Google Handed To FBI 3 Wikileaks Staffers' Emails, Digital Data

Ariastis writes Google took almost three years to disclose to the open information group WikiLeaks that it had handed over emails and other digital data belonging to three of its staffers to the FBI under a secret search warrant issued by a federal judge. WikiLeaks were told last month of warrants which were served in March 2012. The subjects of the warrants were the investigations editor of WikiLeaks, the British citizen Sarah Harrison; the spokesperson for the organisation, Kristinn Hrafnsson; and Joseph Farrell, one of its senior editors. When it notified the WikiLeaks employees last month, Google said it had been unable to say anything about the warrants earlier as a gag order had been imposed.

Comments

What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

A backbone?

Teh G is a schmuk!

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google had no choice under US law. If you want to bash something, bash the US govt. Out of all the big names in tech, Google is still the least evil.

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

At last check it is Microsoft who is fighting these sorts of things... even when significant penalties could be involved if they fail: http://www.zdnet.com/article/m...

Where is Google's backbone?

Re: What did you expect?

[oldbitcollector]

You can't fix bad government policy with better tech...

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are ways... though it's best not to advertise them as "NSA-proof".

Even with bad government policy... when the dust settles do you want to be on the side of the collaborators... or the resistance?

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

But you can use better tech to evade bad laws, like all the NSA bullshit, the DMCA, and everlasting copyright as desired by the RIAA and MPAA. A form of civil disobedience that hopefully will knock some sense ibto the government and make them listen to the people again.

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not exactly the same thing. In this case MS has a valid objection (and if I recall correctly, the support of the other big cloud operators) - to comply they would have to breach other (Irish/EU) law.

Heard of any case where MS has refused to hand over data held in the US? No? Think there hasn't been any such order?

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are ways... though it's best not to advertise them as "NSA-proof".

Even with bad government policy... when the dust settles do you want to be on the side of the collaborators... or the resistance?

In order to be able to stand among the latter, you might be forced to do a bit of, unwilling, collaboration. Sure, you can choose to go out in a blaze of glory - but you won't be around, and whatever is around to replace you is likely to be much more willing to cooperate, having witnessed your demise

. Was Schindler a collaborator or hero?

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of all the big names in tech, Google is still the least evil.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! wait wait HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Good one. You should be a comedian.

Re: What did you expect?

[jklovanc]

Can you tell the difference between foreign data and data stored in the US?

The software giant has been battling U.S. prosecutors for data held in its Dublin, Ireland datacenter, which it says cannot be accessed or retrieved by a U.S. search warrant.

If the data is held in the US the Us warrant has jurisdiction and the Microsoft battle does not apply.

Re: What did you expect?

[jazzis]

Mod up as Funny as hell and Insightful!

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is Google's backbone?

I dunno, like 2013... http://www.wired.com/2013/01/google-says-get-a-warrant/

I mean, when Yahoo started demanding warrants everyone noted that it was "what Google was already doing" http://www.wired.com/2013/01/yahoo-demands-warrants/

So, Google has already been demanding search warrants for a very long time, and that's exactly what the FBI had!

Re: What did you expect?

[linuxrocks123]

Sure you can. It's called PGP, or GPG if you want the name of the best implementation rather than the protocol, and Wikileaks was incompetent if it wasn't using it in 2012.

"Well they can outlaw PGP"...maybe, but they haven't, and US courts may very well look unkindly on such laws and find them unconstitutional.

Better tech is often an integral part of fixing bad government policy in an imperfect world.

Re: What did you expect?

[JWSmythe]

Does cherry picking old war stories usually work out well for you?

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like http://www.techrepublic.com/article/googles-end-to-end-gmail-encryption-an-excellent-development-for-the-enterprise/

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure you can if that tech is meant to spread awareness when it comes to things like encryption. Such things makes bad policy pointless.

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean they were just following orders?

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the most smartest thing to do to setup your own mail server especially for an organization such as this one?

Same could be said for cloud storage and anything else in-between. Why store any of your stuff with any of these people when they easily fork over your data to the government.

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Was Schindler a collaborator or hero?

Do you have any proof of Google protecting data that FBI asked for?
Without that part it looks a lot more like Himmler rather than Schindler.

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad one. You are a fucking idiot.

Re: What did you expect?

[Kkloe]

Do you have any proof that FBI have asked to have data that is stored in servers in other countries like the ms-case and google then provided it to the FBI?, seems more like you are just grasping for straws to bash google

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

seems more like you are just grasping for straws to bash google

Not really, I gladly bash Microsoft too. I just got triggered by the way previous AC was reasoning.
The argument was more or less "Look, they are gathering up Jews, has to be a good guy like Schindler!" without pointing at where to good part actually was supposed to be.
After argumentation like that there is no real point in having further discussions, better to just derail it so no-one takes it seriously.

Re: What did you expect?

[Archimonde]

And this got me thinking, how can they outlaw strong encryption anyway?

If I send you a file which contains random garbage, how is that different from a file/text encrypted? I don't think there is a way for them to prove that you were using encryption beyond reasonable doubt.

All of this trying to outlaw strong encryption completely pointless.

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google had no choice under US law. If you want to bash something, bash the US govt. Out of all the big names in tech, Google is still the least evil.

How ironic you still want to make this claim as we hear of the "least evil" company out there being forced to cooperate under gag order.

My entire point here is, how the hell do you know they're the least evil when even they can't tell you the evil shit they've done?

Remember it really doesn't matter who is the least evil when companies are pulled like puppets on strings by the government.

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Triggered...triggered? Dont use that bullshit social justice lingo. You weren't triggered you dont have PTSD. At best you were annoyed

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but did Google have to wait until Christmas Eve to declare what happened?

This company is very adept at playing the PR game; no surprise they tried to hide / bury their actions by announcing it during the festive season.

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

This could fix it.

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you will have admitted to trying to DDoS(never mind the first D is out of place they just use it as a label) your friend on a major corporation's webmail and tried to destroy the economy. And your a terrorist.

Re: What did you expect?

[DuckDodgers]

PGP or GPG is not a full solution. It's currently difficult enough to setup and annoying enough to use that only a tiny portion of the population will ever bother. The NSA can't watch everyone. But as long as GPG is in use by less than 0.1% of the population and of course PGP doesn't obscure senders, recipients, or even message size (though you can pad message size if you choose), the NSA can watch people who use it.

Likewise Tor isn't a solution it's integral to the HTTP 3.0 protocol.

We need to create better tools.

Re: What did you expect?

[DuckDodgers]

Dammit, I meant "Likewise Tor isn't a solution until it's integral to the HTTP 3.0 protocol."

Re: What did you expect?

[gnasher719]

You mean they were just following orders?

They responded to a search warrant. The only thing that makes this search warrant different from other search warrants is that for some reason you think that emails of the accused person shouldn't be searched in this case. Your justification seems to be purely political. I don't think Google should fight specific search warrants on purely political reasons, Google itself might not have your political views and might not want to fight these search warrants at all, and last Google doesn't actually have any standing to fight these warrants. If there is something wrong with the search warrants, someone's lawyers will bring it up in court.

Re:What did you expect?

[thegarbz]

Ahh yes a classic internet toughguy. When was the last time you were served a US federal warrant by a US judge to hand over data stored by a US company in the US about a customer who doesn't pay you anything at all, and then decide to "fight it".

I'm guessing never since we don't get many brave slashdot ACs posting from prison.

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why Google is still in the US. Why not move all US activities to a country that has somewhat saner laws and agencies?

Re: What did you expect?

[AmiMoJo]

They were using PGP for internal emails, but couldn't when interacting with people outside the organization who didn't use it. There is also the metadata, which is at least as valuable as the content.

Re: What did you expect?

[grub]

PGP/GPG is much easier to use these days than it was in the 90's. Plugins exist for many mail clients that do the heavy lifting in the background.

Friends and family are surely tired of my tinfoil hat, they just do not seem to care about their privacy. Many say the "I have nothing to hide" line.

Re: What did you expect?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I thought the Supreme Court ruled a long time ago Americans had a right to encrypt by way of free speech.

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny how when its a question of profits, giant corporations dig in their heels, spend millions and millions on lawyers, fight in court, and drag things out for years and years. But when it comes to selling their customers out, it's "oh, we didn't have any choice - its the law".

Fuck Google. Fuck the Feds.

Re: What did you expect?

[Gr8Apes]

Friends and family are surely tired of my tinfoil hat, they just do not seem to care about their privacy. Many say the "I have nothing to hide" line.

Many are idiots. And the tin-foil hat line seems passe now that it's been proven that quite likely even the most paranoid tin-foil hat wearer underestimated the true scope of the surveillance operations.

Re: What did you expect?

[DuckDodgers]

The "I have nothing to hide" line frustrates me too.

The twitter-friendly response is, "Just because I have nothing to hide, it doesn't mean I'm happy with a webcam on my toilet."

The longer response is that the NSA is asking Google to record all of my searches, Comcast to record every website I visit at home, Verizon to record every place my cell phone goes and every cell phone call I make, and Voipo (my home phone service, similar to Vonage) to record the phone number on every home call I make. Even if I was comfortable with the government possessing that information without probable cause, it means a crooked law enforcement official, a disgruntled employee, or a criminal hacker can get a scary amount of private data about me from any one of those five sources and use it to stalk me or commit identity theft. If I am the only person with all of that data then the stalkers, the identity thieves, and the government have to hack my personal machines to get it.

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you do mean that they were just following orders.

Re: What did you expect?

[ikhider]

Google = Government. Have you not read "When Google Met Wikileaks" by Assange?

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time?

Lets see, never as that 'judge' would then have been hauled in front of a privacy tribiunal and stripped of all possessions, assets, titles and what not for signing a order violating privacy laws without any due dilligence. (Failure of an 'intelligence' service of keeping their secrets secret is none to blame but themselfs)

Contempt of a court works both ways, never forget that and do not forget the long arm of the law.

Re:What did you expect?

[Coren22]

So, you must know so much more about the federal warrant that Google was legally obliged to respond to. Where is all that pesky evidence that the judge did something wrong?

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

... hack my personal machines to get it.

How much security do you have on your personal machines? I mean access control which stops a key-logger being installed; authentication control on encrypted volumes to stop them stealing your identity; VPN anonymizer servers to prevent tracking and behaviour profiling; secure-room protocols to keep all on-line communiques and off-line records encrypted.

And, any activity done on a phone doesn't count; we all know phone security is equal to a "keep out" sign.

I encrypt my off-line records onto a portable volume and that takes a surprising amount of time. Making myself more safe from cyber-cracking is exhausting so I don't. There's a need for encryption services built-in to the operating system and network protocols that many vendors are avoiding.

Re: What did you expect?

[david_thornley]

Essentially none of my friends and family have GPG enabled, and most don't know what it is. I can't communicate securely unless the person at the other end cooperates.

Re: What did you expect?

[Dashiva Dan]

Triggered...triggered? Dont use that bullshit social justice lingo. You weren't triggered you dont have PTSD. At best you were annoyed

Ran out of mod points, or I'd give you some :) Posting instead:
Always call people on this kind of shit. So many people trying to avoid responsibility for what they say or do these days.... and he was already posting as AC to begin with.....

Re: What did you expect?

[Dashiva Dan]

How much security he has on his personal machine is secondary.

Hackers/government/whoever will target the big databases with everyone's information in them. That is worth their time. If your information is in there, you suffer also.
Hackers/government/whoever are far far far less likely to be hacking your personal computer, unless you've managed to get flagged already, and become a target through some other means, which sure can happen, but the point is, you don't need to be targeted to have your identity stolen if your identity information is being logged and stored by multiple other systems.
Simply not having/being in those big databases is better than any personal firewall imho.

Re: What did you expect?

[Dashiva Dan]

They were complying with the request from their local government that was legally reasonable, and that they had no place to interfere with, which they are required (just like every other person/entity/company) to do in order to operate within their locality.....

Re: What did you expect?

[Dashiva Dan]

No...... That's not Google's evil, that's the government's evil. When men in suits with the the power of the government behind them come to you legally requiring you to hand over a customers information, doing so doesn't make you evil. It makes you a law abiding citizen. And if they also legally prevent you from letting that customer know, that's their evil, not yours.

Re: What did you expect?

[Dashiva Dan]

I have read it. Google rep showed up with a (probably unwelcome) government shadow. Doesn't mean that Google == Government. If they did, we'd never hear about any of these goings on. Google (and many other companies, and individuals) are often required to comply with governmental directives, on a daily basis.

It seems like half the people posting here today believe that Google is giggling and sending private data to the government willy nilly, when the case is they were legally required to, have constantly pushed back where possible against this kind of request, actively help campaign for better consumer protection, and, as soon as they legally are allowed to, inform the public of what teh government is making or trying to make them do.

And as noted, it's not just Google, Microsoft also, in a big way, and many other companies of all sizes.
The common thread here isn't Google and it being evil. The common thread is the government.

btw, I'm not a Google fanboy, or an any company fanboy. I own machines running windows, osx and linux and android. I use chrome firefox and... well I only use others when I have to actually, but if you want to be calling out evil companies, there's some real actual targets like big pharma, tobacco, etc. Google is a veritable choirboy compared to them imho. As is MS and Apple too. They make profits by making life better for us, big tobacco, on the other hand....... All the evil that seems to come out of these big tech companies is pulled out legally by the government, almost always against the companies desires.

Re: What did you expect?

[ikhider]

In the US of A, it is 'pay to play' in government matters. Google out donated the military-industrialites for campaign financing. Google also provides computer infrastructure to the US military. Just because Microsoft plays too, does not make Google less culpable. The two sides (Google and Gov't) are in deep, 'synchronicity'.Just like the Bush, Cheney, Rice oil exec junta--Google is moving in as being part of that dark influence. Just like Microsoft, Google helps drones kill. Google may do some good things, but the bad cannot be ignored. We need not support Google, rather let us look to alternatives. I am not against government, but their policies need a deep re-examination and the people need to hold them accountable for their actions.

Re: What did you expect?

[Kirth]

Your justification seems to be purely political

The trouble is, the justification of the warrant seems to be purely political as well...

Re: What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope nope nope, investigating a pretty serious crime, please stop being so dumb.

Re: What did you expect?

[DuckDodgers]

Thank you. I agree with you.

Re: What did you expect?

[Dashiva Dan]

Well, sure, all big companies pour money into the government in their efforts to shape policy. I don't see this so much as a bad thing in and of itself, it's on a case by case of what the company is trying to achieve, and while there's plenty of idle speculation and guesses and conspiracy theories about what Google is getting for their money, the factual stuff I've seen is pretty consistently in tune with what I'd be doing if I were a not-evil google-type company.
If you start a company that is at the forefront of an industry, constantly pushing the envelope, and world recognised (and supported by userbase) and funded enough, you'll might find yourself dumping some money into politics as you're in a position to know how things should be shaped... That's not 'evil'. That's 'doing business and improving society (or attempting to).

You note that google provides infrastructure to the military. The military buy lots of stuff from IT infrastructure to weapons to vehicles to clothing to food to ... well the list goes on, probably very few goods and services the military doesn't use. If anyone "providing" a product or service to the military for money is evil, well, evil musn't mean what I thought it did.... And just about everyone I know is evil, including myself.
And...

Google helps drones kill

OK. That's a fantastic one. let's cover a couple of quick things first:
Drones killing people == evil
Sure, it can be, but it might not be also. Unless you are of the belief that every killing is evil, in which case, you're gonna have to go down the rabbithole of lesser evils, because sometimes there's a person who is going to kill several other people, and killing them has to be considered as an alternative to killing x others. That's kind of the whole job of the military, making those kinds of decisions. You know, wars and stuff.
someone providing something that is used by someone else for killing
Well I kinda covered that earlier, but it should be pretty obvious who is responsible for the evil. Not like Google's going "Yeah, you can use our stuff in your drones, but only if you make sure and kill a bunch of innocent people with it"......
Oh I could go on, but who's going to bother reading this far :)

Re: What did you expect?

[ikhider]

1) Campaign financing reform. There MUST be a campaign contribution limit. The current system stymies democracy. A corporation should not have more power than a citizen. Once you have (reasonable--the kind an average person can afford) caps, things will start getting fair. 2) Drones. Sure, if your family is targetted (and some killed) by these very drones and you STILL hold that position, then I will side with you.

Re: What did you expect?

[Dashiva Dan]

Oh, I'm all for more transparency, but I'm not politically minded enough to be sure my ideas are that great, however:
Just using the USA and Google for this example, the amount of money Google should be allowed to invest should be directly proportional to it's number of US Citizen employees.
I figure it'd be a good way to have the amount of sway a company can pull tied directly to their involvement (via employment) to the US economy in the political scene.
Yeah, no doubt it's flawed, however I wouldn't like to see a situation where no matter how much a company is giving to it's government, etc, it has an artificial capped limit.


As for if a drone kills someone I know, I'm going to be blaming the person who instigated it/directed it/pulled the (remote) trigger.
And if it wasn't any person, but some sort of accident, then I'll treat it like I would any other accident.
It's exactly the same as if a car killed someone I know. I'd blame the driver, not the guy who wrote the program that allowed the engine to fire efficiently enough to achieve the speed to achieve killing impact.

Re: What did you expect?

[RyoShin]

The twitter-friendly response is, "Just because I have nothing to hide, it doesn't mean I'm happy with a webcam on my toilet."

The thought that always comes to me is "I have nothing to fear, so I have nothing to hide. If I have nothing to hide, why do you need to look?"

Re: What did you expect?

[arvindsg]

You are under estimating the literal tin-foil hat wearer, after all they believe government is reading thoughts right out of your brain.

Re: What did you expect?

[ikhider]

Part A, so basically what you are saying is that you are not for democracy, but all for corporatocracy. Part B, Read this book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... Google knows full well that their systems are being used to kill off men, women, and children without due process. I will not support a company that knowingly assists crimes against humanity.

Google sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything Google touches is either shit or turns to shit.

Re:Google sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you use Gmail and everything Google has to offer.

Re: Google sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? Gmail, maps, Youtube, search are all anazing products with no real competition. And Google offers plenty of other wonderful services for free (Google voice, docs, translate)

Re:Google sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody shits.

Re:Google sucks

[Chrisq]

Everybody shits.

Except for Kim Jong Un

Re: Google sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube has plenty of alternatives, and Google didn't even build it in the first place.

Re:Google sucks

[LordLimecat]

>court-issued warrant
>gag order

Do tell, what would you have done in their situation? Told the courts to go stuff themselves? Cause that almost never goes well.

Re:Google sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

And I bet you take dick up your ass like a little bitch.

I don't use any Google crap. Even my Android tablet is running CyanogenMod with no Google apps whatsoever.

Re:Google sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

You're just a fucking government puppet.

When the government is an oppressive, evil terrorist gang, you should always refuse to recognize their "authority" because you negotiating with terrorists only invites further acts of terror. There is nothing the US government could ever do to harm me, the worst they could do is kill me, but if they ever tried, I guarantee I would take many of them with me.

Encryption?

[brian.stinar]

If I worked for Wikileaks, I think I'd be encrypting everything especially if it involved using a Google server.

Re:Encryption?

[NoKaOi]

If I worked for Wikileaks, I think I'd be encrypting everything especially if it involved using a Google server.

Or better yet...don't use an email provider with any US presence.

Re:Encryption?

[DaHat]

Agreed, using a third party service when you know you are going to be subject to scrutiny from those in power is just dumb... but then I've come to expect that from WikiLeaks.

When I was in school long ago I found that from time to time a teacher might try to punish me for my attitude or behavior but not by lowering a value in such a way (if there was such a column on the report card), but by arbitrarily claiming I got 20% less on a given test than I really did scored. Once I discovered this occasional pattern I started to keep rather good records and not giving them an official reason on paper to punish me. Only once did this fail when I was so busy dealing with the demonstrable harassment of the professor that they gave me the lowest grade they could without garnering suspicion (though probably due to me he will likely never teach a college class again)

Julian Assuage would have been better off long ago if he married someone and put on a good enough show of being a committed husband, so much so that any allegations of rape or infidelity would seem like utter nonsense. Yes, some will say that the accusations were/are nonsense, but not weighed in comparison to who he is and presenters himself as a person they seem at a minimum plausible to the common person.

Re:Encryption?

[grcumb]

If I worked for Wikileaks, I think I'd be encrypting everything especially if it involved using a Google server.

Or better yet...don't use an email provider with any US presence.

Uh... that only means they don't bother with a warrant. They just go and get whatever they like.

Perversely, you're actually better off dealing with these ridiculous, draconian, panopticonian laws, because at least in theory you have some kind of recourse - even if it consists of fighting retroactively to reduce the J. Edgar Hoovering up of your personal data. If you use an offshore email provider, the NSA will just grab whatever it wants, whenever it wants, without even the tiniest fig leaf of law to cover up strategic bits.

Re:Encryption?

[Pi1grim]

Good luck "going and getting" something from a server location in Russia or China. That involves risks of data falling into the hands of those governments, but it's a question of who you fear more and who can hurt you more.

Re:Encryption?

[bickerdyke]

If *I* worked for wikilieaks, I sure would have an additional freemail account somewhere that I'd use for facebook, slashdot, mailing cat pictures to friends....

Re:Encryption?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there really a problem getting something from a server in Russia or China, given the rampant bribery there and the huge amount of family members of high-ranking officials there hiding in the US with a lot of stolen money?

Re:Encryption?

[tinkerton]

Right. Assange wrote a piece about Google

http://www.newsweek.com/assang...

Re:Encryption?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do NOT use ANY second party web services unless the data needs to be a public data.

Meaning, any service providers like Foursquare, iCloud, Google GMail, Google Drive, OneDrive, Outlook.com, Yahoo, Flicker etc are are untrustworthy to everything expect what you need to share to anyone.

You want a own secure email server? Get a cheap Android phone and install server there and then use native email client to keep emails encrypted on those hardwares, behind encrypted drives and logins etc. With a little config time you quickly get a easy setup.

Re:Encryption?

[Chrisq]

If *I* worked for wikilieaks, I sure would have an additional freemail account somewhere that I'd use for facebook, slashdot, mailing cat pictures to friends....

I'd have a cunning code involving the colour of kittens and whether they meow or not

Re:Encryption?

[Slashjones]

Uh... that only means they don't bother with a warrant. They just go and get whatever they like.

Sounds like what the NSA is already doing. You think the government cares about the constitution?

Re:Encryption?

[bickerdyke]

...which adds to the point that an email account, that doesn't contain emails about the subject at hand should also be part of a criminal investigation.

Re:Encryption?

[Chrisq]

...which adds to the point that an email account, that doesn't contain emails about the subject at hand should also be part of a criminal investigation.

I can see pareidolia becoming an issue, with claims that pictures interpreted in a certain way could mean something when they really are just cat pictures.

Re:Encryption?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck "going and getting" something from a server location in Russia or China.

What on earth makes you think data becomes inaccessible to the NSA/FBI just because it's physically located in another country? Remember, this is the same NSA that intercepts Cisco shipments to install back-doored firmware and develops its own zero-day hacks for Windows. This is the same CIA that wrote Stuxnet. These are organizations that can drop six or seven figures on a drunk IT staffer in exchange for plugging a USB drive into a server and walking away.

The US people couldn't care less whether the NSA hacks the Chinese government (never mind mail.ru or yandex.com). The only possible backlash the US TLAs face is if they're caught US people. (Even that is somewhat questionable, as many Citizens prefer that legal rights not apply to undocumented residents or suspected criminals.) It may not be much more of a hurdle, but actually having to ask a rubber-stamp court for authorization is a higher bar than just pointing their hacking tool at a server.

Re:Encryption?

[bickerdyke]

Humbug. What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Encryption?

[Slashjones]

Remember, this is the same NSA that intercepts Cisco shipments to install back-doored firmware and develops its own zero-day hacks for Windows.

The fact that they have to do this says a lot about their capabilities.

(Even that is somewhat questionable, as many Citizens prefer that legal rights not apply to undocumented residents or suspected criminals.)

Those people are freedom-hating fools. So as soon as you're accused of something, those unspecified people think that you should lose all your rights?

It may not be much more of a hurdle, but actually having to ask a rubber-stamp court for authorization is a higher bar than just pointing their hacking tool at a server.

It's practically nothing, as we've seen with the NSA. They get a few rubber stamps and they're allowed to collect nearly everything.

Re:Encryption?

[Rich0]

Remember, this is the same NSA that intercepts Cisco shipments to install back-doored firmware and develops its own zero-day hacks for Windows.

The fact that they have to do this says a lot about their capabilities.

How would you propose hacking into a computer WITHOUT developing a zero-day for it? Well, unless you want to count using vulnerabilities from three years ago that some sysadmin is too lazy to patch. It isn't like anybody thinks the NSA has some psychic that just controls the minds of sysadmins from halfway around the globe. Engineering software and getting it to run on targeted hardware is just the physical reality of intruding on systems.

We're talking about wikileaks here. Obviously that is going to be a high-profile target for intelligence agencies anywhere. You simply can't run such an operation on some unencrypted webmail service ANYWHERE.

Re:Encryption?

[LordLimecat]

I think I'd be encrypting everything especially if it involved using a Google server.

Why especially? AFAIK Google is the only one of the big 3 webmail providers not currently bending over backwards for the Chinese Government. There was a warrant in this case; even the famed lavabit had to fold when given a warrant.

Its absurd to go after Google for following the terms of a court order; you'd do better to ask whether the order was justified, and if not ask why the courts issued it and who can be held accountable.

Re:Encryption?

[LordLimecat]

Or better yet...don't use an email provider with any US presence.

There are maybe a small handful of places better than the US for hosting as regards privacy, and in any of them a court order will compel you to give up customer data.

Re:Encryption?

[LordLimecat]

Good luck "going and getting" something from a server location in Russia or China

1) Google is blocked in china.
2) Thats partly because of the massive police state and strong net censorship they have going on over there-- but I'm sure YOUR data would be safe over there
3) Google is probably the only company formerly doing business in China that wont give your data up to the CPC. As a consequence of that, see #1.

Re:Encryption?

[Slashjones]

How would you propose hacking into a computer WITHOUT developing a zero-day for it?

I'm saying if they have to backdoor specific firmware, there is still hope. Of course, since they have the capability to sap up nearly everyone's data, there isn't much hope to begin with. Just saying that just because something is hosted outside the US, that doesn't mean it's somehow more vulnerable.

It isn't like anybody thinks the NSA has some psychic that just controls the minds of sysadmins from halfway around the globe.

You'd be surprised.

We're talking about wikileaks here. Obviously that is going to be a high-profile target for intelligence agencies anywhere. You simply can't run such an operation on some unencrypted webmail service ANYWHERE.

Agreed.

Re:Encryption?

[cavreader]

Storing your stuff in China or Russian jurisdictions only raises you to the top of the governments shit list. On the other hand you can always join the US expat group in Russia. At least until Russia and the US agree to exchange certain individuals that may be resident in their countries. The US and Russia have a long history of making these kind of deals.

Re:Encryption?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I worked for Wikileaks, I think I'd be encrypting everything especially if it involved using a Google server.

I would not be on the grid at this point. As for Assange, the trumped up rape charge sounds too much like the first episode of Blakes 7 to be believable.

Re:Encryption?

[Kernel Kurtz]

If you use an offshore email provider, the NSA will just grab whatever it wants, whenever it wants, without even the tiniest fig leaf of law to cover up strategic bits.

And likely none of it would ever be admissible in an American court of law........

Re:Encryption?

[meta-monkey]

It isn't like anybody thinks the NSA has some psychic that just controls the minds of sysadmins from halfway around the globe.

What do you think the tinfoil hats are for?

Come to think of it, the whole "tinfoil hat to block the mind control rays" thing is a complete psy-op. Wouldn't wrapping your head in tinfoil make you more susceptible to mind control rays, like wadding up tinfoil on your TV antenna?!

Re:Encryption?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or better yet...don't use an email provider with any US presence.

There are maybe a small handful of places better than the US for hosting as regards privacy, and in any of them a court order will compel you to give up customer data.

Thus the principal reason service providers should encrypt all data stored on their servers and in-transit to and from their clients. The cryptographic keys should never be held by the service provider; the client must possess both parts of the key-pair. A warrant would only give law enforcement access to the encrypted data leaving it up to the individual whether to handover the keys to their data. If nobody complied the courts would be backlogged for a thousand years by which time the accused would be dead of natural causes.

Re:Encryption?

[Anonymous Coward]

You foget that tin foil is now aluminium foil. Tin foil was effective against external signals to the brain so now its not available. When was the last time you saw 'tin' foil in the store that was not tin for roof repair or venting?

Re:Encryption?

[meta-monkey]

So you're saying that The Man got wise to the tinfoil loophole, had it pulled from shelves, and replaced it with aluminum foil, and for those who didn't notice the difference their source of protection now makes them more susceptible to attack! The Man is truly diabolical.

Re:Encryption?

[david_thornley]

If the provider doesn't have any US presence, then two things are true. First, it has a presence elsewhere, and is likely to be subject to warrants from its home country. (This is not to say they're all the same; a provider in a continental European country may be safer). Second, the NSA has absolutely no qualms whatsoever about hacking into it.

Re:Encryption?

[Rich0]

I'm saying if they have to backdoor specific firmware, there is still hope. Of course, since they have the capability to sap up nearly everyone's data, there isn't much hope to begin with.

Snowden revealed quite a bit in this space. The NSA has numerous departments and they cooperate.

You have the zero-day guys. They get lists of things that would be useful to hack, and they hack them. I'm sure that includes OSes, firmwares, peripherals, you name it. Some zero-days are held in reserve to avoid revealing them in case a high-priority target comes along.

You have the target intelligence guys. They identify systems to hack. They profile the targets - is this just a casual PC user, a company, or some government agency. They estimate how likely the target is to detect an intrusion - they don't want to use some super-secret zero-day on a guy who is ultra-paranoid and sends all their network traffic into a canary layered in 14 layers of firewalls and IDS.

You have the guys who run the wholesale hacking department. They pair up targets with zero-days and arrange to have them delivered, probably by redirecting their network traffic through a server that hands out the attack (too bad all your ad banners aren't protected by SSL, etc).

You have the rootkit guys who then take that initial foothold and exploit it, branching out into a network beyond the firewall and installing rootkits and monitoring software all over the place.

You have the intel guys who go in and harvest the information being sought.

Then you have the monitoring team. They make sure that all the compromised hosts stay compromised. Maybe you just installed some antivirus software that removed 3 out of the 14 rootkits they installed on your box, so they'll go ahead and put 5 more in and tell the CIA they need to be more generous with their symantec bribes.

All that division of labor means that they can break into vast numbers of computers very efficiently, with great expertise.

Re:Encryption?

[guruevi]

E-mail is fully plain text otherwise, all it needs is someone on any part of the wire (so any NATO member could or has participated with US or EU surveillance) to read your mail. The only thing that works is end-to-end encryption, which e-mail clients have fully supported for the last few decades.

Re:Encryption?

[linuxrocks123]

LavaBit didn't "fold" in the sense you intend. LavaBit complied with the letter of the court order, then raised a giant middle finger to the government by shutting down the entire email service with just enough information to tell everyone what was going on without violating the gag order. By shutting down the service, they ensured that handing over the private key, necessary to comply with the court order, gave them exactly zilch. LavaBit's only mistake was not using PFS, but there's no evidence the FBI was competent enough to take advantage of that oversight.*

Of course, LavaBit was doing something stupid to begin with. If you want secure email, USE PGP not some random company that may or may not be run by the ballsiest technologist this side of the Russian border.

*LavaBit was in the US, so theoretically the NSA shouldn't have been logging all the ciphertext as a matter of course. But maybe the NSA did and the FBI shared the key with them. We'll never know. My speculation: Snowden (the almost-certain target) would have been indicted on even more stuff after the LavaBit raid if that had happened as the FBI would have demanded access to the NSA's data on Snowden so it could complete its investigation and "do something" about this evil dude who hated freedom so much. Remember, it was the FBI going after the key and Snowden, not the NSA. Why would the FBI have helped the NSA without getting Snowden's emails in return, and why would the FBI not have charged Snowden afterwards to rack up political points? I think Occam's Razor points to the FBI having failed. YMMV.

Lets blame google!

[Anonymous Coward]

"We have a 'secret' warrant. Give us what we want or YOU goto jail."

Damm google for not protecting users... It's all their fault!

Re:Lets blame google!

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has the resources to fight against this if they cared.
They got rich by using the open infrastructure of the United States.
If they don't fight to continue having open infrastructure, then they don't deserve being rich, are not good stewards of their riches, and do not seem to care about the citizens of the country that helped make them rich.

Re:Lets blame google!

[Anonymous Coward]

but fighting would drag on for years, would cost substantial amounts of money, take that money away from revenues, and as a result, lower shareholder value... as well as
anger the lawmakers they've worked so hard and spent so much money to buy off... perhaps even losing lucrative government business in the process.

not to forget the potential for unwanted negative publicity (not all publicity is 'good' publicity) with media marking google as an enemy of the state, anti-american/pro-terrorism, and what not... the folks over at faux news channel would put their spin on it so that they're pro-molesters and wife-beaters, too.

Re:Lets blame google!

[Anonymous Coward]

lol. no company has the resources to fight the govt.

the govt gets to use OUR MONEY to fight.

Re:Lets blame google!

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitter has fought these secret warrants and won.... Goggle could too if they gave a damn about their users.

Re:Lets blame google!

[Tokolosh]

If Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, Twitter, etc. stood together against government encroachment, the Feds would have to back down. The collateral damage to the US economy (read: taxes) would be huge if they were all shut down and their executives given orange jumpsuits.

For the sake of their long-term business interests, and our liberty, it is time for some civil disobedience from corporate America.

Re:Lets blame google!

[ahodgson]

Good luck with that. Ratings agencies can't even give an honest appraisal of the country's debt without getting dragged into lawsuits and being forced to fork over billions of dollars in penalties. Any company that actually defied the police state would be out of business within a week.

Re:Lets blame google!

[Anonymous Coward]

FTFY:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130404/21055722584/document-accidentally-filed-publicly-reveals-google-fighting-back-against-government-snooping.shtml

Re:Lets blame google!

[Namarrgon]

Twitter was given a subpoena, not a secret warrant, so there was nothing preventing them from notifying the account owners. And they lost that appeal.

Re:Lets blame google!

[Anonymous Coward]

How would you know how many secret lawsuits have been filed? Here's on that got leaked:

    http://www.cnet.com/news/justice-department-tries-to-force-google-to-hand-over-user-data/

OK Google

[Anonymous Coward]

See that Android phone in front of you, the one you say 'OK Google' to? the one with the camera and the face-unlock feature? Google owns your life, and if secret warrants can get Google to turn over data it has on you, then that device in front of you is nothing but a surveillance device.

How many cameras and microphones do you have in the room right now?

Re:OK Google

[wiredog]

This applies to Apple phones, too. And Microsoft phones. And hardwired landline phones.

Re:OK Google

[nehumanuscrede]

"This applies to Apple phones, too. And Microsoft phones. And hardwired landline phones"

This pretty much applies to ANYTHING that is network connected. It can be audio, video or just meta-data that shows what your daily schedule pattern looks like. ( Eg, A burglar alarm or Electric Meter can show when you're typically at home, other systems like car tech will have GPS, traffic cams, CCTV and license plate readers will tag you, point of sale transactions via Debit or Credit cards )

Stop and think about the tech you keep on or about your person on a daily basis. Then consider in what ways that tech be used to keep tabs on you.

Re:OK Google

[Anonymous Coward]

I have one on me right now. It's connected to my chat room. It's how I hang out online. My name, address, and phone number are also in my domain name registry. Sometimes people stop by and have a homebrewed beer. I'm not scared. I have been living as if everything is under surveillance for decades. Know what you do when you find yourself bugged? No, you don't destroy it, you pretend it's not there and feed the bug disinformation.

Re:OK Google

[Anonymous Coward]

https://people.torproject.org/~ioerror/skunkworks/moto_e/

is a good start towards fixing a cell phone.

Let's blame google!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Give us what we want or we fine you and send you to jail."

They should be happy to goto jail to protect their users.

Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[Anonymous Coward]

They pretend it's about the Swedish "rape" case, by which I mean consenting sex without a condom, for the Wikileaks founder. They hound him for YEARS on such silly charges, pretending that no, it's all very serious and no, they're not interested in extraditing him to the US to be tortured and broken.

And then the other shoe drops. And who is surprised.

Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[close_wait]

They pretend it's about the Swedish "rape" case, by which I mean consenting sex without a condom.

Sigh. First off, it's just as easy to extradite someone to the US from the UK as it is from Sweden. If the US wants him, there's no need for them to somehow persuade the Swedish authorities to extradite him first on their behalf.

Second, sex without consent is rape. If someone agrees to have sex with you on condition that you use a condom, then they haven't consented to condom-less sex. And condom-less sex with a promiscuous stranger risks such nasties as HIV. Whether this happened, we don't know. But the Swedish authorities have the right to carry out an investigation.

Overall, my feeling is that WikiLeaks is an important public service, but that Julian Assange is a bit of an arsehole.

Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[Anonymous Coward]

My impression of Julian Assange is also that he seems to be a bit of an asshole, with more than a few personal flaws of varying magnitude. If he can indeed be tried and found guilty of rape, then he should serve time for it. No question about it.

There is also my impression of the Swedish handling of his case is that it reeks of oddities, high and low, including outright lies from the prosecutor.

(One example includes the statements from the prosecutor's side amounting to that they don't, and can't, travel outside of Sweden to interview/interrogate suspects, which is completely and blatantly false. Why the media hasn't picked up more on this is fascinating, to put it mildly.)

Whether the Swedish handling of the case is in any way related to (or predicated by) the US, I have no idea. Many facts are missing and disinformation is plentiful.

There are very odd things about the whole thing and it is very much not black/white.

Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[Richard_at_work]

You realise that on all of the counts listed in the European Arrest Warrant, dual criminality was asserted and thus no UK judge found grounds to dismiss on the basis of lack of criminality in the offences listed?

See page 15 of the following PDF:

http://webarchive.nationalarch...

And you should also check out what the offences listed actually are, because your description is quite a way off.

The offence described as rape is as follows:

[quote]
On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party (SQ) in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.

It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity.
[/quote]

Offence 4, Page 3 of the above document.

The lack of a condom used also shows up in Offence 2, Page 2, for a different injured party (AA).

How about you Assange supporters actually get your facts right about what the arrest warrant actually lays out? You can harp on about "such silly charges" but its patently obvious you have never actually read the rulings against Assange, which makes it trivial to dismiss you out of hand.

Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[Anonymous Coward]

"there's no need for them to somehow persuade the Swedish authorities to extradite him first on their behalf. "

Nobody said there was a "need" but it would keep their hand close to the vest, as they've done for years investigating the other wikileaks members.

Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Second, sex without consent is rape." Which is not what happened. So mentioning it and then putting conditions and qualifiers on it doesn't help you either, it wasn't rape.

When the media reports it as a "rape" case and leaves it at that, the case for extradition is a lot more plausible no matter what the details actually are.

Condom, no condom, that's not really an extradition offense and he tried to meet the prosecutor to answer questions on neutral ground, but the prosecutor declined.

So they sat outside an embassy, for years and years and years. And dumbasses like you think it's still about sex without a condom, as they attempt to re-redact the torture report.

Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[FlyHelicopters]

None of that matters... The fact is, a thousand of these crimes are committed every day, how many of them have international arrest warrants with all the money spent on them that this one has?

The sheer effort put forth is beyond nuts... the whole thing stinks...

Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[Richard_at_work]

So basically you want there to be a conspiracy theory behind it all, so you are going to twist everything and anything you can so you see a conspiracy theory...

In 2013 there were 5 EAW's issued for sexual offences. In 2012 there were 4.

The "sheer effort" in Assanges case is purely because of his own actions - once the extradition judge approves the extradition and all appeals are dealt with, the country is obliged to extradite. If the subject of the EAW absconds, its the extraditing countries obligation to find him again. In this case, they know where he is, he is there of his own volition, and there is a standing warrant for his arrest so he will be arrested when he leaves the embassy.

You don't just give up on warrants because the subject is making things difficult or expensive. If that were possible, we would see a very interesting approach by a large number of criminals.

http://www.copfs.gov.uk/foi/re...

Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, it's just as easy to extradite someone to the US from the UK as it is from Sweden.

Sweden has helpfully allowed the US to extradite two people without going through the usual legal procedures. That is to say, they didn't debate the matter in court: they just grabbed them off the street, bundled them into an airplane and flew them out of the country within a few hours. The only reason their lawyer even knew this was happening is because he was in the middle of a phone conversation with one of them when he was grabbed. The two of them were flown to Egypt, where they were tortured. (Or, just possibly, were treated with perfect humaneness by the Egyptian government, and concocted an elaborate lie about being tortured. And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.)

To my knowledge, there is no similar case of anyone being abducted from the UK with the consent of the UK government. If I had earned the enmity of the US, I'd feel much safer in the UK than in Sweden.

Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[Anonymous Coward]

He made a pass at her, she said on her account "might as well" which constitutes consent, condom or no condom is thus irrelevant. There is no law requiring condom use between consenting adults and no matter how upset she is about the other woman that came along, she can't in hindsight withdraw consent.

He was allowed to leave the country, no charges were laid against him, and AFTER he left, then the demonizing international arrest warrant was issued, and he was painted as a 'fugitive'.

This claim that your making, of her asleep and somehow him fucking her while shes asleep, do you seriously want to claim that? Do you imagine you can just slip your cock into a woman while she's asleep and somehow it just slides in while she dreams of clouds??? Have you never had sex?

Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you never had sex?

This is /., you have to ask?

Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically you want there to be a conspiracy theory behind it all, so you are going to twist everything and anything you can so you see a conspiracy theory...

About the same time when the Assange thing broke news there was a case where two Irish tourists got into a row with a Swede and then beat him up so badly that he had to be hospitalized.

The names and addresses of the two guys are known. Still, the Swedish prosecutor responsible for the case didn't issue an international warrant for them. When asked for a reason, they said that trying to get the guys from abroad would be too much of a hassle.

It seems like there's some reason why the prosecutors are willing to go through the hassle for Assange but not for some random violent criminals.

Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[wiredog]

It's really about ethics in security journalism.

Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[close_wait]

"Second, sex without consent is rape." Which is not what happened.

Well, non-consensual sex is what is claimed. Whether it happened is for a jury to decide.

And dumbasses like you think it's still about sex without a condom

Ah, what en elegant way you have with words!

Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[AmiMoJo]

The fear wasn't extradition, it was rendition. People had been kidnapped from Sweden before. Sweden even had to run its own military ops to stop it happening. The problem is that parts of the government still seem to be cooperating with the US. The crackdown in TPB appears to have been at the request of the US.

It also seems highly suspicious that the case was dropped and he was told he was free to go, but then the prosecutor changed her mind and refused to interview him in the UK. If you were wanted by the US, if US senators were literally calling for your head on a platter, would you take the risk of going there? If you had seen leaked evidence that they do in fact render people to other countries, torture them for months, take them Guantanamo and torture them some more?

By all means lets have an investigation. The Swedish authorities want to question him. They can do that in the UK, or by video link. He offered, repeatedly, and it's been done before. Then they can decide what they want to do next, and we can hear some charges and legal arguments.

Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not the GP, but sometimes there is no elegant way to tell someone that they are, indeed, a dumbass if they still believe any of this trumped-up shit at this late stage in the game. Every word that comes out of the mouths of the "authorities" is a lie. They have no interest in telling the truth or ever letting the truth be known to the unwashed masses. They hate you, they hate me, they hate all of us, with every fiber of their being. If you believe anything less, then you are naive and you deserve whatever you get. Wake up and realize that the powers that be won't be happy until you are completely enslaved in a technological matrix or dead. Count on it.

Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can sigh all you like, but a suspicion of sex by surprise (not even a charge, only wanted for questioning) is so important that they will use Interpol red letters and spend $12m per year surrounding the Ecuadorian embassy..... really? Sorry, doesn't pass the smell test of any reasonable person.

Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[Anonymous Coward]

but then the prosecutor changed her mind

Actually no, prosecutor was changed after the previous one dropped the case (from Chief Public Prosecutor to Director of Public Prosecution who just happens to be radical feminist).

Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[gnasher719]

By all means lets have an investigation. The Swedish authorities want to question him. They can do that in the UK, or by video link. He offered, repeatedly, and it's been done before. Then they can decide what they want to do next, and we can hear some charges and legal arguments.

Since when does a prosecutor go to a foreign country to interview someone? Either they have enough to ask for an extradition, then they ask for an extradition, or they don't have enough, in which case an interview would be pointless.

Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[Shadowmist]

I'm not the GP, but sometimes there is no elegant way to tell someone that they are, indeed, a dumbass if they still believe any of this trumped-up shit at this late stage in the game. Every word that comes out of the mouths of the "authorities" is a lie. They have no interest in telling the truth or ever letting the truth be known to the unwashed masses. They hate you, they hate me, they hate all of us, with every fiber of their being. If you believe anything less, then you are naive and you deserve whatever you get. Wake up and realize that the powers that be won't be happy until you are completely enslaved in a technological matrix or dead. Count on it.

TThis is extremist ignorance from the other side aisle. Despite all of the Orwell you may have read, states aren't interested in causing pain, misery, and death for it's own sake or just to get their jollies out. States are simply apparati through which a lot of interests political and (most especially) corporate manifest their will. In the process they do a lot of deals and maneuvers for various reasons they really don't want to be aired in the open. And a fair amount of it perhaps, shouldn't be. Since Assange came from Sweden, the U.S. no doubt asked the Swedes for a favor to see if they could dig up some useful skeleton from Assange's past. This particular cold case sounds at the very least plausible.

The powers at be don't want us all dead. After all our purchases run the market, our labor makes things happen. They probably do want us compliant, and they'd rather we choose such compliance of our own free will. It's a lot cheaper and less messy that way.

Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh. First off, it's just as easy to extradite someone to the US from the UK as it is from Sweden. If the US wants him, there's no need for them to somehow persuade the Swedish authorities to extradite him first on their behalf.

Yes and no...Extradition requires judicial overview in both cases, but Sweden apparently has a special thing - if they get a request for 'borrowing' someone to help them investigate some other crime (no charge against the one they want to borrow (YET)), well, that can be decided straight away by some low level official in some department, no pesky courts involved

. You think they wouldn't find a charge the second he steps off the plane?

Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[Anonymous Coward]

My impression of Julian Assange is also that he seems to be a bit of an asshole, with more than a few personal flaws of varying magnitude. If he can indeed be tried and found guilty of rape, then he should serve time for it. No question about it.

True - and by any realistic measure he'd get a sentence that would mean less time than what he's already spent in the embassy. So I for one, tend to believe him when he says that it's not the Swedish court case he's worried about...

Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[rahvin112]

And the UK has likely done the same (though less publicized) AND extradited people to the US for things that aren't even crimes in the UK.

Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when does a prosecutor go to a foreign country to interview someone? Either they have enough to ask for an extradition, then they ask for an extradition, or they don't have enough, in which case an interview would be pointless.

The prosecutor does it, and has done so in the past, when that's what's required to bring the case forward. one of their responsibilities towards the plaintiff (who apparently isn't all that interested anymore).
They got a tap on the twist for not bringing the case forward last time the case was tested in court. Hopefully a full backhand round-houser, while wearing an assortment of pointy rings, the next time...

Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Since when does a prosecutor go to a foreign country to interview someone?" Since when do they station guards outside an embassy for YEARS over condomless sex?

Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[Anonymous Coward]

I AM the GP, and AMEN. You are absolutely correct. Some people WANT to pretend along with the authorities, ongoing. FUCK those people. The lies end with me, politeness be damned.

I'm not going to apologize for letting "dumbass" fly, that was my NICEST selection. captcha : indolent

Fuck a 6 dig that acts like a 4 dig anyway, close_wait

Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[HiThere]

Nonsense. The cat does not hate the mouse, the cat LOVES the mouse. It's delicious.

Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[david_thornley]

I am not a lawyer. I am, specifically, not a Swedish lawyer, and I don't know how they handle these things. I've seen descriptions (which I can't verify easily) of reasons why the Swedes do need him physically for the case. I'm not accepting the word of random people who, I'm fairly sure, are also not Swedish lawyers.

I don't know the facts of the case. The allegations I've seen do include what I'd consider rape. Whether they are true or not is something for the Swedish legal system to decide.

I do know that the UK seems to be very happy to extradite people to the US, and AFAICT Sweden is less eager to do that. Legally, extraditing Assange from the UK would require agreement from the UK, while extraditing him from Sweden currently would require agreement from Sweden and the UK. There has been a case of "extraordinary rendition" from Sweden to the US, and that got a pretty sizable political reaction.

I'm unaware that the US Government has charge Assange with anything. Assange is not, and never has been, a US citizen. I'm not sure what they'd charge him with except for something relating to espionage, which (AFAIK) is a crime in all three countries. I've seen no evidence that the US is after him at all (there have been the usual calls for his head by some idiots in politics, but that means nothing).

Re:Anyone think it's about 'sex w/o a condom'?

[Anonymous Coward]

Second, sex without consent is rape. If someone agrees to have sex with you on condition that you use a condom, then they haven't consented to condom-less sex.

If you've ever had sex, you'd recognize there's a huge difference between rape and "sex and I forgot to put the condom".

The second sucks, sure, but equating it to rape? Pff... You think sex with condom is risk-less? Think twice.

Rape is infinitely more violent than no condom. You don't even have to have been raped to get the difference, just have sex, at least once.

Brainwashed...

[Anonymous Coward]

....by the 'do no evil' slogan?
Come on, Google is just as evil as the rest of the pact.

Re:Brainwashed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Complying with a federally issued, legal warrant isn't evil.

Google has no requirement to spend thousands, or even millions of dollars to fight, (especially a losing fight), a warrant on anybody's behalf.

Nice headline

[Anonymous Coward]

...too bad it's missing the word "ordered" in it... but hey lets not let that stop a good google bashing story.

US Datacenter hands over non US data

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a hard time believing that Sarah Harrison and Kristinn Hrafnsson were US residents. Which means that we are looking at an example of a US datacenter handing over data stored on servers outside the US to US authorities.

Re:US Datacenter hands over non US data

[jklovanc]

The residence of the person is irrelevant. The issue is the location of the data. If the data is stored on US servers then the warrant applies.

Re:US Datacenter hands over non US data

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a hard time believing that Sarah Harrison and Kristinn Hrafnsson were US residents. Which means that we are looking at an example of a US datacenter handing over data stored on servers outside the US to US authorities.

Don't see how their rsidency status would affect where the data was stored - weren't there /. stories on how the authorities were listening in wholesale on the sync'ing traffic between data centers, and how Google then implemented encryption of said traffic?

So most likely data held on both US and non-US servers...

Re:US Datacenter hands over non US data

[GovCheese]

Privacy issues aside, continued revelations like this ultimately damages US data businesses. They ("they") don't give a shit about a lot of things but usually they care about promoting and preserving US business opportunities. Why would Europe or anyone else subscribe to a US company's data offerings now? Or US citizens for that matter?

Re:US Datacenter hands over non US data

[Anonymous Coward]

Talk to Microsoft about that. They are currently embroiled in a federal case with the US Government where a US Search warrant has been issued to Microsoft corporation for data that is owned by Microsoft Ireland (A technically separate foreign corporation) and held on services outside US jurisdiction. So far the US government has argued in court that it pretty much doesnt matter which country the data is in or which company actually owns it, they should be able to access it even though its on foreign owned servers in a foreign country.

Re:US Datacenter hands over non US data

[Anonymous Coward]

> Microsoft Ireland (A technically separate foreign corporation)

FWIW I agree with the US government. Foreign shell corps exist for tax purposes, the actual lines of managerial control are not mitigated by tax structures. It isn't like MS Ireland could decide tomorrow to start doing their own thing and ignore Redmond.

Re:US Datacenter hands over non US data

[moronoxyd]

Talk to Microsoft about that.

No need. Microsoft and the GP agree that it does matter where the data is STORED.

Re:US Datacenter hands over non US data

[bickerdyke]

Foreign dependencies because multinational companies wnat to make business in those countries, too. Most countries demand that a part of your company is in that country if you want to sell something there. (Or at least a local distributor who is responsible for what is imported and sold)

It's tax reasons why those companies exist in Ireland, and not in France or Germany.

Re:US Datacenter hands over non US data

[houghi]

Foreign shell corps exist for tax purposes, the actual lines of managerial control are not mitigated by tax structures.

When the data is there, that means that it is not just a shell corps. That means they actually have a datacenter there.

Re:US Datacenter hands over non US data

[Anonymous Coward]

And how is that different from having a branch office there with a data center?

It isn't.

Re:US Datacenter hands over non US data

[Anonymous Coward]

A branch office would be part of the same legal entity (as far as I understand it when translated to my country's business/legal framework) while MS Ireland is a separate (though associated) entity from MS USA, and operates under a different set of laws - which they would violate if they complied with the US order...

Re:US Datacenter hands over non US data

[Anonymous Coward]

Circular reasoning for the lose!

Congrats on completely missing the point.

Under Search Warrant

[Anonymous Coward]

...it had handed over emails and other digital data belonging to three of its staffers to the FBI under a secret search warrant...

So, a US company receives a search warrant and complies with it... what's the news here?

Re:Under Search Warrant

[Anonymous Coward]

The news is that at least two of the mailboxes belonged to non US citizens, which in all likelihood weren't residents in the US. Given the assurances Google has given about complying with EU regulations, this is BIG news.

Re:Under Search Warrant

[bickerdyke]

In which case the non-US citizens should be glad that the US authorities even went that extra mile and got a judge to sign a warrant and not NSL to get the data of foreign agents without judical oversight.

Re:Under Search Warrant

[houghi]

If the data was in the US, not so much. The fact that the data was ALSO on non-US servers would not matter.
I could imagine that Google has a LOT of duplicate information around the world, so that it can serve the customer as fast as possible. Just like Amazon has several warehouses and not just one.

Re:Under Search Warrant

[petermgreen]

And the lesson is if you care about privacy you should avoid storing your data with multinational companies because every nation in which the company operates is a nation that could potentially coerce the company into handing over your data..

Infected by what?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's an ad on the front page asking if slashdoters are infected by some non-computer virus?

The web looks different when browsing without adblock!

i LOL at the lousy excuse !

[Anonymous Coward]

Google had no choice under US law

Fuck man, stop giving us this shitty excuse!

Under US laws Google has to pay *A SHITLOAD OF TAXES* and what Google did?

Google shifted its money, via accounting, around the world, to Ireland, to Luxembourg, to many other tax havens, so that it doesn't need to pay those taxes

If Google can find ways to skirt around the US laws regarding taxes, don't you fucking tell us Google has no motherfucking choice but to comply to the motherfucking US laws and hand over whatever them fucking goons told it to

Re:i LOL at the lousy excuse !

[Pi1grim]

Legality of tax evasion schemes is flaky, moreso - it's quite hard to nail corporations for it, because they follow the letter of the law and game the system in order to minimize their taxes. Now telling FBI off and refusing to comply with a court order is entirely different game - penalties can range up to total halt of all services google provides on US soil and confiscation of every tangible item feds can get their hands on. You want change - go whine at government for insilling the rules not at corporations playing by them.

Re:i LOL at the lousy excuse !

[bickerdyke]

Fuck man, stop giving us this shitty excuse!

Under US laws Google has to pay *A SHITLOAD OF TAXES* and what Google did?

Google shifted its money, via accounting, around the world, to Ireland, to Luxembourg, to many other tax havens, so that it doesn't need to pay those taxes

No. Obviously Google hasn't to pay a "shitload of taxes" as US (and other countries) laws allowed them to legally shift their money around the world.

You're mixing that up with "should have to pay"

Re:i LOL at the lousy excuse !

[Anonymous Coward]

There's another option:
the government turns a blind-eye to Google's tax games as long as it can get its paws on Google's data.

If Google refuses to play they'll suddenly get a tax bill with a very big number written on it.

Re:i LOL at the lousy excuse !

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.

When smaller entities try the same practices in Australia, the Australian Tax Office comes down hard and says the offshore entity is not genuine, but a method of evading tax.

However they do nothing when large conglomerates setup "offices" in tax havens.

Re:i LOL at the lousy excuse !

[monkeyFuzz]

You want change - go whine at government for insilling the rules not at corporations playing by them.

You say that as if though there's actually a distinction between the 'government' making rules and the poor 'corporationd' forced to abide by them.

Re:i LOL at the lousy excuse !

[Dashiva Dan]

Bullshit.

When smaller entities try the same practices in Australia, the Australian Tax Office comes down hard and says the offshore entity is not genuine, but a method of evading tax.

However they do nothing when large conglomerates setup "offices" in tax havens.

Yeah, and that is exactly how they get around disingenuous offshore entities... by putting an office out there with at least 1 employee in it. Then it's legitimate. All the larger companies save far more than it costs to set this up when they do so. Smaller companies cannot offset the cost. But that's purely based on the amount of money your company makes. There's a point where you have to get some tax loopholes, as that's what most of your best competitors are doing, and you aren't going to want to compete with a handicap... But the solution is tax reform, and ianap (i am not a politician(thank goodness)) so getting waaay of topic here :)

Compare this to Microsoft's Case

[Anonymous Coward]

So Google hands over the data of a brit, an icelander and (maybe?) a german. Was the data stored on servers local to their countries? That seems like a reasonable assumption given that each of those countries have their own domestic version of google.

Remember this? Judge may hold Microsoft in contempt after refusal to hand over foreign data.

Google is now officially more evil than microsoft. Not that I think MS has a chance of winning, and the only reason they are fighting back is because of the potential to lose business. But it is still better to have the megalocorp's interests aligned with good than with evil.

Re:Compare this to Microsoft's Case

[Anonymous Coward]

So Google hands over the data of a brit, an icelander and (maybe?) a german. Was the data stored on servers local to their countries? That seems like a reasonable assumption given that each of those countries have their own domestic version of google.

Remember this? Judge may hold Microsoft in contempt after refusal to hand over foreign data.

Google is now officially more evil than microsoft. Not that I think MS has a chance of winning, and the only reason they are fighting back is because of the potential to lose business. But it is still better to have the megalocorp's interests aligned with good than with evil.

Google syncs (nowadays via encrypted links, so NSA et al can't tap it wholesale) data between multiple centers, so likely the data was (among other places) in the US.

US court order to a US corp for data residing in the US - doesn't leave much wiggle room compared to a US court order to a US corp for data held by an Irish corp (though associated) in Ireland and which release of would mean a breach of Irish law.

I'd say MS has a lot more to fight with...

The question is, what were they invstigating

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose it is possible that there was some real evidence that some Wikipedia officials might be involved in some sort of genuinely illegal activity.

But it is probably safe to assume that that is not the case. Probably they were trying to track down somebody that was revealing information that embarrasses the government.

Incidentally, I am surprised that it is not actually a crime to "use of computer equipment to disclose sensitive information that would embarrass the government". Would save a lot of bother pursuing other trivial charges with huge penalties.

In Soviet Amerika, government hacks you

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Amerika, government hacks you

Time to get totally degoogled

[Anonymous Coward]

ixquick.com
yandex.com
torproject.org

Re:Time to get totally degoogled

[Anonymous Coward]

https://duckduckgo.com/

They took more than email

[93 Escort Wagon]

The subjects of the warrants were the investigations editor of WikiLeaks, the British citizen Sarah Harrison; the spokesperson for the organisation, Kristinn Hrafnsson; and Joseph Farrell, one of its senior editors

It's obvious they also stole some vowels from the poor spokesperson.

Friends don't let friends...

[Anonymous Coward]

...use Google Mail.

No, its about sex without consent ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... consenting sex without a condom ...

Actually, the consent was conditional upon the use of a condom. You see a girl is sort of like the GPL, you abide by the rules of the girl/fsf or you lose your license to continue.

You are basically claiming that when a girl says no you don't have to stop if you think her objection is frivolous.

Re:No, its about sex without consent ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... consenting sex without a condom ...

Actually, the consent was conditional upon the use of a condom. You see a girl is sort of like the GPL, you abide by the rules of the girl/fsf or you lose your license to continue.

And I suppose that just as with the GPL this arrangement was documented in writing?

Don't get me wrong, there are certainly a lot of cases of rape that don't get prosecuted. However, I think the root cause here is the fact that we take a single physical act (having sex) and make its legality completely contingent on a state of mind (having consent) which almost never is documented. There is no way to distinguish consensual sex from rape on the basis of physical evidence alone, and people have consensual sex all the time.

99% of the time there are only two parties present when a couple has sex, so it almost always ends up as a "he says, she says" argument. In the 1% of cases where there are others present, then we get to deal with eyewitness testimony, which is subject to all kinds of other problems.

The problem is that there aren't really any solutions unless you have a way to authenticate people and register their consent to have sex with a trustworthy 3rd party EVERY time they have sex.

No - Microsoft really are fighting this

[Chrisq]

You can't fix bad government policy with better tech...

But Microsoft is using the opposite tactic and fighting this with bad tech. If the government are spending all their money on licenses and all their efforts trying to integrate proprietary systems then they have less time and resources to snoop on citizens

Did these 3 staffers also have sex w/o condom?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well there is clearly a conspiracy against Wikileaks, because these 3 staffers had their emails spied on, or are you suggesting they also had sex with this woman while she was asleep? She seems to be a really heavy sleeper!

The 'sheer effort' claim is also bogus. He WAS IN SWEDEN, he even asked if it was OK to go to the UK. No extradition warrant was needed, they could simply have laid charges before he left or after his return.

The only reason to wait for issue the warrant appears to be for the "fugitive" claim it bestows.

Re:Did these 3 staffers also have sex w/o condom?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Was this rape case listed on the warrant? Or was it the real case where they think he paid for the leaked info.

Whether or not you believe the last part, it's still a real investigation.

great deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Fellow users, i found a very interesting site where i can buy virtual credit cards to verify paypal, ebay, amazon and others!
www.getvcc.net
they have acoupn running for 1st time customers: newcust10
Use this when checking out to receive 10% discount on any of their products

Do no Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Do no evil clause comes to mind.. But who decides whats evil?

Run your own damn mail server

[Anonymous Coward]

Gmail? Seriously? Run your own mail server in your own location. Wikileaks claims to have the technical moxie to keep secrets. Yes, your lines may/will be tapped, but any PGP mail they suck up will be encrypted. And you'll know when they bust your door down (unless the FBI succeeds in planting a mole in your operation).

Joe Biden for 2016

[Anonymous Coward]

Joe Biden is a square shooter. Joe Biden for 2016!

FBI 3

[Culture20]

Did I miss something? Did they skip FBI 2 just like Windows 9? That headline could be written in a less confusing manner: "Google Handed Three Wikileaks Staffers' Data to FBI"

Re:FBI 3

[Culture20]

Or even better: "Google Handed Data of Three Wikileaks Staffers to FBI"

Re:FBI 3

[steelfood]

FBI 1 was under Hoover. FBI 2 was post-Hoover. And FBI 3 is neo-Hoover.

Cloud is toxic....

[dablow]

This is a perfect example of why cloud computing is a baaaaad idea...

At least when you have it in-house, the gov usually needs a warrant to come through your door and seize stuff....At the very least you are aware you are being targeted and can start mounting a legal defense.

When it's housed on a 3rd party provider, you need not even be aware they have seized your stuff.....

Not to mention corporate espionage going on and you have exactly 0 ways of detecting it.

Yes yes you can encrypt. But encryption does not work for EVERYTHING in every situation. You can encrypt documents easy enough, but what if those documents are only available via a web interface (something like good docs). Or how do you encrypt say virtual servers so the host (who has root access to the hardware) cannot see them or what is inside them but their hypervisor can execute it....

Funny enough phone service suffers from the same problems. Your service provider knows who you are calling, when, from where and can listen in to your convo at will without you knowing any better. But this is why, pre-911, you needed a warrant to do that and there where legal protections in place to prevent that from occurring.

The CIA owns/created Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Facts: https://medium.com/@NafeezAhmed/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e

Funny how everyone doesn't realize that Google = CIA = US Government. And yet people think they are a just a private corporation hahahaaha.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Good It serves them right Wikia and Wikileaks are plagariazers anyways having a bunch of thugs bully kids for their Idea's. Then we have the fraud Jimmy Whales and Tracy Segal. The Baby Killers.