known only to small numbers of a company’s employees. Discussing the requests openly, either within or beyond the walls of an involved company, can violate federal law." From the filing (PDF): "On June 6, 2013, The Guardian newspaper published a story mischaracterizing the scope and nature of Google's receipt of and compliance with foreign intelligence surveillance requests. ... In light of the intense public interest generated by The Guardian's and Post's erroneous articles, and others that have followed them, Google seeks to increase its transparency with users and the public regarding its receipt of national security requests, if any. ... Google's reputation and business has been harmed by the false or misleading reports in the media, and Google's users are concerned by the allegation. Google must respond to such claims with more than generalities. ... In particular, Google seeks a declaratory judgment that Google as a right under the First Amendment to publish ... two aggregate unclassified numbers: (1) the total number of FISA requests it receives, if any; and (2) the total number of users or accounts encompassed within such requests."
Good luck with that. If they don't get blown out of the first Federal Court who hears it, we may have an actual chance to hear what the Government is actually requesting, not the sanitized and approved verbiage that has been coming out. Somewhere between what Snowden has been saying and the Government is allowing people to comment on, the truth may be found.
The Patriot Act needs to go and so does this secret court bullshit where information is handed over on a whim, not on a true judicial review.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
The usual way First Amendment cases are decided is that someone exercises their right to free speech, the government tries to stop them, and they challenge that attempt at restraint in court. E.g. rather than suing for a declaratory judgment that you have the right to publish a James Joyce book, you just publish it, and then defend yourself if the government tries to come after you.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The gag order is blatantly illegal under the 4th amendment, and as such carries no force of law.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It doesn't look like anyone trusts what the government is saying about their FISA requests. Does anyone trust what Google says any better?
Proverbs 21:19
Logs Everything.
You must not be paying attention. They are practically required to these days.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Unconstitutional laws are unenforceable
Not if the Supreme Court disagrees with you that a particular statute is unconstitutional.
Seriously, what would the government do if Google just went ahead and released the information?
Uh...put people in Jail for breaking the law? There is no legal defense--so unless you want to move to China, you beg for permission to speak.
This a plot by the corporates to establish more precedent for Citizens United v FEC by getting the courts to once again uphold first amendment rights for non-persons.
Enjoy figuring out where to stand on this one, Slashdot. :) If you have to write a 1500 word essay to explain your reasoning, you lose.
</troll>
They will get blown out of the first court. Thats the norm.
But it hardly matters, because sooner or later it reaches the Supreme Court, and there is this little matter of the Constitution involved.
Every company with a web presences should grow a pair and join this suit.
Reasonable safeguards can be put in place (delays, or reviews in an open court by a REAL judge that actually attended law school),
but telling someone they can never reveal something is just plain wrong.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Just to be clear, that was an honest "good luck with that" right?
Why would they "get blown out of" court exactly? Do most federal judges enjoy things which, to me, seem to intentionally violate the constitution? Does google lack the funds to hire lawyers who would be competent enough to point out how idiotic these things are? I'm not a lawyer, as most slashdotters are not.
But it hardly matters, because sooner or later it reaches the Supreme Court, and there is this little matter of the Constitution involved.
True, but the supreme court can be wrong, and they have been in the past.
Funny thing about the Supreme Court being wrong... Its sort of like Paple Infallibility.
They are right when they make a decision (because our constitution pretty much pronounces that to be the case) and
they are just as right when they overturn their prior decisions, as they frequently do.
In the fullness of time FISA courts are going to be found unconstitutional. Precise predictions as to WHEN are not possible, but
either that happens or the United States of America ceases to exist. Some say it already has.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Discussing the requests openly, either within or beyond the walls of an involved company, can violate federal law
Any act of congress that purports to deny our freedom of speech is not a law at all, but a usurpation. Congress has no power to trump the constitution.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
we may have an actual chance to hear what the Government is actually requesting
They're only asking to be allowed to release counts, not the content of the requests. So, no, still no chance of finding out what's being requested.
Have you read my blog lately?
Once upon a time, I'd always heard that those types of gag orders were to prevent the individuals under investigation from being alerted so they couldn't hide evidence or flee, and I'm not opposed to that.
These days it seems to be more of a political move for the purposes of avoiding oversight and preventing the authorities from being charged with illegal, or at least immoral and unethical, activities.
They will get blown out of the first court. Thats the norm.
Federal judges have lifetime appointments, and little inventive to rule against what they actually believe to be right. Since Google HQ is in California, the first court is likely to be in the 9th district, which has a reputation for smacking down government overreach. Google may ultimately lose, but it isn't a certainty.
They're only asking to be allowed to release counts, not the content of the requests.
So they're only asking to release metadata, which according to Mr. Clapper isn't a type of data, so I don't see why the gov't would reject this.
From TFA:
Google asked the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on Tuesday to ease long-standing gag orders
So its not even out of the FISA court yet, and when it does leave the FISA court, its not going to district court. It goes to the court of appeals.
And its not likely going to the 9th Circuit either, and you can thank your lucky stars for that.
The 9th circuit gets bitchslapped more than any other circuit for just being wrong.
The 9th approved warrant-less GPS tracking. Bitchslapped by SCOTUS.
Way too many of 9th Circuit rulings have failed constitutional muster, and bolstered big government over reaching.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
I love how all these companies who had no qualms about collecting our personal data and slinging it to anyone with a paycheck have all of a sudden become Constitutional warriors.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
this sounds a lot like the visit Kim Dotcom received. I keep thinking about him lately, and wondering if he just wasnt going to play ball, and had the perfect platform for "enemies of the state" to take advantage of.
Our government unilaterally rewrote the basic agreement between We, the People who are sovereign, and the government which is supposed to report to us. As a result, no citizen can understand the reasons behind the actions of his Representatives or the government. Thus, the government is sovereign as We, the People, have no control of it. This is treason. This is the functional equivalent to a coup, kept secret by the people who did it. We cannot allow the government to engage in anything that require secrecy, or we will be in this situation again. So, time to become a neutral nation the way the guys who wrote the Constitution intended. Bring the troops home and repudiate all of the treaties that allow them to be overseas. Repeal the acts enabling our NSA, CIA, FBI and FISA, as these are all more dangerous to us as citizens than anything they purport to protect us against. Purge the Department of Justice, which seems to exist to write memos justifying obviously bogus interpretations of laws and the Constitution. Remove every person from government who knew about, and did nothing to oppose, any episode of torture, drone attacks on US citizens, or any of this spying, Un-elect all Representatives who knew about and did nothing to oppose these things. Anything less than this, the coup will ultimately succeed.
Hey gang, we really might be morphing into "Web 3.0" in whichever of many things that means.
We're starting to enter the age of the Law Meta-Game.
Google does their fair share of morally complex things, but they haven't been called "stupid" very often.
So *because it's Google* and not some two-guys-and-a-garage operation, they're not so easy to shove in a corner. Even at the rate that lawyer fees rise, if some "typical" (as the cynics would say) "travesty of justice" occurred, that then becomes a hell of a Meta-Game news article.
"Google: We wanted to report on secret govt data requests. Govt said no."
You/they don't file motions like that "out of boredom on a Tuesday". They have the money to submit the motion and all the bells and whistles. So this might be the first of many kinds of steps it takes to slowly begin to roll back the Big Brother Engine. Not a lot, but they're helping to drag it into the sunlight where such scampery things don't like to be.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
They're doing this, knowing full well they'll get denied, because it looks like they're "standing up for their users."
Just smoke and mirrors.
Coming from someone who happens to be sporting a big blue F on his profile.
Sorry mate, you lost all credibility, pot kettle and all that.
Why would they "get blown out of" court exactly?
The Government will just say the spying program and information about the reasons for the data requests are a matter of national security and that will be the end of it.
I think its BULL that a corporation should even seek to be protected by the US Constituion that was written to protect citizens of this country, not corporations. Corporations have priviledges, not rights.
The 1st Amendment is written as a negative right, by which I mean it prohibits the government from doing certain things ("Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ..."). It is not written as a positive right, like "people shall have the right of freedom of speech". It's good that it's written that way as otherwise it wouldn't protect news organizations, which are often corporations. It's also important because Freedom of Speech means not only the right to speak, but the right to listen to what anyone or anything (even "artificial persons") has to say.
This does not mean that I'm a supporter of things like the Citizens United decision, which I think is one of the most absurdly corrupt decisions the court has ever issued. The problem there though, and with many of the other decisions on campaigns and financing, is that it takes the "money = speech" idea to absurd extremes. If money is speech, does that mean that I have a Constitutionally protected right to hand my congresscritter a suitcase full of unmarked bills?
No, the enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy, so I'll just sit back and watch them swat each other while I eat popcorn.
Seriously, what would the government do if Google just went ahead and released the information?
Uh...put people in Jail for breaking the law? There is no legal defense--so unless you want to move to China, you beg for permission to speak.
Let me give you an example of what sorts of things they can do.
I worked for a bank, once. Banks are closely monitored by the Federal Government.
One of our obligations was to feed everyone and everything to a Federal database of terrorists, drug dealers, money launders and other suck ilk. Including, at one point, the entire duly-elected Palestinian government.
The requirements were so all-encompassing that I used to joke that if you so much as walked your dog past the building, both you and your dog were supposed to be checked against it.
Failure to comply in a satisfactory manner could result in:
o Severe fines and penalties
o Revocation of the bank's charter
o Extensive prison sentences for both corporate management and the board of directors
o Ditto for the CIO, my boss and me/co-workers
o Ditto also, I think for the corporate legal department
We once went into a major panic because someone had opened an account and their (fairly common) name didn't come up as a "hit" against a money-laundering Mexican travel agency. Other people with that name have made national news just trying to buy a new car, which is why Federal databases can be so dangerous.
Google may not be a bank, but considering their size, I'm sure that there are more than a few things that come under government scrutiny and/or regulation. So I don't think they're likely to go "lone wolf" here.
I'm not surprised by this. I have a friend whose an activist / environmentalist and he keeps telling me about how awful the world has become and how the Govt is taking away heritage listed rainforest for it's own financial desire. My response to him was clear. Go to the open forums that are held discussing the future of certain lands and ask the hard questions to the face of the people who are taking active part in the corruptive activities. See I have a theory why things are the way they are.
It isn't that world has "become" a bad place and all these shady goings on have started, oh no, the world "is" a bad place and it's because nobody knows what they are doing is wrong. Consider what the internet has done here with the whole Snowden situation. The internet is shining a light on the dark crevices on our society and we are seeing all the huddled groups of cockroaches who are used to the darkness step into the light for first time.
Isn't it better to assume that Google's employees simply followed the rules of their predecessors as their predecessors perhaps thought (being patriotic and all) that what they were doing at the time was the best thing and had the best of intentions?
What Snowden did was ask the tough questions and Google answered those tough questions with a "Golly you're right!". Don't crucify Google for having a moral sense when asked because those who are in positions of power that steal only do so because they get away with it, no one questions it and therefore "it's obviously okay to do". When they find out it's not 99% of the time they back peddle, usually without any argument.
They are right when they make a decision (because our constitution pretty much pronounces that to be the case) and they are just as right when they overturn their prior decisions, as they frequently do.
They are just a bunch of people. They make mistakes too , better that they correct it rather than sticking to their (or their predecessors) wrong view point.
Anyway, all the courts really do is to ensure that laws are interpreted and applied consistently. They cannot ensure that the laws are correct or that they are always mutually consistent. i.e. if the congress made a law that says 1+1=3, the court says that it is OK and that the country has to interpret it as such. Later if the congress says 1+1=5, then the court has to either invalidate both laws or find one to be wrong.
Good example is the metadata issue. Courts ruled earlier on that addresses on the envelope were not secret and could be searched by the government. But everything inside the envelope was obviously private. It seems like the executive branch has stretched that interpretation to mean that metadata of emails are public (i.e. from:, to: etc.) even if the email never left a service provider (an email from hotmail to hotmail never goes through any public server, but government collects it anyway). Now the court has to either re-interpret the law or provide more detail on what the court meant earlier in the 1800s when they said that addresses are not private.
http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
So an individual shouldn't be allowed to put on a TV advertisment for their favorite political person within 90 days of an election? ... That is specifically what the Citizen's United case was decided on.
Wrong on multiple levels. First, we're not talking about individuals as there is nobody named "Citizen's United". Second, you're only talking about the original complaint, which was arguably reasonable. However the "conservative" Supreme Court, which is supposedly dedicated to hearing cases about "actual harm" and deciding them on the narrowest possible grounds, engaged in an unprecedented act of procedural corruption by asking the plaintiff to go back and tremendously broaden the scope of the complaint. That allowed our "conservative" Supreme Court, which is ever so critical of an activist judiciary, to effectively create their own case to decide based on their ideology.
What a snivelling, imbecilic asshole you are. You don't like Google? Don't use them! I don't. You don't trust YouTube? Don't use it! Gmail? There's other (free even) email providers; don't use it! Android? CyanogenMod! Yeah, you'd get so much better consideration from Microsoft or Apple, right?
Idiot.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
It's apparently not illegal when the president does it. :(
I would mod you up.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
If you want to know who to blame in Congress for passing laws authorizing government spying, here is a very helpful summary .
Sitting members who voted for surveillance every time
Rep. Robert Aderholt (Alabama, Republican) - all five times
Rep. Spencer Bachus (Alabama, Republican) - all five times
Rep. Jo Bonner (Alabama, Republican)
Rep. Mo Brooks (Alabama, Republican)
Rep. Martha Roby (Alabama, Republican)
Rep. Mike D. Rogers (Alabama, Republican)
Sen. Jeff Sessions (Alabama, Republican)
Rep. Terri Sewell (Alabama, Democratic)
Sen. Richard Shelby (Alabama, Republican)
Rep. Ron Barber (Arizona, Democratic)
Sen. Jeff Flake (Arizona, Republican)
Rep. Trent Franks (Arizona, Republican)
Rep. Paul Gosar (Arizona, Republican)
Sen. John McCain (Arizona, Republican)
Rep. David Schweikert (Arizona, Republican)
Sen. John Boozman (Arkansas, Republican)
Rep. Rick Crawford (Arkansas, Republican)
Rep. Tim Griffin (Arkansas, Republican)
Sen. Mark Pryor (Arkansas, Democratic)
Rep. Steve Womack (Arkansas, Republican)
Rep. Ken Calvert (California, Republican) - all five times
Rep. Jeff Denham (California, Republican)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (California, Democratic)
Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (California, Republican) - all five times
Rep. Darrell Issa (California, Republican) - all five times
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (California, Republican)
Rep. Howard McKeon (California, Republican)
Rep. Gary Miller (California, Republican)
Rep. Devin Nunes (California, Republican)
Rep. Ed Royce (California, Republican) - all five times
Sen. Michael Bennet (Colorado, Democratic)
Rep. Mike Coffman (Colorado, Republican)
Rep. Cory Gardner (Colorado, Republican)
Rep. Doug Lamborn (Colorado, Republican)
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut, Democratic)
Sen. Tom Carper (Delaware, Democratic)
Rep. Gus Bilirakis (Florida, Republican)
Rep. Vern Buchanan (Florida, Republican)
Rep. Kathy Castor (Florida, Democratic)
Rep. Ander Crenshaw (Florida, Republican) - all five times
Rep. Ted Deutch (Florida, Democratic)
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (Florida, Republican) - all five times
Rep. John Mica (Florida, Republican) - all five times
Rep. Jeff Miller (Florida, Republican)
Sen. Bill Nelson (Florida, Democratic)
Rep. Rich Nugent (Florida, Republican)
Rep. Tom Rooney (Florida, Republican)
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Florida, Republican) - all five times
Rep. Dennis Ross (Florida, Republican)
As I understand this, this means the government can just freeze anyone's ownership of shares in a public company by telling him material classified information about the company. Or what's the legitimate way out of this situation?