Judge Orders Google To Comply With FBI's Warrantless NSL Requests 167
An anonymous reader writes "CNet reports that a U.S. District Court Judge has rejected Google's attempt to fight 19 National Security Letters, which are used by the FBI to gather information on users without a warrant. Quoting: 'The litigation taking place behind closed doors in Illston's courtroom — a closed-to-the-public hearing was held on May 10 — could set new ground rules curbing the FBI's warrantless access to information that Internet and other companies hold on behalf of their users. The FBI issued 192,499 of the demands from 2003 to 2006, and 97 percent of NSLs include a mandatory gag order. It wasn't a complete win for the Justice Department, however: Illston all but invited Google to try again, stressing that the company has only raised broad arguments, not ones "specific to the 19 NSLs at issue." She also reserved judgment on two of the 19 NSLs, saying she wanted the government to "provide further information" prior to making a decision.' This does not affect the Electronic Frontier Foundation's challenge to the constitutionality of the letters in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals."
Hmm ... (Score:5, Funny)
Putting the Constitution aside a moment ... oh, wait, they've already done that. Carry on citizen.
Re: (Score:1)
Hey, watch where you put that thing! Somebody might trip over it and form a government!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hmm ... (Score:5, Insightful)
We're not putting the Constitution aside, we're putting it on display for all to see... in a cellar... without lights or stairs... in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard".
But the point is that it's on display for all to see.
Re: (Score:2)
We're not putting the Constitution aside, we're putting it on display for all to see... in a cellar... without lights or stairs... in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard".
But the point is that it's on display for all to see.
For some reason, the advise "Don't Panic" isn't really helping me here... All I see in our future is yellow bulldozers.
Re:Hmm ... (Score:4, Insightful)
No. It's on display for all to see.
In the paleoanthropology section of the Smithsonian.
Reading only this summary... (Score:5, Insightful)
Looks like the judge doesn't like these things but can't do much about them, at least not in broad strokes.
That itself is curious.
Of course, that these things exist at all is pretty bad, and that the justice department is out of control is even worse.
Then again, not being an American[tm], little I can do about it.
Re:Reading only this summary... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more like shes saying "I want to strike these down, but if I do it will be a big deal and I don't like the way you submitted your objections. So please resubmit them in the proper way so when I strike this down it'll really stick"
or at least, that's what I'm hoping for.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's more like shes saying "I want to strike these down, but if I do it will be a big deal and I don't like the way you submitted your objections. So please resubmit them in the proper way so when I strike this down it'll really stick"
or at least, that's what I'm hoping for.
It sounds like Google was trying to nip the entire issue in the bud by arguing against NSLs as a concept ("broad strokes"). The judge has basically said "you can't do that, try pointing out problems with these specific NSLs and I'll block them but that's all you'll get out of me".
Re: (Score:2)
I may have posted this already but it's still relevant.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2961#comic [smbc-comics.com].
Re: Reading only this summary... (Score:3, Insightful)
And the idea of yours invading other countries to "liberte" them is hilarious to the rest of the world.
Total nonsense! (Score:3)
And the idea of yours invading other countries to "liberte" them is hilarious to the rest of the world.
The US is going around the world installing democracy. If it can be proven that democracy can work in places where there were previously repressive regimes, then they will try it in North America.
What's the government's problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's the government's problem? (Score:5, Informative)
Because a warrant has provisions for letting people know about them.
NSLs are super duper top secret, and you can't tell anybody about them. As in, there's no real oversight of them, and as long as they keep them secret they can do anything they want to.
Surely you don't expect an open and honest process? They wouldn't be looking at these people if they didn't already know they were terrorists ... what are you, some kind of hippy?
Re:What's the government's problem? (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, as a matter of fact. I am some kind of hippie. Are you going to investigate everyone who owns a Volkswagen now? I guess I shouldn't be giving them ideas...
Re: (Score:2)
Don't include me in that 'you' ... I don't own a Volkswagon, but I'm more hippie than not.
I'm certainly not defending them.
Re: What's the government's problem? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
NSLs are super duper top secret, and you can't tell anybody about them.
I don't get this. If providers/libraries/etc really wanted to get rid of NSLs they'd just have a message show up on on the webpage every time you login saying "we can confirm that we've never received an NSL asking for your data." Then one day you log in and the message changes "in your particular case we can neither confirm nor deny that we've received an NSL asking for your data." As far as I can tell this would fully comply with the letter of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
To bad the Nixon administration didn't think to do that back in 1972. Those democrats may have been communists, there was really only one way of finding out.
what nixon did is now legal. he wasn't such a crook after all.
Re: (Score:3)
Their concerns aren't valid, they're just casting 200,000 letters out and hoping to get a fish.
Re:What's the government's problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's just it. For the most part their concerns aren't valid. The government just wants to go on a witch hunt, and won't tolerate any interference. This is not the the main problem. The main problem is that we won't do anything about it and will reelect the same people who put all of this into place, as we have always done.
Re:What's the government's problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
"reelect the same people who put all of this into place"
And we elect new people and they do the very same thing, despite what they touted on the campaign trail.. Voting is an illusion and voters are tools..
Do you think the DOJ is going to give up this level of power because there are new faces in office? Wake up already..
Re: (Score:2)
So what if the 'new' people do the same thing. That's no excuse to reelect them again. You do it until you get it right. But those who wait for mass media to spoon feed who they should vote for can fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
You do it until you get it right.
We've been waiting for a LONG freaking time. Like 150 years.
Re: (Score:2)
We've been waiting for a LONG freaking time. Like 150 years.
I have an idea - let's do the same thing over and over and expect different results. Who cares if our liberties are squashed and the wealthy and powerful just get more wealthy and powerful?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's the government's problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is one thing we need to challenge as a nation, it's the concept of government secrecy. The way it has encroached into areas that it has no business in (i.e. things which aren't like avoiding having Germany know about our radar/sonar/aircraft effective ranges/location of troops during World War II) is highly troubling. Today, even the remote possibility of something being vaguely and obtusely connected to something that might be mildly inconvenient gets turned into a "secret", a capability that has been shown not just to increase abuse of government power and constitution-breaking activity, but to lead to the defense of the indefensible.
Re: (Score:3)
The real problem is ultimately one of economics. A government agency, once created and staffed, is unlikely to ever be shuttered, as its employees and staff become dependent on it for their livelihood. Knowing that they'd be unable to find equal paying work in the private sector, they search with desperation for some task to give their apparatus the appearance of relevance. Finding very little credible national security threats (despite what the government would have you believe we are living in an era of p
Re: (Score:2)
Creating problems to maintain employment is a problem of large bureaucracies, particularly in government. Removing the requirement to do significant work in order to live well creates worse problems, because most people (in increasing proportion as time advances) will just not work. Then, either the economy
Re: (Score:2)
If there's no productive work left for them to do, because all the jobs have either been automated away, become so specialized and intellectual as to be out of reach, or require talents that are valuable and unique to humans but untrainable (think art), then what is left to do to earn a living? You end up with slavery going that path too because the few people with the skills to have jobs and thus an income can pay next to nothing for vast ranks of personal servants. It will be a new feudalism. It'll end th
Re: (Score:3)
The original intent of NSLs was counter-espionage purposes during the Cold War. They wanted to track down Russian spies without tipping them off. Additionally, the information requested is supposed to be the sort that you don't need a warrant for - phone numbers dialed but not a transcript of the phone call, email addresses but not the email text, etc. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy on that stuff.
Unfortunately, since the Patriot Act, they've started, shall we say, overstepping their bounds.
Re: (Score:1)
Especially with a judge already looking at the matter. That's actually WHY we have a constitutional requirement for warrants...
Re: (Score:2)
I believe your question can be answered with the same response my 9 year old gives when asked to clean up a mess he made: "That's HARD! It's going to take SOOOOOO LOOOONG! That's BORING! I don't wanna do that. I wanna do something I LIKE doing and I want to do that NOW!"
Re: (Score:2)
I believe your question can be answered with the same response my 9 year old gives when asked to clean up a mess he made: "That's HARD! It's going to take SOOOOOO LOOOONG! That's BORING! I don't wanna do that. I wanna do something I LIKE doing and I want to do that NOW!"
Hmm... I foresee a job in Computer Science for your son ... Can he be bribed to overcome those objections with snacks?
WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
How can the NSL process possibly be construed as anything other than a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment? It's basic, black-letter law: warrants have to be issued by the judicial branch, not the cops themselves. Are the courts really going to allow the Fourth Amendment to be read out of the Constitution by a meaningless invocation of "national security"?
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Executive Orders.
But these aren't warrants, they're letters. Much more powerful, because they say so.
Have you not been paying attention? The 4th amendment has been interpreted so narrowly that if it isn't actually 'paper' and on your person, it's not covered by the Constitution. And the whole border check thing within 100+ miles of any border. And free speech zones. And holding US citizens without trial. And assassinating citizens.
They've been bypassing the Constitution for almost 12 years now, when and how they see fit.
Re: (Score:2)
Executive Orders.
Executive orders only apply to those in the employ of the executive. The rest of us are bound only by Congress.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As much as I don't like it, that argument won't stop the FBI SWAT team from busting through your door at 3am.
Re: (Score:2)
A careful reading of the law reveals if they enter my property without a warrant I may regard them as any other trespasser.
I am sure that your widow and orphans will appreciate that sentiment.
Re: (Score:2)
It's better to live in fetters than to die patriotically
America, FUCK YEAH
It is easier to goad others to "die patriotically" with no risk to self.
Re: (Score:2)
The coward dies a thousand deaths.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought about this and think it justifies citizens' right to bear arms to include nukes: so long as the jackbooted things don't back off, we periodically (every few minutes we're holding out), kill a million or so who did not come to our aid, and therefore supported the unlawful government act.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought about this and think it justifies citizens' right to bear arms to include nukes
Nah, they really are too dangerous. But for everybody, including Nation States. Nuclear weapons will be seen in the future as the inflection point where Nation States became too dangerous to keep around. It's hard to see it from the present, but the signs are there. In 300 years, nobody will permit other people to weaponize nuclear technology, regardless of the gang colors they fly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is ultimately a might-makes-right situation. The government has more and bigger guns so they basically win all violent disagreements by default. If a majority of voters get pissed about the way things are run then things may change, but as everything currently stands, you can bitch about constitutional rights all you want â" you don't have any, only what the government currently chooses to concede.
QFT. Now watch as all the people who don't want to deal with the cognitive dissonance of accepting t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If a large majority of people feel that strong, they don't need to kill cops, a general strike can do wonders. See Egypt. The problem with either tactic is that in the end you just end up with new authoritarian types in power. As the song says, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
For one example, thousands of Japanese-American citizens interred during WWII can tell you all about bypassing the Constitution. Everyone has their underpants in a wad now bemoaning the recent "shredding of the Constitution". Well it was no better in the past and if anything, the abuses were worse before -- try the Anti_Sedition laws of WWI or Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus. So, yeah, these NSLs are a problem, but no worse than what came before and the Constitution is as strong as it ever has been, for what that is worth. Eternal vigilance is required to keep it that way. The previous abuses were eventually recognized for what they were.
Re: (Score:2)
Isnt suspending habeas corpus legit if martial law has been declared?
Just saying, you may want to strike that off the list.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those Japanese-American citizens interred [reference.com] during WWII are not in a position to tell you anything about the Constitution. Those who were interned [reference.com] and survived the experience may have something to say./P.
Re: (Score:2)
Right you are, good point.
Re: (Score:2)
So while we'll be able to retain our guns to "protect our Freedom from the tyranny of the Government" the guns are worthless as the Government will simply do as they please with you in secure private setting. No one will hear you scream as you fire off your 60-round 3D printed AR15. The Government will wait till your magazine is out and you'll never be heard from again.
2nd Amendment pr
Re: (Score:2)
1. Yeah, Barack Obama says he can kill any American if he does not know whether he poses a threat or not.
2. I don't know if Barack Obama poses a threat to me.
3. Sadly, instead of "Profit!" I rather see either a predator drone or Gitmo in my future.
Re: (Score:2)
They've been bypassing the Constitution for almost 12 years now, when and how they see fit.
12 years? Try 75. Take a look at the New Deal provisions which were being struck down left and right until FDR threatened to pack the court with as many justices as necessary to get the majority he wanted.
It's been nearly all downhill from there. There were isolated cases of executives ignoring the Constitution before (and getting away with it), but it wasn't until the 1930s that it really became systemic.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong.
There are examples of unconstitutional behavior by the executive prior to FDR, certainly, but the pattern of consistent behavior started with him, and the two cases you cite are not such examples. The Federal Reserve may or may not be a good idea, but there's nothing in the constitution prohibiting it, and the Supreme Court decided (unanimously and properly) in 1819 that the federal government has the constitutional authority to establish a banking system. And there was nothing unconstitutional abou
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
No, that's just when they started doing it blatantly and saying it was their right. I have no doubt it was done before, but since then it's been pretty egregious.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. I don't have any rose-colored glasses, nor do I harken back to any halcyon days where the government was just completely honest, free from corruption, and always did what was in the best interest of the people. The United States government has never done that.
However, I do firmly believe that 9/11 had to happen before they could "come out" with what they had been doing for years. Of course, there were terrorist attacks before 9/11, but those were mostly small time acts perpetrated by Americans. The people in charge know that we won't give up our liberties (again, knowingly) because one of our own did something crazy. We know other Americans, and we know that the majority of them aren't up to any no good.
No, to give up our rights, we needed someone who didn't have any constitutional protections. A foreign enemy, but one that could be living right here amongst us. They could be using our email systems our cellular networks, our internet service providers!!!
You see, the terrorists hated our freedoms. And they were using them against us! So of course, the only obvious solution is to get rid of the freedom. With freedom, comes risk. Once the average citizen had become stupid, fat, and lazy enough to care more for their own comfort and perceived safety than being free, it was time to drop the hammer on us. Now that the precedent has been set, any legal victory or victory over the minds of people that can be attained by the minority who treasure their freedom and can actually see and understand what is happening can be countered simply by giving some relatively small incident wall-to-wall media coverage for a few weeks, then letting the "pundits" sit and tell everyone how anti-American it is to not want to do "x". (x being reading everyone's emails, listening to everyone's phone calls, banning guns, placing a large urban area under martial law, or warrantless this or national security letter that...the list goes on and on.)
So, essentially, any time the people on the side of good win back one step of freedom or due process, we take 5 more steps down the road to slavery. This is why it's so egregious now. Someone essentially disabled the firewall (the public caring and fighting for freedom), then used a root exploit (a perceived massive threat to safety sold to us by the media) on the constitution.
The only way to fix it is to remove the offending exploit (stop caring about every little incident that occurs) and put the firewall back up (make people care about freedom again). Unfortunately, given how we are all asleep at the wheel, there's a snowball's chance in hell of that actually happening. As long as the average citizen has food, booze, sex, and "Ow, My Balls!" on the TV, why would they want anything more?
Re: (Score:2)
The people in charge know that we won't give up our liberties (again, knowingly) because one of our own did something crazy. We know other Americans, and we know that the majority of them aren't up to any no good.
Since most people are imbeciles and subscribe to the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" mindset, that seems unlikely. You're giving most drones too much credit.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, given how we are all asleep at the wheel, there's a snowball's chance in hell of that actually happening. As long as the average citizen has food, booze, sex, and "Ow, My Balls!" on the TV, why would they want anything more?
That's actually by design, too. Why else do you think we have been so interested in importing vast, uncountable numbers of people from countries where they're already accepting of overbearing government....
Re: (Score:3)
I definitely think 9/11 was an inflection point where the erosion of our civil liberties and government power grabs accelerated sharply and in unprecedented ways.
Prior to that, the 1994 gun ban was the biggest assault on The Constitution in recent history. That's sort of when I started paying attention. I realize that The Constitution had been pretty well trampled on before then, but I can't think of anything, say from the '70's and '80's that even comes close to what's happened since 2001.
Did you have so
Re: (Score:1)
Are the courts really going to allow the Fourth Amendment to be read out of the Constitution by a meaningless invocation of "national security"?
They've done so for decades. Why would you expect it to change now?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I concur. Let's get rid of The Constitution. The federal government will then have no delegated powers and must be immediately dissolved. Good riddance.
Re: (Score:2)
You say that as if it were a bad thing. And you cite the New York Times as if it did not have a century of treason in its past.
Re: (Score:2)
The information that's supposed to be requested in an NSL is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. It's supposed to be contentless info - you need a warrant to read someone's mail, but you don't need a warrant to read the unopened envelopes and record info about the return addresses, handwriting, stamp choice, etc. NSLs are supposed to get the electronic equivalent of that - phone numbers, email addresses, etc.
I say supposed to, because the gag order on them makes it very hard to complain if the NSL over
Re: (Score:2)
The 4th has been fudged for years. First, they went after kids w/ baggy pants in NYC, and we said nothing...This is what happens when you let the precedents get set.
Terrorists Won (Score:4, Insightful)
Civil disobedience (Score:3)
If Google wishes to hold true to their motto, "Do No Evil", they can start by disobeying these orders. Compliance with unjust authority is evil.
Re: (Score:2)
But, but ... they're fighting evil, so if Google doesn't help, they themselves become evil. You're not questioning the government are you? That would be sedition!
end sarcasm.
Re: (Score:2)
If Google really wants to Do No Evil, they could stop collecting and retaining all the information that they do. If they didn't store your search terms, what videos you watched, where you went, who your friends are, what music you listen to, and what you bought, then they wouldn't be able to harm you by giving that information to the Government.
Re: (Score:2)
Great, where can I read the text of these NSLs? What, they haven't disobeyed the blatantly illegal gag order? Why the hell not?
Re: (Score:3)
What, they haven't disobeyed the blatantly illegal gag order? Why the hell not?
Because NewEgg's attorney [arstechnica.com] doesn't work for them.
"Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that." --Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Ethics is for people. Corporations are machines for making money within the bounds of law.
Corporations are people, my friend.
Re: (Score:2)
"Corporations are people, my friend."
Corporations are made up of people, my friend.
Fixed that for you.
And I'm not your friend.
If I were a judge (Score:2)
If I were a judge, what would stop me from issuing a letter from the bench admonishing the agencies for issuing NSLs, and telling them to pound sand? Wouldn't it have just as much validity under our Constitutional framework. In fact, nevermind that. I hereby decree, by the authority of Emperor Norton I of the United States (May God rest his soul), that the agency shall pay me a tribute in the form of 4 oz. silver, 0.999 or finer, to be delivered at the Pete's coffee, 2600 Broadway in Redwood City, Califo
To anybody who votes dem or republican (Score:4, Insightful)
What are you complaining about? You knew that's what these people do, and yet you keep voting for them... WTF?!
Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
NSL's are supposed to be reserved for matters regarding terrorism or homeland security. IIRC, the original PATRIOT Act stated that an NSL must come directly from the AG or FBI director. That's obviously false if there were 190K of them done in a 3 year period. Can any random FBI employee write one of these? That's ridiculous, because one of the fundamental ideas of The Constitution is that cops do NOT get to write their own search warrants.
The gag order provision is also a clear violation of the Right of free speech. The feds search your customer's data and you can't tell ANYONE, including your colleagues, let alone the affected customers? Under penalty of prosecution? Likewise ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
Because drugs are bad, mmkay?
Doesn't help google but... (Score:5, Interesting)
I love the rsync.net "solution" to this problem, the Warrant Canary:
http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt [rsync.net]
Wonderful idea. Sure, we can't tell you if one of these secret letters is given to us, but, until we get one, we can tell you it hasn't come...with signed, date verifiable messages.
Of course, only works for relatively small companies that are not getting requests as a matter of course.
Related Story (Score:2)
Is the FBI going to send NSLs to redtube? (Score:3)
well... (Score:2)
I could argue that it's possible my wife could, at any moment, turn into a Zombie and murder the rest of my family at any moment. This is, in fact, only slightly less likely than my family being killed by Jihadists. So I could continue my argument and say that I need to have a loaded hand gun cocked, loaded and pointed at her temple at all times just in case she turns, I can put her down before she infects the rest of us. My wife would obviously disagree with my reasoning... the chances of me slipping and m
Most transparent administration in history... (Score:3)
... for everything that doesn't really matter.
Re: (Score:2)
But...but...they answered that petition about building the Death Star!
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever do you mean, citizen? The fourth amendment is alive and well! You are secure from unreasonable search of your papers without a warrant from a judge, every bit the same today as in 1789! But these orders to search are letters, not warrants! Completely different. Kind of like a warrantless wiretap. Why would you need a warrant for a warrantless wiretap? That's why they're called warrantless, silly! "Oh look at me I need a horse to pull my horeless carriage!" You nut, with your kidding. Too much, too
Re: (Score:2)
It's particularly interesting to look at this when the 4th amendment is understood in its proper historical context.
The fourth amendment doesn't say that warrants are required for searches, it says that (a) citizens should not be subject to unreasonable searches and (b) warrants may not be issued except on probable cause, issued by a judge, etc.
When James Madison wrote that he and those around him didn't view warrants as a good thing, they viewed them with suspicion, as a way that people could legally b
What was that phrase about "free and open"? (Score:2)
The main reason that Stalin isn't proud and supportive today is that Beria choked him with a pillow. Allegedly. But I gather that the gag order rammed into Stalin's mouth may also have a lot to do with his inability to comment.
What did I hear ... ? (Score:2)
A "Free" and "open" society?
What is that cackling laughter I hear in the difference? Oh, it's the future. E.N.J.O.Y.
Re: (Score:3)
You should have replied.
Maybe we should stop bullying, invading and occupying all those other countries then."
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say ignore it.
I said stop pissing everyone else off and large groups of people won't try to hurt you.
Re: (Score:2)
Those people will always be a tiny minority, and can be thwarted by traditional police work. What is really dangerous is when we cause legitimate grievances for some population. This gives the more cunning and cynical ones a powerful tool to recruit otherwise moderate individuals for their own violent goals. How many terrorists have we made of otherwise indifferent Arabs by bombing their sons and daughters? When a US drone kills your loved one suddenly the rantings of the extremists start to seem more since
Re: (Score:2)
Sociopathic evil crazy madmen have a bad habit of becoming dictators and invading their neighbors, is the thing. We're economically connected quite a bit to most of the world, so one country across the globe invading it's neighbor is a problem for us. That's not to say we aren't also doing some crazy stupid stuff (why the hell have we even been in Afghanistan for the past 5 years or so??), but some of the stuff we do is to our benefit, like tossing Saddam out of Kuwait.
All politics is local. The cunning
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't have been better just to have told Saddam that America would care if he invaded Kuwait and perhaps told Kuwait to stop stealing Iraqs oil?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Who do *you* really believe was behind 9-11?
Hint: It was not OBL.