Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft and Google Challenge US Government Gag Orders
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."
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.
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!
Americans, enjoying your fascism yet?
Sorry but I'm not allowed to answer that question.
"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.
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