Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft and Google Challenge US Government Gag Orders

Posted by timothy on from the infinite-gagging dept.

First time accepted submitter ace37 writes "Microsoft says it plans to move ahead with a lawsuit filed against the U.S. government in June to affirm the right of businesses to disclose limited information about government demands for data made under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In separate legal filings, Microsoft and Google challenged the gag order that typically accompanies FISA demands for customer data. The two companies asserted that they have a First Amendment right to publish the total number of FISA requests received and the total number of user accounts covered by such requests."

30 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. Here's hoping... by static0verdrive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This type of lawsuit can help regain some of the liberties the government has taken away, or at least some of the transparency. #WishfulThinking

    --
    ========
    77 77 77 2e 6d 65 6c 76 69 6e 73 2e 63 6f 6d
    1. Re:Here's hoping... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I hope you're right in hoping for that. However, I feel that it'll be a catalyst for a nail in the coffin for this sort of "bitch". I mean to say that once there's a ruling in favor of the government's gag orders, there can be no more bitching.

      Another point to reflect on, is that they're "bitching" about posting numbers. Who the fuck cares about the numbers? If the government wants to see *my* data, then it'd be real fucking nice if *I* was told about it. So if my google account was needing to be "searched", I feel that google should give them the data, but then tell me, "Hey man, the government has been given your data. That'd end anyone's "bitch". But maybe google/MS would fear that the people would then want to know "what data". For instance, I'm really wondering what sort of data MS has on me, as I don't use any of their products.

    2. Re:Here's hoping... by icebike · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "This type of lawsuit can help regain some of the liberties the government has taken away FROM CORPORATIONS, or at least some of the transparency".

      FTFY

      Well, when you are served with a FISA order, we will worry about your liberties.

      In the mean time I'm pretty happy to have them pushing back, and I wish ALL the big companies would follow.
      There is no doubt they are seeing this as harmful to their business, because users feel betrayed.

      They need to push for revealing MORE information. For instance, EVERY USER, who's account was
      subject to such an order should be notified (after a suitable passage of time, 6 months seems right for most cases).
      The government would have to offer up this fact in Discovery if someone was subsequently charged, why should an innocent person deserve less?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:Here's hoping... by icebike · · Score: 2

      I can't imagine any "Big Money" is in favor of this power grab. Except perhaps those selling equipment.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:Here's hoping... by EmperorArthur · · Score: 5, Informative

      You haven't been keeping up with all the news have you. It's understandable, considering how much is out there.

      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130805/10035024070/dea-not-only-gets-intelligence-data-then-is-instructed-to-cover-up-where-it-gets-info.shtml

      Short summary: The NSA gives DEA agents "anonymous tips" on which vehicles to "randomly" stop. This is never mentioned in court.

      Here's another one.

      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130829/16135324356/court-says-feds-dont-have-to-reveal-secret-evidence-it-gathered-against-terror-suspect-using-fisa.shtml

      This time it's the courts saying that they don't have to show the evidence to the defendant or his lawyers. Not exactly the justice they taught in high school civics.

      --
      So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
    5. Re:Here's hoping... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Well, when you are served with a FISA order, we will worry about your liberties."

      Your statement represents a complete misunderstanding of FISA and what the warrants are for. The warrants are to access data about me data, or your data, or other citizens, not the corporations.

      "They need to push for revealing MORE information. For instance, EVERY USER, who's account was subject to such an order should be notified (after a suitable passage of time, 6 months seems right for most cases)."

      That's a great idea. Let's take it to its logical conclusion and stop serving people with search warrants prior to the search. We can have the "authorities" search your home, and let you know they did it about six months later.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  2. Let's see the others by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 2

    Particularly Wastebook, stand up and do the same.

    --
    Some days it's just not worth
    chewing through my restraints.
    1. Re:Let's see the others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Americans, enjoying your fascism yet?

      Sorry but I'm not allowed to answer that question.

    2. Re:Let's see the others by icebike · · Score: 2

      Particularly Wastebook, stand up and do the same.

      Does Facebook even HAVE data they promise not to share openly? I thought that was their business model.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:Let's see the others by NoKaOi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Particularly Wastebook, stand up and do the same.

      Why? Facebook's whole business model is based around selling data to advertisers. If it costs more to sue the gov't than what they would be charging the government for that data (maybe they already are) then, from a business perspective, why would they sue them? From a PR perspective, they want push the point that sharing your personal data is just fine, so suing would also be contrary to that goal.

      Does Facebook even HAVE data they promise not to share openly?

      While I don't think they promise anything, they don't generally share all their data openly. They charge money for it. Sure, on an individual basis you can get a lot of data openly on somebody based on their "public" profile, but you'll need to pay them if you want all of it or want it in bulk.

    4. Re:Let's see the others by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As long as you're not a whistleblower, its fine here!

      Or object to 'national security' bullshit.

      Or don't want to get groped at the airport.

      Or want to legitimately protest what's going on.

      Or....
      Or...
      Or..
      Or.
      Or
      o

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    5. Re:Let's see the others by Zemran · · Score: 2

      Nice logical argument. Well though out and eloquent. Have you thought about a career in journalism? Maybe with Fox news, I think they may be a bit high brow for you buy we like a challenge.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    6. Re:Let's see the others by jopsen · · Score: 4, Informative

      Go ahead, convince us its better where you live.

      Get real...
      I live in Denmark, I have yet to hear about no-fly-lists, warrantless wiretapping exists only if
      1) waiting for a court order would imply loss of opportunity, however, the case must be presented
      before the courts within 24 hours.
      2) we're in a state of war, then the minister of defense can with authorize warrantless wiretapping.

      Source, answer by minister of justice (Danish):
      http://www.ft.dk/samling/20101/almdel/reu/spm/381/svar/762713/928490/index.htm?

      I'm not familiar with any secret courts, and seriously doubt that the European Court of Human Rights,
      to which my government answers, would look favorably upon secret courts.

      Also I'm pretty sure the intelligence services don't have authority to kill people, not foreign citizen, not Danish citizens,
      they don't even have the authority to help the American intelligence services commit murder, meaning sharing intelligence
      that would lead to murder, is not allowed...

      Looking a internet logging, the ISPs are required to log a lot of data, ie. every 20th session or so, by log I mean time and IPs not content.
      However, these cannot be accessed without court order, and are held by the ISPs not the agencies that would want to query them.

  3. To think Microsoft once ... by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    requested the ability to treat Windows security bug reporters as being in league with terrorists by invoking the Patriot Act.

    My head is spinning.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:To think Microsoft once ... by Curate · · Score: 3, Interesting

      requested the ability to treat Windows security bug reporters as being in league with terrorists by invoking the Patriot Act.

      Citation?

    2. Re:To think Microsoft once ... by spottedkangaroo · · Score: 2

      you only need to type it into google, or even just the searchbox here on this site

      --
      Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
  4. Good for the goose... by mschaffer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why can't MS and Google publish "metadata" on the number of FISA requests and number of accounts requested?
    If it is good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

    1. Re:Good for the goose... by cookYourDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Like when NSA letter was delivered, who delivered it, the 5 closest contacts of the deliverer, and deliverer's favorite TV series?

    2. Re:Good for the goose... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why can't MS and Google publish "metadata" on the number of FISA requests and number of accounts requested?

      That sounds like a good way to end up on Double Secret Probation.

  5. Too little, too late... by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Gee, thanx Microsoft and Google, for doing something..

    Where were the Champions of Justice when these requests first started coming to you?
    I see. It's different now that you've been exposed to the public as cooperating in all this.

    1. Re:Too little, too late... by kqs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google, at least, has been fighting this for a while. Probably Microsoft too.

      You know, I often wonder why companies like Google even bother fighting for our privacy, when people like you are happy to whine and complain about them without looking into the facts. Why do they bother fighting the good fight when they know that no matter what they do, they'll be blamed and hated. Just think, your ignorance is helping the NSA and hurting Google and Microsoft. Bet you feel mighty proud.

      The solution, as always, is knowledge. Know who to support. Know who to vote for. Know what to write your congresscritters. Learn, and always assume that there is something you don't know so you have to learn more, and look behind the curtains.

    2. Re:Too little, too late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Until it was exposed they were in a position that neither of them could even mention it publically. IT appears BOTH have been fighting it since well before it was exposed though.

    3. Re:Too little, too late... by gooman · · Score: 3

      I understand your frustration, but I don't agree with your conclusion; It's not too little too late.

      The subject needed to be burned into the global public consciousness before any effective action could be taken.
      Granted they are mostly acting in self interest (protecting in their bottom line), they are corporations after all. Regardless, the battle against big government overreach will be very expensive, MS and Google have the funds, but they aren't going to spend it if they don't see the need or have the support.

      My fear is that they will allow themselves to be bought off through some sort of government contract or protectionism (See, I'm cynical too).
      However, both companies are global players and have seen push-back from foreign governments, so any sort of payoff would have to outweigh that.

      This is a great development. Let's hope it reigns in some of this nonsense.

      --
      "Kittens give Morbo gas!"
    4. Re:Too little, too late... by markjhood2003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I often wonder why companies like Google even bother fighting for our privacy, when people like you are happy to whine and complain about them without looking into the facts.

      I would think that most people, after looking at the facts, would conclude that neither Google nor Microsoft have any real concern about fighting for their users' privacy. Do you not have any recollection of Eric Schmidt's famous quote, "If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place"?

      Google and Microsoft are effectively in the same business as the NSA. The only reason to have any sympathy for them is that instead of competing against another business, they are competing against the US government, which basically nationalized their data collection mechanisms for their own purposes.

  6. Thank you Edward Snowden by Alain+Williams · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am not saying that this would not have happened without his revelations, but I suspect that the feelings of antipathy that he has helped to stir up about the NSA & government spying have given companies more courage in pushing harder to challenge these things. Maybe for fear of loosing users if they are seen to cave in too easily, maybe because they really do want to do the right thing and feel that the tide might turn and make the effort worth while.

    1. Re:Thank you Edward Snowden by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No. Think about it for a moment.

      The NSA was within a hair's breadth of creating the most impressive cloud based uber-backup / social networking / information-wants-to-be-everywhere system ever devised. Had they had the sense to market it instead of hide it, people would have been all over themselves to sign up.

      Google and Microsoft have belatedly figured out that they're competing with the US Government. They didn't like that at all.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Thank you Edward Snowden by stooo · · Score: 2

      >> So what you're saying is that Mark Zuckerberg is head of the NSA?

      No. Mark zuckerberg is not the Head of the NSA. He is the head of the voluntary data collection department of the NSA.

      --
      aaaaaaa
  7. Just these two companies? by wjcofkc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can think of more than a few other very large companies, who through the nature of the business they conduct, should be joining Microsoft and Google. This is a good start, but it would be nice to see a whole bunch of companies gang up on the government over this. It might also help the little guys stand up.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
  8. Metadata by Redbaran · · Score: 4, Funny

    Come on government, it's just metadata about your requests, what's the big deal?

  9. Alternative solution by manu0601 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    An alternative solution: first break the gag order, then wait for government attacking in court, and then defend. Attacking for the right to speak seems a looser's position.