Google Publishes Eight National Security Letters (techcrunch.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Google dropped a single National Security Letter into its most recent transparency report without much fanfare, but today the company published eight more NSLs in an attempt to shed more light on government surveillance of Google users. The eight letters published today were sent to Google from FBI offices across the country. Cumulatively, the NSLs seek broad access to content for around 20 user accounts. The names of the targets are redacted, but most of the letters seek access to Gmail accounts. The NSLs were sent to Google over a five-year period, from 2010 to 2015, with the majority coming from the Charlotte, North Carolina field office of the FBI. Others came from Florida, Arizona, New York, and California. "In our continued effort to increase transparency around government demands for user data, today we begin to make available to the public the National Security Letters (NSLs) we have received where, either through litigation or legislation, we have been freed of nondisclosure obligations," Richard Salgado, Google's director of law enforcement and information security, wrote in a blog post. Google has fought to make the letters public in part because the FBI can issue them without prior judicial oversight.

Comments

Huh?

[Black Parrot]

Why not publish all 26?

Re:Huh?

[networkBoy]

because contempt of court *sucks*

Re:Huh?

[fustakrakich]

What good would it do?

Re:Huh?

[quenda]

Why not publish all 26?

Because they don't want to implicate their parent company.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off shill.

If the government doesn't want the law to be broken they should start with following it themselves.
It would have been justified to kill most of NSA for being traitors. Some petty theft is nothing in comparison.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would have been justified to kill most of NSA for being traitors.

I'm a foreigner to the US, so I have no protection at all against NSA surveillance, and I have been a huge critique of mass surveillance long before Snowden's revelations (and in hindsight was right in pretty all of my assessments except for operational security at NSA), so it kind of amazes me that I have to defend the NSA. Do you really believe that NSA has done anything else than what they were told? The NSA is a military organization with a chain of command. I don't know how US politicians managed to deflect guilt so well from themselves, but must say that they did a pretty job bullshitting and brainwashing people like you.

Re:Huh?

[quenda]

The NSA is a military organization with a chain of command.

No, it is civilian, and supposed to be quite separate from the military. They do of course support the military in time of war.
While Manning had a court-martial, Snowden would have a plain civilian kangaroo court.

Re:Huh?

[Zak3056]

it kind of amazes me that I have to defend the NSA. Do you really believe that NSA has done anything else than what they were told? The NSA is a military organization with a chain of command. I don't know how US politicians managed to deflect guilt so well from themselves, but must say that they did a pretty job bullshitting and brainwashing people like you.

First off, OP's suggestion that the NSA guys need to be murdered is a bit over the top. The ammo box is the LAST of the four boxes, not the first.

That said, we settled the question you raise in 1946. "I was only following orders" is not a lawful defense, even with a military chain of command, even in a totalitarian society where one would likely themselves be imprisoned or even executed for their failure to follow orders. To be sure, the politicians bear their responsibility and should be held accountable, but the machine of thousands of people that was used to carry out those orders must also be held accountable.

Re:Huh?

[quenda]

Dunno where "26" comes into anything.

I believe it was a pun. 26 letters? ... nevermind.

Re:Huh?

[Sloppy]

The whole point of NSLs is that there is no prior judicial oversight; there's no court to defy. I'm not saying they wouldn't be punished somehow, but it wouldn't be contempt of court. These things exist because there's some law that imposes a prior restraint on the receiver's speech. If it were to end up in court, you'd hear words like "first" and "amendment" long before you hear words like "contempt."

Re:Huh?

[TangoMargarine]

Do you really believe that NSA has done anything else than what they were told?

Well then they damn well shouldn't have told them to do so.

Re:Huh?

[Black Parrot]

Yeah, that's right.

I like jokes that are a bit hard to get, but if no one gets it, it's just a dud.

Re:Huh?

[Agripa]

First off, OP's suggestion that the NSA guys need to be murdered is a bit over the top. The ammo box is the LAST of the four boxes, not the first.

Have any of the other boxes worked? I have not noticed.

I'm as tinfoil ready as the next nutter. But:

[rmdingler]

Requests for access to 20ish user accounts in five years from Google?

That has to be on the order of the likelihood of a Powerball winner.

Re:I'm as tinfoil ready as the next nutter. But:

[Anonymous Coward]

Twenty users they're allowed to disclose that the FBI was able to request without judicial oversight. The need for search warrants is pretty well enshrined in the Bill of Rights, that law enforcement is able to compel this information without a warrant is what's disturbing, not that law enforcement is requesting information.

Re:I'm as tinfoil ready as the next nutter. But:

[Anonymous Coward]

Left off the most controversial aspect: the information seeked has to be related to national security concerns. The dramatic increase in the number of NSL's issued in 2008 and thereafter was determined to be a misuse of the NSL statutes because most were superficially linked to national security.

Re:I'm as tinfoil ready as the next nutter. But:

[rtb61]

Either that or the FBI got a warrant or you were a foreigner or they did PAY for the information, like everyone else ;).

Re:I'm as tinfoil ready as the next nutter. But:

[swillden]

Either that or the FBI got a warrant or you were a foreigner or they did PAY for the information, like everyone else ;).

Warrants or other appropriate legal documentation is required for foreigners as well. And Google doesn't sell user information, so trying to pay wouldn't help.

Re:I'm as tinfoil ready as the next nutter. But:

[swillden]

Requests for access to 20ish user accounts in five years from Google?

That has to be on the order of the likelihood of a Powerball winner.

20ish user accounts from a handful of NSLs where the gag order has been lifted. There are many other NSLs that Google is still gagged over, I'm sure. And the transparency reports document tens of thousands of requests for similar numbers of accounts, requests made through search warrants or subpoenas.

NSLs get highlighted because, unlike the other instruments to compel information, can be issued without judicial oversight and are kept secret.

Re:I'm as tinfoil ready as the next nutter. But:

[SharpFang]

Also - there almost certainly, were thousands of subpoenas to grant access to accounts, with judical oversight, and without the NSL's obligation of secrecy - in other words, Google made to do exactly what they were made to do here, except not forced to stay silent about it - all interested parties informed of the fact.

Re:I'm as tinfoil ready as the next nutter. But:

[ninthbit]

Almost the entire US Federal Government draws it power from a superficial link. The link being that the Federal Government resolved disputes involving interstate commerce.

See the Commerce Clause:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:I'm as tinfoil ready as the next nutter. But:

[swillden]

And Google doesn't sell user information

How would one go about proving or disproving this statement?

Well, you could look into trying to buy user information from Google and see what happens. You could also research Google's business model, which will quickly lead you to understand that Google is better at ad targeting than advertisers are, and that Google can therefore extract more value from the data by keeping it to themselves.

As for whether or not Google sells information to governments, look at Google's SEC filings and you'll notice the distinct lack of any such line items. Also look at the public statements from the executives, including the chief legal officer, which deny that Google gives, sells or in any way provides any data to the government except when compelled by legal documents... and in that case the government doesn't have to pay.

It's pretty obvious if you actually look.

Re:I'm as tinfoil ready as the next nutter. But:

[swillden]

This is a joke right? Every one of those published letters has the account identification redacted. Basically Google published what are basically form letters with the actual subject of the inquiry unidentified. In what way does that help anybody? Subjects are still in the dark that the government is monitoring them. This is transparency?

It's as much transparency as the government will allow.

Re:I'm as tinfoil ready as the next nutter. But:

[Agripa]

If the police want to read the user's email content, they are required to get warrants.

Let's say I accept that law enforcement must get a warrant in cases like this. I really do not but I will stipulate it for the sake of discussion.

You used the word "read" which is aptly appropriate here. Law enforcement can copy the emails without a warrant. Further the DOJ interpretation is that anything seized may be searched by an automated system without being "read". Yet copying them and then searching them in an automated way does not count as search and seizure under the 4th amendment.

So no, I do not accept that law enforcement is required to get a warrant.

I can't wait for Bush to leave the White House

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, simply can not wait for Bush to be out of the White House.

Did you hear Obama's an actual Constitutional scholar? HE'LL put an end to this nonsense!

Re:I can't wait for Bush to leave the White House

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump is a tits and ass scholar. HE'LL put an end to this nonsense!

Re:I can't wait for Bush to leave the White House

[Agripa]

At least Trump knows more about tits and ass than Obama knows about constitutional law. Unless Obama knows that constitutional law is void where prohibited.

Re:Allahu Ackbar!

[TroII]

They have some legitimate reasons, like the fact that in a multicultural society every group wants to dominate every other, and terrorism is a good way.

You have a point; preventing radical Christians from blowing up abortion clinics, flying airplanes into IRS buildings, etc. is a good idea. But I'm not sure it excuses something like National Security Letters.

Broad access?

[duke_cheetah2003]

Hmm.. Fascinating stuff, I guess. But I'm not sure I would have chose the word "broad" to describe the level of information requested by at least some of these NSL's. I looked at a few, two of them simply wanted name, address and length of service, nothing else. Another asked for that, and a history of communication transactions, even goes out of the way to say 'don't give us subject lines, or content, we can't look at that," and for a very specific datetime window.

So, not exactly pleased with puffing up this by saying 'broad access', when as far as I can tell, it's anything but.

Re:Broad access?

[swillden]

Hmm.. Fascinating stuff, I guess. But I'm not sure I would have chose the word "broad" to describe the level of information requested by at least some of these NSL's. I looked at a few, two of them simply wanted name, address and length of service, nothing else. Another asked for that, and a history of communication transactions, even goes out of the way to say 'don't give us subject lines, or content, we can't look at that," and for a very specific datetime window.

The laws that created the concept of a National Security Letter and authorize its use specifically limit the scope of NSLs to metadata only. So NSLs really can't be used for what most people would think of as "broad access".

Re:Broad access?

[AmiMoJo]

Remember that this is only what they have been allowed to publish. There are probably letters requesting much more, as much as the law allows, that they can't put out.

Redaction is inept

[Anonymous Coward]

The redaction of email address is inept. One can easily count the number of redacted characters in the email address. So while it does not reveal the email address it certainly can be used to eliminate millions of email addresses that were not the target. The entire line should have been redacted. Better to redact an excess of characters.

Re:Redaction is inept

[ausekilis]

Redaction and destruction are almost never intended to make recovery impossible. Even GSA Safes have specifications based on how long it would take someone to break in. Destruction is based on an expectation of how long it would take to put pages back together (if shredded, burning/smelting is another deal altogether).

Re:Really makes the neurons fire

[WillAffleckUW]

Didn't the USA fight two separate wars to end this kind of behavior?

In fact, it's two of the amendments to the US Constitution, normally referred to as the Bill of Rights.

Re:Really makes the neurons fire

[TangoMargarine]

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

        - Thomas Jefferson