Slashdot Mirror
Google, Apple, Mozilla, and the EFF Support Microsoft's Fight Against Gag Orders (betanews.com)
An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes BetaNews about new legal documents filed Friday:
Microsoft is fighting the US Justice Department in an attempt to quash a law that prevents companies informing customers that the government is requesting their data. The technology giant has the backing of other tech companies as well as media outlets. Amazon, Apple, Google, Fox News, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Mozilla are among those offering their support to Microsoft. The lawsuit says that blocking companies from keeping their customers informed is unconstitutional, and it comes at a time when tech companies in particular are keen to be as open and transparent as possible about government requests for data....
As EFF Senior Staff Attorney Lee Tien puts it: "Whether the government has a warrant to rifle through our mail, safety deposit boxes, or emails stored in the cloud, it must notify people about the searches. When electronic searches are done in secret, we lose our right to challenge the legality of law enforcement invasions of privacy. The Fourth Amendment doesn't allow that, and it's time for the government to step up and respect the Constitution."
Mozilla argues transparency "is critical to our vision of an open, trusted, secure web that places users in control of their experience online," in a blog post announcing that they'd joined a brief filed by Apple, Twilio, and Lithium Technologies.
And a statement from an EFF staff attorney argues that notifying the targets of searches "provides a free society with a crucial means of government accountability."
As EFF Senior Staff Attorney Lee Tien puts it: "Whether the government has a warrant to rifle through our mail, safety deposit boxes, or emails stored in the cloud, it must notify people about the searches. When electronic searches are done in secret, we lose our right to challenge the legality of law enforcement invasions of privacy. The Fourth Amendment doesn't allow that, and it's time for the government to step up and respect the Constitution."
Mozilla argues transparency "is critical to our vision of an open, trusted, secure web that places users in control of their experience online," in a blog post announcing that they'd joined a brief filed by Apple, Twilio, and Lithium Technologies.
And a statement from an EFF staff attorney argues that notifying the targets of searches "provides a free society with a crucial means of government accountability."
That we have to rely on corporations to make this fight for us is a sign of how bad off we are.
That "open, trusted, secure web" is something the government does not want. Not just the US government but, well, I think all of them. It's critical for an authoritarian establishment to be able to suppress dissenting opinions and to investigate and prevent dissemination of information that puts their control at risk - from both foreign and domestic sources. A government only permits a "free society with a crucial means of government accountability" so far as it ensures that the populace is satisfied enough not to revolt en masse. The primary job of a government is to keep itself in power, and the rest takes a backseat.
...and there's your daily dose of libertarian whackjob/conspiracy theory rambling. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday.
On the surface, this seems like corporations fighting for a noble cause, personal privacy.
But why? You can make an argument that good privacy is good business, that customers will flock to a platform that provides privacy and security of data. Yet at the same time, vast numbers of people flock to platforms like Facebook and Google services that basically turn their privacy into a product to sell to others.
From a cost perspective, it would seem to be cheaper for corporations to just quietly going along with government surveillance requests. Lower legal costs and greater credibility with national security advocates would seem beneficial.
Sometimes I wonder if the privacy battle isn't a noble fight for my privacy, but just a naked power struggle between corporations and the government that only seems like it's about rights which might apply to the individual, but is really about corporations wanting to do their own thing. I'd wager libertarians would cast this as as a struggle against government intervention, but even if the private sector wins, are individuals actually winning anything?
Transparency means you don't know that they looked at your data.
From TFS:
Yes, these people are really late to the party. But at least they (finally) showed up.
The problem we have is that the congress, which takes an oath WRT making constitutionally compliant law, consistently ignores that oath. This is compounded by the fact that the courts, which are charged (by themselves, but that's a different problem of very long standing) with making sure that laws that are not compliant with the constitution are struck down, consistently do not do so.
It remains to be seen if this will be yet another instance of congress and the courts working together to do what they want, rather than what they are actually authorized to do. But I wouldn't get my hopes up.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
While in the past, I agree that people were correct to hold the government accountable for this kind of surveillance, it isn't the biggest issue today. Huge amounts of information are gathered by companies about everybody on the 'net, and shared between them without any limitations. You don't want the government to see your email? Ok, fine -- but Google's incredibly powerful AI team doesn't just see your email -- it *understands* your email. Google can, and does, use that knowledge in any number of ways; and ways that will get more diverse (and perverse?) in the future.
In the not too distant future, I believe that companies like Google and Facebook will become more politically powerful than 99% of the governments in the world. Facebook was going to launch a satellite today to allow everybody in Africa to use Facebook; although somehow the rocket that was going to launch that satellite blew up. My belief is that Facebook wants to get information about everybody on the planet, and will do whatever it takes to do that.
Governments? Come on, that's not the threat.
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Unlike the US government, Zuckerberg does not assert the right to drone-strike, rendition, civil forfeiture, SWAT or parallel construct your ass if he feels you are insufficiently patriotic.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Glad to see companies like Microsoft and Apple fighting for our freedoms. As usual, the others just follow suit when shamed into it.
Actually, they are both so. The fact that you finger just business, it means you're a goddamn idiot.
FTS:
...When electronic searches are done in secret, we lose our right to challenge the legality of law enforcement invasions of privacy. The Fourth Amendment doesn't allow that, and it's time for the government to step up and respect the Constitution."
"Respect" is an attitude that can easily be faked, and it doesn't mean jack shit in this context. Given that the Constitution is, according to Wikipedia, "the supreme law of the United States of America", the government had bloody well better "step up and abide by the Constitution". I would expect a senior attorney for the EFF to realize the importance of this wording, and to speak more carefully on the matter. Too damned many people in the government regard the Constitution as merely a set of suggestions. Talking about respecting it, rather than insisting that they obey it, encourages these asshats to pay only lip service to the law of the land.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
This is compounded by the fact that the courts, which are charged (by themselves, but that's a different problem of very long standing) with making sure that laws that are not compliant with the constitution are struck down, consistently do not do so.
The courts do so rarely, and avoid it if the law gives them a way to avoid it. For example, if it is possible to read a law in a way that would make it constitutional, they will do so (which may still restrict what the government can do with it.)
And there's a reason for that. Courts always walk a very fine line. The police do not work for them. The army does not work for them. Government officials, by and large, do not work for them. Criminal defendants do not work for them. The power of a court is directly dependent on whether people are willing to listen to it--very much like the old rule that a King can should NEVER make an order that will not be obeyed.
There are also more direct checks and balances. Congress can excuse laws from judicial review if it wants to, for example. The Constitution can also be changed to make a law constitutional--as has happened a number of times in United States History.
And, of course, the judgment of history will come down very heavily on certain decisions, in a way it almost never does on any Congress or even President--Dred Scott and Korematsu being the most obvious.
The Courts are very powerful, but they are also very cautious. (Anything you may have read about too many "activist judges" is primarily ignorant or intentionally misleading commentary aimed at manipulating voters.)
Real lawyers write in C++
The more people of the US call upon the constitution (or not specifically the constitutional amendments) to protect against basic human civil liberties, the weaker the constitution becomes. This is because people who already struggle with the concept of right and wrong and are willing to blur lines when it's convenient to them will demonize the constitution and the barrier keeping them from achieving their goals.
Additionally, the American constitution suggests that all men (I suppose women too) are created equal... And that means all American in some people's eyes:
What we're dealing with here is a violation of basic human civil liberties. There shouldn't be a need for a 200 year old document to protect such a things. Already, most people simply don't care about the second amendment and those who do seem like nut jobs (and often are).
It is obvious to me that someday, big brother will happen and 1984 will be absolute. All we can do is try to delay it. The constitution weakens as a defense every time it is exercised to protect what is simply logic and should not need help from the constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company
I imagine the number of NSLs has grown high enough for all of them to think twice. When the sheer volume becomes public, all of these companies can now point to this and say they tried to reason with government, had just been following orders, and its not like they WANTED to betray you.
Its a timebomb, and they know it. This is proactive damage control.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
A court ruled the Fourth doesn't apply to your computer...therefore the government did not need a warrant to break in to it, nor were you offered any protections against what they found. On top of that, they recently ruled you're not afforded any protections from evidence being used against you that was gathered illegally.
All the government has to do is find a clever wording to expand this to your online presence. Then, going with past precedence; there isn't going to be any issues or 4th amendment violations because the government will have legitimized their actions.
That's the key, it's no longer illegal once the government makes it legal; and they have a habit of making things legal for themselves that will never be legal. The rights in the constitution are merely an illusion they have not yet wiped out.
I firmly believe they are right here, but it's funny that the quote from Mozilla is in regards to users having the right of control when they instituted support for digital restrictions. It's a bit of a hypocritical position to take.
No. It's not rare. It's not inconsequential, either.
In this context, SCOTUS has, over and over, gone directly against the constitution. Almost the entire bill of rights has been violated by congress and the courts (amendment three remains unsullied as far as I know); the outright inversion of the commerce clause is right there for anyone to see; blatantly ex post facto laws (both state and federal) have arisen and been confirmed; and in the case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), they arrogated article five powers to themselves not authorized by article three, which is the cause of the problem at the SCOTUS level. Congress has a similar, though related, problem. Both are violating their oaths any time this sort of thing is made law, or rubber stamped by SCOTUS in any sense one might imagine they can do so, including the pretense they maintain that they actually have such authority legitimately.
There are now many thousands of laws in abject violation, all of which have enjoyed SCOTUS's blessing. Many more exist which have yet to be tested at that level, but precedent tells us what is most likely to happen.
When the constitution says "shall make no law", that's the end of it. No law is not "some law" or "lots of law."
When the constitution says "shall not infringe", that's the end of it. "Shall not" is not "shall."
When the constitution says "interstate commerce", that's the end of it. "Interstate" is not "intrastate."
When the constitution says "no ex post facto law", that's the end of it. Among other things, it quite specifically means that punishment cannot be increased retroactively after sentencing. Yet there are many laws that do so, some of which have that coveted SCOTUS rubber stamp, and in that condition, encourage legislators to keep doing that very thing.
And so on. For quite some length.
Yes, the system works the way they want it to work, and that's what lawyers are taught to deal with from day one. Lawyers saying things are working properly is nothing less than a form of Stockholm syndrome with the added benefit of self-enrichment in almost every instance.
No, it's not working as designed, intended, and constitutionally authorized. It is fundamentally corrupt. Unfortunately, that puts every member of the legal system in the position of also being fundamentally corrupt -- no matter what their intent is -- unless they stand against these types of exercises of government.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
He WILL censor your Facebook posts, or cancel your account, if he disagrees with you.
He will collaborate with Google and Twitter, the other two GIANT social commons, to do the same. So, you hear only one point of view, and if another point of view is expressed it is only in a negative way.
Why do corporations care about the constitution? Nothing in the US constitution affects corporations: The government could burn the document tomorrow and corporations would still have every protection and right they have today. There are 3 reasons:
1) Prevent a power-grab by the US government: This a slippery slope saying government has more rights than corporations, so it must be blocked.
2) Stop being serfs: The corporations don't want to spend their money collecting data and surveilling subscribers to benefit the government.
3) Keep corporate property: Corporations want to monetize their subscriber's data, which is far more difficult if someone else, like the government has a copy.
We're forever claiming the US government makes laws for the corporations, not the citizens, so why aren't the corporations stopping this with their usual bribes, sorry, donations? In reality, they have nowhere to go. They could vote with their wallets and give their money to politicians who protect the citizens, like Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders. (I can't find a Republican whose default policies, of Christian theocracy and 'small government', also criticize corporations.) But those politicians also criticize corporations and aren't the prostitutes the corporations want. So the corporations must take this fight to a higher authority who has a well-known habit of siding with the government.
What will the corporations do when the inevitable judgement against them, arrives? Will the CEOs collectively risk their own necks, accepting the US government will make an example of one of them? Will they leverage the admission that they're "too big to jail" and use their weight to shutdown the internet/government?
Jeez, let's ask Borland what they think.
Well we EU lot have privacy written into the basic human rights.... so much so the court regularly slaps down anti-privacy laws like the EU-US safe harbour. That agreement was blanket exemption from EU law for US companies, even post Snowden.
Now EU Commission has signed "Privacy Shield" which is exactly the same thing, it exempts US corporations from EU privacy and data protection laws, on promises to be good (EU companies are subject to EU laws, US companies would only have to face an ombudsman) But if they can keep their data grabs secret, and bulk slurp data, then we would never know.
We're screwed either way because our leadership was elected under the US surveillance influence. So we're unlikely to ever have a truely free choice of candidate ever again. They'll all be vetted by the US as suitable.
The GP specifically referenced "no truly private corporation." The East India Company resoundingly fails that test. Please reference the third paragraph of the article you linked:
The company received a Royal Charter from Queen Elizabeth on 31 December 1600, making it the oldest among several similarly formed European East India Companies.
While the article does go on to say "the government owned no shares and had only indirect control," that assertion is also highly misleading, as even a cursory probe of relevant history demonstrates. Try again. -PCP