DOJ Announces New Methods For Reporting National Security Requests

As the NSA metadata collection scandal has developed, a number of technology and communications companies have fought to increase the transparency of the data collection process by publishing reports on how much data government agencies are asking them for. These transparency reports have been limited, however, because most government requests are entwined with a gag order. In a speech two weeks back, President Obama said this would change, and now the Dept. of Justice has announced new, slightly relaxed rules about what information companies can share. According to an email from the U.S. Deputy Attorney General (PDF) to the General Counsel of Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Microsoft, and Yahoo, the companies can publish: how many Criminal Process requests they received, how many National Security Letters they received, how many accounts were affected by NSLs, how many Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act orders were received (both for communications content and 'non-content'), and how many customers were targeted by FISA requests. The companies still aren't allowed to give specific numbers, but they can report them in bands of 1,000 — for example, 0-999, 1,000-1,999, etc. Information requests for old services cannot be disclosed for at least six months. The first information requests for a new service cannot be disclosed for two years. The companies also have the option of lumping all the NSL and FISA requests together — if they do that, they can report in bands of 250 instead of 1,000.

Comments

Normalization of the Police State

[shiftless]

This is to be expected. Instead of repealing the police state, they are normalizing it. Welcome to the new Normal.

Re:Normalization of the Police State

[vikingpower]

Mod parent up. This is going on in several European countries, too ( UK, NL ). Congratulations, BTW, for inventing a new terminus technicus: the normalized police state. As much as I hate the thought, I can not but admire the term. Yes, that is what we are going to live in, for the next years.

Re:Normalization of the Police State

[MightyMartian]

"It's okay if we spy on you, providing we implement a highly uninformative reporting scheme. Yay for us, we're so accountable!"

Re:Normalization of the Police State

[deconfliction]

I have found over the last 10 years or so, that it really helps my sanity to see them play these kinds of reindeer games. The thread that helped keep my sanity together thinking about the security vulnerability of all the closed source firmware I was using was this thought- "If my human society and government was anywhere near the sort of thing I could respect and depend on to protect my 'inalienable rights' those in high levels would be talking openly about how as a society we should be considering such potetential surveillance state styles". It was the fact that I was hearing in the public debate, only (not so) vague attempts from all directions to direct the conversation precisely *away* from that center. That is what kept me sane believing that the center really was there, and at the time, in darkness.

Similarly, this summary, if accurate, is an example of the same thing. The hoops, and games they are willing to go through to try and 'normalize' this, after all that has been revealed in the last year- proves in my mind- exactly how bad things really must be.

I may be crazy. That is how I've seen the world in the past 10 years.

Re:Normalization of the Police State

[the_skywise]

*yawn* overhype much?

These things are despicable and incompatible with normal criminal procedure,

So you agree that secret warrants that lead to secret charging (and hence secret arrests of people) is unlawful.

How is that NOT a "police state" again?

Perhaps this would be the time for some colorful expletives?

If not, when?

Re:Normalization of the Police State

[Jane Q. Public]

"Yes, that is what we are going to live in, for the next years."

How pessimistic.

But what I want to know is: where are these "changes to regulations" coming from? Are they orders directly from the President? Was Congress involved?

Bureaucrats don't get to make national security laws. Just more evidence of Obama administration ignoring actual law, and doing whatever the hell it wants.

Re:Normalization of the Police State

[lgw]

Well, we can certainly act according to whether politicians do anything about this. If none of them strike back at the NSA, then we're screwed, but if some of them take action we can at least reward them.

Time has the text of a resolution the RNC just passed, which calls for action by Republican legislators in very stark terms. The RNC is as "inside the beltway", disconnected from voters, and generally unconcerned with the sort of issues that make Slashdot as it's possible for a human to be, and yet even those buffoons are up in arms about this.

This is just a call to action, not a bill, but the RNC is usually who the GOP listens to instead of the voters. I'll quote the whole thing below, but they outright call these programs unconstitutional and they call for them to end, with no mention of national security or terrorism. They're also using interesting language: calling for review in a public court, not a secret court.

Let's see whether the DNC does something similar, and what congresscritters do as a result. I'd actually be surprised if there isn't at least a bill voted on to end these programs, which if voters actually care they could hold their local critter to accout for.

Resolution to Renounce the National Security Agency's Surveillance Program

WHEREAS, the secret surveillance program called PRISM targets, among other things, the surveillance of U.S. citizens on a vast scale and monitors searching habits of virtually every American on the internet;

WHEREAS, this dragnet program is, as far as we know, the largest surveillance effort ever launched by a democratic government against its own citizens, consisting of the mass acquisition of Americans' call details encompassing all wireless and landline subscribers of the country's three largest phone companies;

WHEREAS, every time an American citizen makes a phone call, the NSA gets a record of the location, the number called, the time of the call and the length of the conversation, all of which are an invasion into the personal lives of American citizens that violates the right of free speech and association afforded by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution;

WHEREAS, the mass collection and retention of personal data is in itself contrary to the right of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, that warrants shall issue only upon probable cause, and generally prevents the American government from issuing modern-day writs of assistance;

WHEREAS, unwarranted government surveillance is an intrusion on basic human rights that threatens the very foundations of a democratic society and this program represents a gross infringement of the freedom of association and the right to privacy and goes far beyond even the permissive limits set by the Patriot Act; and

WHEREAS, Republican House Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, an author of the Patriot Act and Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee at the time of Section 215's passage, called the Section 215 surveillance program "an abuse of that law," writing that, "based on the scope of the released order, both the administration and the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court are relying on an unbounded interpretation of the act that Congress never intended," therefore be it

RESOLVED, the Republican National Committee encourages Republican lawmakers to enact legislation to amend Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, the state secrets privilege, and the FISA Amendments Act to make it clear that blanket surveillance of the Internet activity, phone records and correspondence -- electronic, physical, and otherwise -- of any person residing in the U.S. is prohibited by law and tha

Re:Normalization of the Police State

[TheCarp]

You have a much higher standard for a police state than I, or many of the people here.

If the police are doing things that not only "despicable and incompatible with normal criminal procedure" but are turning them into normal procedure, and officially operating under these principles; it is already a police state.

In fact, I would say the moment they get away with militarizing the police based on thin excuses about their need to bust in people's doors over nonviolent "crimes" (like some cannabis flowers in their home), it is already a police state.

Frankly, its been a police state since at least the 1980s.

Re:Normalization of the Police State

[Jane Q. Public]

"It's from the DOJ. Go see who they report to."

That's not an answer.

I didn't ask who was ultimately responsible (both Obama and Congress are culpable). I was asking who actually made the change to the regulations... or did they? Are they just ignoring regulations? Did they change regulations? Or are they just ignoring all the rules as they usually have in this administration? Or maybe they're ceasing to ignore the laws as they actually existed?

This is all very ambiguous. And it should not be.

Re:Normalization of the Police State

[Jane Q. Public]

The reason I wrote the above is because it has a real impact on our lives.

Let's take Obamacare for an example, because it's a recent and good example. Congress passed, and Obama signed, some things into law.

When events did not go as planned, Obama announced that they were going to ignore certain parts of the law. (Which, in fact, he has no legal authority to do.)

But that means the law is still in place. If he can ignore it by degree at any time, then he can reinstate it by decree at any time.

If the law isn't changed, but just some bureaucrat is deciding to ignore the regulations today, who is to say they won't stop ignoring it again tomorrow?

Answer: nobody. And that's why it's important to know.

This country is supposed to be subject to The Rule Of Law. It isn't run by "whatever the fuck I feel like doing today".

Re:Normalization of the Police State

[gmhowell]

You have a much higher standard for a police state than I, or many of the people here.

Plenty of people don't have a problem with jackbooted authority so long as the boot is on their foot rather than their neck. Bonus points if the boot is on the neck of some ill defined 'other'.

Re:Normalization of the Police State

[Tokolosh]

If the GOP ever gets back in power, this will quickly and quietly vanish.

Keep the number of requests below 1000

[DickBreath]

Keep the number of requests below 1000.

Vastly expand the scope of each request.

Re:Keep the number of requests below 1000

[MightyMartian]

Yes

Re:Keep the number of requests below 1000

[noh8rz10]

Presumably. Even a 3-hop request would count as involving only one account, so just request emails from "info@gmail.com" and get all the people they email to notify about a new feature.

First amendment

[Hatta]

Any gag order at all is incompatible with the First Amendment's prohibition on infringement of free speech.

Re:First amendment

[interkin3tic]

And since "terrorist threat" is not an extraordinary circumstance (went nine years without going below "yellow: elevated risk") that clearly wouldn't apply. It's an ordinary circumstance, our rights are being infringed, not temporarily suspended for an important cause.

Case in point: the patriot act is being used for the war on drugs, not the war on terrorism. If anyone believes that national security requests aren't likewise being used for very very ordinary law enforcement scams or industrial espionage... well then they probably can't understand most of the words in this post.

Re:First amendment

[Hatta]

Whether the First Amendment is absolute or not is irrelevant. This is exactly the sort of abuse of power the First Amendment was intended to protect us against. If the government can stop us from discussing factual details about policy, the First Amendment means nothing at all.

Obfuscation

[fallen1]

This is simply obfuscation through aggregation. All this is for is to make it SEEM like the DOJ is listening to the companies and the public outcry.

Don't believe the hype. Don't believe the lies.
Down this pathway, freedom dies.

Re:Obfuscation

[DickBreath]

Oh, I think we've only started down the road. We're not close to the end of the road yet.

Yes, they can stop us for any reason. Detain us. Search our laptops and devices without a court order or oversight. There are huge constitution free zones. They can snoop into all private communications to the point where no two human beings can have a private conversation. We have to take our shoes off at the airport and submit to naked scans and patdowns. People like Aaron Swartz can be harassed to death over things that are minor crimes if they are even crimes at all. Rich people routinely get away with things that poor people go to jail for -- for years. Compare penalties for copyright infringement to penalties for murder or robbery. Police brutality is becoming more common. Filming the police from a distance without interfering is treated as a crime.

How soon do you think it will be before they can search your home without a warrant? How soon before you have to show ID to travel within the US -- maybe even within a city? How long before anonymous cash disappears?

I'm just asking. But if you think this is just the icing on the cake, I want to tell you that this is still the cake, and there is a lot more cake to come before we get to the icing.

Those who fail to learn from history. Etc.

Useless Information

[s.petry]

Nothing of value is being done, which reflects the politicians which are offering no valuable solutions. End the programs, end the corruption, and for pity sake end the careers of these corrupt politicians. The data collection and paid shilling are useless to the population. They have value to an entrenched group of people who use all available means (illegal and legal) to further entrench themselves.

Claiming that FISA courts can't release any data is idiocy and completely against the spirit of the Constitution/Bill of Rights. John Doe could be redacted from the court documents so that we could see what is happening without assisting John Doe. If Company A may be a risk, Company A could also be redacted for the same purposes.

Nobody should be surprised at this decision, Obama stated that nothing would change except for who is holding the data that is collected. The solution is to vote out every career politician and elect people of high moral character.

See That? All Better Now, Pumpkin

[Bob9113]

According to an email from the U.S. Deputy Attorney General (PDF) to the General Counsel of Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Microsoft, and Yahoo, the companies can publish:

Ahh, I feel so much better, now. The rich who monitor everything we do have convinced the powerful who monitor everything we do to disclose slightly more about their constant surveillance of us to We The People, sovereigns of this nation.

Can't say "none"

[Jonathunder]

I read the letter. The smallest "bands" that can be reported are zero through 250 for aggregate orders, or zero through 999 for more discrete types. In other words, the companies are not allowed to say there were none; instead they have to say between 0 and x.

Re:Can't say "none"

[Lost Race]

Does this mean it's technically illegal for anyone in America to say, "I have received no National Security Letters today"? I feel a T-shirt design coming on....