U.S Gov't: "Give Us Your Data, It's For Security"; Google: "Buzz Off!"
April 5, 2013 3:33 PM
comment(s) - last by
One of America's top electronics corporations goes head to head with the feds over information privacy
The National Security Letter (NSL) is a tool used by the
U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigations
to avoid the "burden" of due process, directly seizing private citizen data from corporations
. With the
(Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism) Act use of the NSL has exploded, as the FBI has increasingly used the technique to seize digital information such as
browsing history and phone records
I. We Aren't Gonna Take It
Usually when a company gets an NSL, they just bend over and take it. While it's illegal to even talk about NSLs, at least one company did publicize that it received one, complaining about how abusive the process is. Four out of five companies reportedly privately challenged one of the 300,000 NSLs sent since 2000, but most of these internal pleas to FBI higher-ups fell on deaf ears.
NSLs come with a permanent ban on free speech. Unless a company or individual files a petition to remove the gag order surrounding the NSL, to talk about it publicly is a federal crime.
But something new is afoot. A company has for the first time
to bend over and take it, openly acknowledging the information demand (in a clever manner) and challenging its legality.
Google has become the highest profile player yet to publicly challenge an NSL.
[Image Source: Google Images/Unknown]
When the FBI approached Google Inc. (
), the world's largest smartphone operating system maker and search engine provider, Google refused to turn over its customers' private data. Instead it took the less travelled path, filing a challenge in the local federal court, the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
's San Francisco office.
What it did next was more unusual. It filed a petition to seal its previous request, which was revealed to be a request to set aside a “legal process” pursuant “to 18
U.S.C. Section 3511 (a) and (b)
". Section (a) of that federal law allows recipients of an NSL to file to have it overturned if it is deemed "unreasonable, oppressive or otherwise unlawful"; Section (b) allows the recipient to ask to have the gag order removed.
Until several years ago, Section (b) was not in effect. However, a challenge to the blanket gag order provision by the Library Connection to a 2005 NSL over library patron data forced Congress to provide an appeals mechanism after a federal judge ruled such airtight gag orders to be unconstitutional.
FBI agents can issue NSLs with little supervision, and it's illegal to talk about the warrantless seizures of citizen data. [Image Source: Alamy]
The request to seal the challenge is clever. While under
18 U.S.C. Section 2709
it's illegal for the recipient of the NSL to directly reveal that it received the letter, by issuing a filing to seal its challenge (which is typically automatically sealed) Google cleverly circumvents the disclosure prohibition.
Kevan Fornasero, Google’s lawyer writes:
[Petitions] filed under Section 3511 of Title 18 to set aside legal process issued under Section 2709 of Title 18 must be filed under seal because Section 2709 prohibits disclosure of the legal process.
In other words, the wink-wink, nod-nod response from Google is, "We can't tell you or not whether we received an NSL, but be sure to seal that petition related to challenging an NSL."
II. Federal Judge: NSLs are Unconstitutional
It's a clever tactic to say the least.
And it's one that's likely inspired by
Federal Judge Susan Illston
, who recently ruled in the San Francisco court that NSLs were unconstitutional, and hence illegal. In her ruling she cited the
First Amendment of the Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
...and argued that NSLs also violate separation of powers, by granting unchecked authority to the executive branch (who overseas law enforcement agencies). In her ruling she also ruled the system of challenging the gag orders was unconstitutional, as it was loaded with exemptions that could once more preempt any sort of due process challenge.
This is the
second time NSLs have been ruled unconstitutional
; previously in 2007 a federal
Judge Victor Marrera
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
. In that case the
2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
dismissed the ruling, saying that the issues were moot in the case in question, although circuit judge
Judge Richard Cardamone
warned that the gag orders could serve as a cover for misconduct.
Matt Zimmerman, senior staff attorney for the
Electronic Frontier Foundation
, who filed the challenge on behalf of an unnamed telecom who received the order in 2009 states, "We are very pleased that the Court recognized the fatal constitutional shortcomings of the NSL statute. The government’s gags have truncated the public debate on these controversial surveillance tools. Our client looks forward to the day when it can publicly discuss its experience."
The EFF stepped into the debate after the federal government filed a secret sealed lawsuit against the company in question. While the law technically permits challenges to NSLs, the feds argued that challenges should not be allowed in all cases, and that the company in question should be punished for its insubordination.
, "It’s a huge deal to say you are in violation of federal law having to do with a national security investigation. That is extraordinarily aggressive from my standpoint. They’re saying you are violating the law by challenging our authority here."
III. A Long Road to Rebellion Against the NSL
The latest victory comes after the more roundabout confrontation involving the Judge Marrero 2007 ruling. That case involved a small ISP owner Nicholas Merrill successfully removed a gag order during a challenge of an NSL regarding one of his clients.
Mr. Merrill argued customer records were protected information and to request them without warrant was unconstitutional. But that legal hypothesis was never put to the test; the FBI dropped its demand for Mr. Merrill's customer records leaving the question of legality unanswered.
Judge Susan Illston has found NSL unconstitutional, giving the feds 90 days to appeal her ruling.
[Image Source: Jason Doly]
The answer could come in the next 90 days. That's how long Judge Illston stayed her order to give the Obama administration time to appeal the ruling to the, an appeal which will almost surely occur. For the next 90 days NSLs are legal -- but after that until the appeal concludes they are arguably illegal.
Marc Rotenberg, president and executive director of the Washington- based
Electronic Privacy Information Center
, "We are in this interesting in-between moment in which the government is still able to enforce its authority. I suspect that this filing is an effort to push the issue further."
Google and others are fighting the gag order on NSLs. [Image Source: How to be a Dad]
To date Google has been one of the largest recipients of NSLs. While it can't say exactly how many it's received, legally, it says it's received between 0 and 999, indicating hundreds of requests. It did say over 1,000 customer records were affected by these requests. In a March 2013
Richard Salgado, Google’s legal director for law enforcement and information security, thanked FBI agents for "working with us to provide greater insight into the use of NSLs.
II. Gov't: NSLs -- Often Used; Often Abused
Many Americans might be inclined to support ditching warrants in order to fight the shadowy specter of "terror", given that due process could cost precious time and time is often short when preventing attacks.
However, the damage done by taking away the freedom of due process may well be far greater than the freedom taken away by loss of life from a terrorist attack. In a system in which abuse
occur, typically abuses
occur when it comes to NSLs -- lots of them.
A government audit found that agents were using their unsupervised NSL powers in abusive, outright illegal ways. Close to 300,000 NSLs have been issued during the Bush and Obama administrations, targetting tends of thousands of U.S. citizens [Image Source: DoJ Reports]
According to a
[PDF] by the
Justice Department Inspector General
, the FBI was found to have had sweeping and
ttered among the 200,000 letters issued between 2003 and 2006. The agency overstepped its authority, and in some cases agents misused their unchecked powers of domestic spying.
Even if there's no major push from the top for Orwellian "macroscopic" abuses -- yet -- a major source of these problems is the fact that agents issuing the NSLs often receive little feedback or scrutiny, reportedly from their supervisors. The PATRIOT Act explicitly allowed agents to send NSLs without even telling their supervisor. Thus no one appears to be watching the watchmen.
To make matters worse, the agency appears to have tried to cover up its dirty laundry by underreporting (essentially lying about) the number of NSL issued, in its reports to Congress.
Whistleblowers have told horror stories
regarding abuses from NSLs, wiretaps, and
other warrantless/poorly supervised police tools
Possible motive for these discrepancies was elucidated when the Inspector General found numerous agents to be evading internal agency policies on when the NSL could be issued. In some cases the filings were so inappropriate that the Inspector General characterized them as "illegal". In other words, some filings likely targeted individuals who had committed no crime and were not secretly communicating with foreign criminals.
Some federal agents have reportedly used NSLs to stalk co-workers or exes.
[Image Source: SLC AD]
Of course precise details of these abuses were never published, as the first rule of NSLs is that you don't talk about NSLs. The second rule of NSLs? You don't talk about NSLs. They come with a built-in gag order that prevents public disclosure.
Still, even without the details, the impression of impropriety was an embarrassment to the Bureau. The audit brought promises of change and a crackdown on abuse from the FBI. NSL declined dramatically to less than half of the 2004 levels. However, numbers have once again begun to creep back up, with 24,287 letters (pertaining to 14,000 U.S. residents) issued in 2010 (the data for 2011 has not yet been made publicly available).
Google and the EFF's challenges to the legality of NSLs could restore due process and end this abuse. But it remains to be seen how they will fare in the circuit appeals court, and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court.
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
RE: AHA Moment!
4/6/2013 4:35:42 AM
That is a rather tenuous link at best. Let alone how confused the message is.
The way I just read the above is Google will protect the 1st by proving the NSL is illegal by the 1st's own standards. Which plays no bearing on the 2nd.
You seem to suggest that Google need to wake up and support the 2nd in order to stop the 1st being disparaged. Or you seem to think that Google aren't protecting the 1st and therefore may aid in the 2nd's future, ironically, amendment to quash some of your rights.
You may wonder why the word ironically is used. Mainly because of the dictionary definition of amendment implies change. The fact that some of these laws have remained static for so long is a wonder... whether for good or bad. I'm not arguing either way on that.
However, the law has to be flexible. It has to see things, whether corrupt, unjust or oppressive, and react to patch up the cracks. And it seems that Google in this case, along with others, has realised that this crack was already patched up over 200 years ago.
"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997
Too Large to Manage? 1.3M Cell Phone Snooping Demands Filed in 2011
July 9, 2012, 2:23 PM
Obama Admin. Fights to Renew Warrantless Wiretaps, Block Transparency
July 31, 2011, 1:50 PM
FBI Agent Turned ACLU Counsel: Feds Spy On Citizens Based on Religion, Politics
February 8, 2011, 10:01 AM
Report: Obama Administration to Spy on Citizens Online to Fight "Terror"
September 27, 2010, 2:10 PM
Federal Judge: National Security Letters "Unconstitutional"
September 6, 2007, 4:26 PM
Twitter Senior VP: "Diversity is Important, But We Can’t Lower the Bar"
November 9, 2015, 9:59 AM
CNN Resorts to Internet Censorship to Promote Clinton Over Senator Sanders
October 15, 2015, 2:47 PM
Breaking Bad: How to Crash Google's Chrome Browser With Just 8 Characters
September 23, 2015, 11:08 AM
Quick Note: Amazon UK Offers £10 Back on Any Order £50 or Over
August 3, 2015, 12:05 PM
Editorial: Reddit Allows Itself to be Hijacked as a Hate Platform For Racist Bigots
July 21, 2015, 6:32 PM
Mozilla and Facebook to Adobe: It's Time to Kill Flash
July 20, 2015, 6:30 PM
Latest Blog Posts
Sceptre Airs 27", 120 Hz. 1080p Monitor/HDTV w/ 5 ms Response Time for $220
Dec 3, 2014, 10:32 PM
Costco Gives Employees Thanksgiving Off; Wal-Mart Leads "Black Thursday" Charge
Oct 29, 2014, 9:57 PM
"Bear Selfies" Fad Could Turn Deadly, Warn Nevada Wildlife Officials
Oct 28, 2014, 12:00 PM
The Surface Mini That Was Never Released Gets "Hands On" Treatment
Sep 26, 2014, 8:22 AM
ISIS Imposes Ban on Teaching Evolution in Iraq
Sep 17, 2014, 5:22 PM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information