Ramblings of an old Doc

 

The Justice Dep’t. filed a secret lawsuit against Google to try to force it to give up user data without a search warrant: This after a different court ruled the process unconstitutional. There’s nothing short of the First and Fourth Amendments at stake here. This is yet more fallout from the Patriot Act.

The Federal prosecutors are truly determined to keep the “right” to warrantless searches of your data. Google is just as determined to prevent it, terming the Justice Dep’t. demands illegal.

The Justice Dept’s demands center around “National Security Letters” (NSLs) which was a key part of the Patriot Act (2001) that allowed the FBI to demand information from Internet providers without any Federal search warrant. U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero has barred the FBI from invoking that portion of the law in the future, saying the mandatory gag orders amount to an "unconstitutional prior restraint of speech in violation of the First Amendment."

“The 2001 law requires Internet service providers and any other type of communication provider--including telephone companies--to comply with secret "national security letters" from the FBI. Those letters can ask for information about subscribers--including home addresses, what telephone calls were made, e-mail subject lines and logs of what Web sites were visited.

The recipient of a national security letter (NSL) is forever gagged against disclosing its existence "to any person"--a strict requirement that the ACLU argued could not be squared with the U.S. Constitution.

“All but the most mettlesome and undaunted NSL recipients would consider themselves effectively barred from consulting an attorney or anyone else who might advise them otherwise," Marrero concluded, "as well as bound to absolute silence about the existence of the NSL...For the reasonable NSL recipient confronted with the NSL's mandatory language and the FBI's conduct related to the NSL, resistance is not a viable option."  – c|net

What’s the size of the problem? An IG report found the FBI made 50,000 such NSL demands (sorry, but a “request”, it isn’t) and 97% had the “mandatory gag order” attached. NSLs can demand user profile information, but the law does not permit them to be used to obtain the text of e-mail messages or most log files, which they did do (apparently).

Google has fought this in the past (2006) and mostly won.

The Justice Dep’t has filed a “petition to enforce” in Manhattan in order to circumvent Google's right to due process and Judge Illston (see my prior article URL below) which has only partially succeeded as Judge Illston has promised to revisit the subject should Google desire.

Also, it should be noted that the Justice Dep’t/FBI has many tools to deal with requests for information which (however) require judicial review, i.e. subpoenas, court orders, search warrants, wiretap orders, pen registers, sneak and peek warrants, and surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

You should read the source article here:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57587005-38/justice-department-tries-to-force-google-to-hand-over-user-data/?tag=nl.e496&s_cid=e496&ttag=e496

I think that if there’s a “ticking bomb”, then that’s one dire situation and a judge can issue an emergency order. Mostly, it would appear these NSLs aren’t being used that way and the request for even more (i.e. the headers, etc. information) is an illegal abuse.

More: The portion of the Patriot Act denying the right to legal opinion through a lawyer is patently unconstitutional and must be redrafted. Also, this “petition to enforce” and the petitioner should receive a judge’s ire, since it is clearly an abuse designed to neutralize due process.

Our government was designed to work a certain way to protect citizens. It would be the ultimate irony if al-Qaida succeeds in destroying that by causing such legislation.

What do you think? That means reflection, and not a ‘knee jerk’ reaction.

Note: You can view my prior article regarding NSLs and the “mandatory gag orders” here:

http://drjbhl.joeuser.com/article/441288/National_Security_Letters_and_Gag_Orders_Ruled_Unconstitutional


Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jun 01, 2013

To tell you the truth Doc, I don't really care if the federal government looks at my data if in the overall scheme of things it prevents terrorists and the crazies from doing illegal acts.

 

If you have nothing to hide there is nothing for them to find. If you do have something to hide, then I am glad you got caught.

on Jun 01, 2013
"To tell you the truth Doc, I don't really care if the federal government looks at my data if in the overall scheme of things it prevents terrorists and the crazies from doing illegal acts." It does not. If people with nothing to hide have nothing to fear, then feel free to post between five to ten pictures of yourself naked on the forums here. Huzzah for google..... while they've wandered off the path a couple times, I think overall they are trying to Not Be Evil.
on Jun 01, 2013

The only reason Google would fight anything of the sort would be that they themselves want to 'own' your data for their own use.

They'll be damned if any smart-arsed legal/Govt. system can simply 'take' from them what they took from you.

How the heck can they [Google] sell your 'habits' to their advertisers if said advertisers can glean the info via free access?....

on Jun 01, 2013

Scoutdog

"To tell you the truth Doc, I don't really care if the federal government looks at my data if in the overall scheme of things it prevents terrorists and the crazies from doing illegal acts." It does not.

If people with nothing to hide have nothing to fear, then feel free to post between five to ten pictures of yourself naked on the forums here.

Huzzah for google..... while they've wandered off the path a couple times, I think overall they are trying to Not Be Evil.

 

That doesn't even make sense Scoutdog, posting one's checking account information or credit card information would be something to hide, but I'll be damned if I would impress the whole world with naked pictures of myself!

 

Like I said, I for one have nothing to hide that is illegal or anything that threatens the worlds peace and security, let those who do rot in jail through any means necessary.

on Jun 01, 2013

The only reason Google would fight anything of the sort would be that they themselves want to 'own' your data for their own use.

They'll be damned if any smart-arsed legal/Govt. system can simply 'take' from them what they took from you.

How the heck can they [Google] sell your 'habits' to their advertisers if said advertisers can glean the info via free access?....

The "data" that's "taken" is merely copied. It isn't removed from Google, and it can be used/sold. What Google sells isn't your identity. It sells demographic data and analytics of "big data" say, 10,000 or 100,000 people of your age/sex/location (not your street address, "Melbourne" or your state or country).

What the government "takes" is specific peoples' browsing, etc.

The advertisers don't enter the picture.

LightStar
Like I said, I for one have nothing to hide that is illegal or anything that threatens the worlds peace and security, let those who do rot in jail through any means necessary.

So, you're not particular about say, the Justice Dep't./FBI. How about US, British or French troops marching into your home and taking whatever they want, just because they feel like it, or because you pissed off Elizabeth II, or some General/Prince, etc.? Where do you draw a line?

You seem willing to believe the FBI, etc. have no ill intent, or no agenda. That doesn't match up well with history, Tom. Perhaps you feel secure through obscurity. I feel more secure when a judge stands between some politico and the Constitution. How about if someone shared your first and last names and was a politically undesirable person and you were picked up, your home ransacked, your computers taken and then were left with no recourse? That's the current situation. Pray some terrorist/hacker/criminal/child pornographer doesn't steal your identity.

Or better, fight for your constitutional rights...you served this nation and were willing to give all for it. You deserve better. Don't let a politician take them from you without a real fight.

Secret law suits? Shadow governments? Unconstitutional usurpations? Not here. That isn't why my family fought and died. 

on Jun 01, 2013

The question is how can a company that is carved into the steps of the pyramid not be "good or evil"( you judge for yourself) i like google no realy i do !
They only take the advantage to " protect " your rights especially in a time like this.
Why wouldn´t they its good marketing at the same. (Profit)
Owning that personal info will be used sooner or later and is likely to be leeked or giving out if the right person asks for it "IF the PRICE is right"-you could say, at that point it doesnt matter who is asking for it, all just a matter of cash in the end, whoever pays the most gets it.
And its only a matter of time until another grey zone is "made up" or found that they can work with and claim those rights.
And then the company looses all this potential profit.
I do not live in the USA, but i know that more and more of that "schedule" is pulled over into europe, im pretty sure that soon all social information that is recorded log´d or mailed will be available for institutes that claim to protect your freedom or rights or to the folks that have a good full bank account or whoever is able to find a backdoor entrance the fastest. 
And to be straight it would not be something new these accidents happen almost daily. Or we would not recieve spam at all!
If information exists and are stored like your browsing habits for example you should wake up and start to wonder...what searchengine or platform your using - especially if you spam folder gets filled more everyday
if you dont care about it thats cool but dont be surprised if things like booking an online flight ticket will cause you a empty flat or appartment in the end.
Internet criminality is real and has been for a while you could say there is a cyberwar since years but nobody realizes it.
NO that was not correct - NOBODY cares - just the companys that loose money or gain from it.
yeah that fits it more.

Its like with the Telekom thing currently going on in Europe they want to decrease the speed of the net for everyone in 2016 no matter if you have vdsl FLATRATE OR whatever we will be punched back into the early ages where 64kbits was fast. And they can do this since it´s a monopole with wide roots but all end at the T-com.
This is something that targets almost everyone in europe but there are only 50k of folks activly doing something against it.
The rest is just taking it as it comes. Same for the folks that dont care about the above sorry but thats my view of it.
Even if it does not concern you you should see a threat in it for others around you. 

on Jun 01, 2013

Don't forget: If they cooperate knowing or strongly suspecting illegality of the info request, they become liable for damages.

on Jun 01, 2013

LightStar
If you have nothing to hide there is nothing for them to find. If you do have something to hide, then I am glad you got caught.

on Jun 01, 2013

LightStar
posting one's checking account information or credit card information would be something to hide
Then post it. Or are you a terrorist?

 

on Jun 01, 2013

"No man is an island,  entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were;  any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." - John Donne


on Jun 01, 2013

The problem with the principle of "I have nothing to hide" is that you imply that the government always will have good intentions to catch terrorists. 

 

What if its used for other stuff? What if a conservative wave sweeps the country in five years and the government will use the info to gather sexual preferences and your opinion on the government and start using this in picking who can work for public services. Is it still ok? 

What if your religious views are checked? Still ok?

 

 

on Jun 01, 2013

joasoze
What if its used for other stuff? What if a conservative wave sweeps the country in five years and the government will use the info to gather sexual preferences and your opinion on the government and start using this in picking who can work for public services. Is it still ok?

What if your religious views are checked? Still ok?

All they have to do is look at Twitter and Facebook....they'll decide your future prospects of employment etc right there....

...oh, wait.....people are doing that already....

 

Who needs Google?

on Jun 01, 2013

joasoze
The problem with the principle of "I have nothing to hide" is that you imply that the government always will have good intentions to catch terrorists.



What if its used for other stuff? What if a conservative wave sweeps the country in five years and the government will use the info to gather sexual preferences and your opinion on the government and start using this in picking who can work for public services. Is it still ok?

What if your religious views are checked? Still ok?
All true. but not the only problem. Everyone has information they'd rather not share with other people- my medical records, my sexual preferences (or lack thereof), heck, the number of hours every day I spend playing Minecraft! For that matter, all of the other private stuff I don't want to use as an example because mentioning it would require partial disclosure. Even if something neutral or potentially good could come out of forking over that information, said thing must be balanced against the very real harm caused by the act of invading people's privacy.

 

I realize I may have been a bit charitable in calling Google "not evil" for this stance, but even if they're doing it for the wrong reasons (I'm still unable to find a perfectly ironclad explanation for what their reasons are, even though some arguments like Jafo's are plausible) Google is doing the right thing, and it's very refreshing to see them doing so.

on Jun 01, 2013

Scoutdog
Google is doing the right thing, and it's very refreshing to see them doing so.

Ah....but 'doing the right thing'....for the wrong reasons....is that truly noble?

Nope,

Just quaintly convenient....

on Jun 01, 2013

Ah....but 'doing the right thing'....for the wrong reasons....is that truly noble?

Nope,

Just quaintly convenient....
But it does get us to the same place, namely a bit more of a very scarce commodity (privacy). As for the actual ethics of it... I'd rather not debate the Big Heavy Questions with someone possessed of the banhammer.

3 Pages1 2 3