Tech Firms Planning Highly Irate Letter To Government Requesting Transparency 139
Nerval's Lobster writes "a 'broad alliance' of 63 technology companies and civil liberties organizations plan on demanding more transparency about U.S. government surveillance programs, according to a new report in AllThingsD. Those companies and organizations will reportedly ask the government to allow them to report more accurate information about user-data requests. At the moment, federal agencies forbid Google, Microsoft, and other tech vendors from reporting more than a broad numerical range; for example, Google might announce as part of its Transparency Report that it received between 0-999 National Security Letters (issued by agencies as part of national security investigations) in 2009. 'We seek permission for the same information to be made available regarding the government's national security–related authorities," reads a portion of a letter that will be reportedly published July 19 and signed by all those tech companies. "This information about how and how often the government is using these legal authorities is important to the American people, who are entitled to have an informed public debate about the appropriateness of those authorities and their use.' This is all continuing fallout from Edward Snowden's leaks of top-secret documents alleging that the NSA maintains a program called PRISM that allegedly siphons personal information from the databases of the world's largest tech companies. Ever since, those companies (which have all denied participation in PRISM) have been anxious to show the world that they only give the government as little user data as possible. This new push for more 'transparency' plays to that strategy, and the stakes couldn't be higher—if consumers and businesses lose faith in their IT providers' ability to preserve privacy, the latter's very existence could be at risk."
Re:Screw 'em all (Score:5, Interesting)
A highly irate letter only after they were publicly embarrassed. How self-serving. Fuck these companies.
A balanced consideration is in order: Should we warmly regard these oh. so. heroic. companies for their bold stance? Hardly, this is snivelling PR drivel of the highest order.
However, considering the relative number of important friends possessed by "The Constitution" and "Shareholder Value" respectively, is it not a convenient thing that NSA activity be perceived(and ideally actually be) bad for influential American corporations?
Isn't it extremely useful that all American 'cloud' and telecommunications companies now have a PR problem on their hands(and quite possibly a sales problem, EU privacy mandates aren't going to make moving EU customer data onto American servers any more legal if you do business on that side of the pond, and do enjoy selling foreign governments your products on a "Don't worry, it'll be just between you, us, and the American Clandestine Services..." basis)?
Outfits like the EFF and ACLU, not to mention people like Snowden and Manning who take great personal risk, have the moral high ground; but perhaps less so with the 'army of effective lobbyists and vast financial resources'. These companies, by contrast, are mere mercenaries; but may prove useful for so long as NSA spying harms their interests, rather than serves as a revenue stream(looking at you, telco wiretapping fees).
Why only ask for transparency of their actions? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Good luck (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe if they put some weight behind real change it would be worth it. I think they can see that most of their future revenue is going to come from services where they host user data. But if people understand that the Third Party Doctrine, or Business Records Exemption mean that that "their" data is totally and utterly insecure, then the market for those services will be severely damaged. America doesn't have much going for it businesswise any more -- we have a weapons industry and flush government contractors -- but if the government is broke because nobody has anything but a Walmart job, those industries are dead. Technology is the government's biggest potential cash cow -- it should probably NOT shoot it in the head.
I think the tech companies might actually have "good luck with that" perspective. But they have to be willing to make the point. And then support at minimum, legislative limitations on the both Third Party Doctrine and Business Records Exception. Even more preferable, would be a Constitutional amendment defining digital content (including metadata) whereever stored (drives, wire, airwaves) as "papers" and that government access to such data is not affected by where it is stored, i.e., it remains a person's private stuff and unreachable without a warrant supported by probable cause, even if stored offsite so to speak.
transnational? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What would happen... (Score:5, Interesting)
Keep in mind, that data is useless. The real threat is that the NSA likely has equipment redirecting data out of these companies without their direct knowledge. They probably even have staff working there to help facilitate their data collection. The NSA could sink any of these companies at the flick of a switch. So the idea that they're going to threaten the NSA with anything is rather silly. Also, they are likely the recipients of a lot of corporate secrets the NSA pulls in from around the world.
My bet is these companies said something like "Um... NSA? Yea... we're looking pretty bad over here... would it be ok if... I mean... could we send a strongly worded letter.... and uh...."
NSA: "No problem... we'll even write it for you! Now put that dress back on, we want you to look pretty for this next part..."
The damage is already done (Score:4, Interesting)