

How DOJ Gagged Google Over Surveillance of Wikileaks Volunteer - dthal
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/20/wikileaks-jacob-appelbaum-google-investigation/

======
themartorana
More often than not I look to the judiciary to reign in overreaching by the
executive, but more and more the judiciary seems entirely complicit in what I
personally consider to be affronts to the basic ideas on which the
Constitution was written.

It seems to me that secrecy is the default state of the federal government
now, not the exception, and between the NSA and gag orders keeping me (or you)
from knowing you're privacy is being violated, my right to defend myself and
redress against the government are both violated.

The Founding Fathers knew the price paid by the general public when government
acted for its own gain first, and held dominion over the population. Their
attempt to reign in its powers and make it truly a collective representation
of the will of the people was in reaction to oligarchy and monarchy - both of
which make the relationship between the people and their government
adversarial at best.

The U.S. government - and more and more, state and local governments - feel
entirely adversarial to the people they claim to represent. Lobbies, super
pacs, laws written by the entertainment industry and so on make it pretty
clear we're bound to an oligarchy which attempts to masquerade itself as a
democracy. There is rarely cooperation between the general public and their
government - more often, the general public finds itself universally against
(SOPA) or universally disgusted by (NSA, Snowden) the actions of the
government that claims to be their mouthpiece, working for justice for all.

So long as the judiciary upholds the government's power grabs against the
people, there's little that can be done.

Edit: kudos to Google for fighting as hard as they could for the Fourth
Amendment (and First). At least someone is. Secrecy was desired because of the
huge public backlash the last time they acted so egregiously. Instead of the
Judiciary acknowledging how out of bounds the last action was, they instead
agreed public knowledge of bad acts was an unnecessary burden on government
overreach.

Edit 2:

 _However, the Justice Department asserted that “journalists have no special
privilege to resist compelled disclosure of their records, absent evidence
that the government is acting in bad faith,”_

I contend that this seizure of private data, with a threshold of evidence far
below a Fourth Amendment level, ignoring historic protections for journalists
based on the absolute importance of their work in keeping the government in
check, is the government acting in the worst faith possible.

~~~
junto
Whilst the rights of Americans is important and the 4th amendment a key
continent those rights, we should not forget that the privacy invasions are
not limited to those in the US.

More importantly, those outside the US have NO rights under the US
constitution. To the contrary we have about as much rights as a chimpanzee,
unless we are at war with the US and if we are lucky we won't be declared non-
combatants, imprisoned in some black or quasi illegal prison for 15 years and
ideally will be treated fairly under the Geneva Convention.

~~~
themartorana
Absolutely. I don't mean to minimize what US agencies do to non-citizens. But
if _we_ don't stand a chance, it's laughable to assume anyone else does.

------
timothya
Here's Appelbaum's reaction to the disclosure from Google:
[https://storify.com/bbhorne/jacob-appelbaum-s-legal-
disclosu...](https://storify.com/bbhorne/jacob-appelbaum-s-legal-disclosure-
from-google-abo)

It's interesting to get a glimpse into the lengths that Google goes to push
back against government requests.

~~~
panarky
Google's an easy target, and their competition has hyped concerns about
privacy and surveillance.

But this story just confirms years of reports that Google really does behave
more honorably than many multinational corporations.

Google pushed back forcefully and repeatedly against these court orders. I
don't know how they've managed to build this culture, but it shows it can be
done.

~~~
themartorana
You're right. I ignore most peoples' concerns about a Google boogeyman - but I
also understand that for free email, calendar, docs, photo storage, etc.,
there is a price. I'm comfortable helping Google improve their algorithms and
seeing text ads - the value in return is incredible.

But knowing that while Google mines my life, they'll even stand up against the
U.S. government to protect that data... It makes me feel even better about the
choice I made.

------
junto
I communicated with Jason when I asked him for a Google Wave invite (which he
kindly gave me). I assume I'm also therefore on a list.

I imagine that the NSA is building a database with every single person on the
planet sourced from multiple databases, both PRISMed, FISAed and stolen, and
each person has a 'risk' and 'delinquency' factor, just like credit ratings.
They also have an 'influence' factor and next to it a link that takes the
operator to the available naked pics of the subject for blackmail purposes.

~~~
zzleeper
If I was the bad guys I would _definitely_ do that. In fact, it's not enough
to have a risk factor because there are many types of risk (terrorism risk,
standard crime risk, political risk, and even whistle-blower risk, for those
with access to classified information).

~~~
junto
Someone with a bit of UI design skills should make a mocknup of this. A visual
idea conveys so much more to the general public than words.

~~~
how_about_no
Please clarify. Is it your position that the general public would be better
informed of the actual state of the world if someone created a non-functional
prototype of something you imagine to exist? Or is your intent not to inform
them of the actual state of the world, but to convince them of your beliefs
about it?

~~~
junto
No, I'm talking about fictional examples of near possible future dystopian
scenarios. For a good example you can look up some guy called Orwell.

Visual fictional examples often work even better. See Alan Moore.

The concept of the entire world's population in an NSA database is of course
unrealistic, but would it be a realistic end goal? I don't see why not.

------
csense
Presumably a number of people at Google had access to the orders, if only to
implement the government's surveillance.

What's always baffling to me is how seldom stuff like this is leaked -- all it
takes is one person with the right access, conscience and the technical skills
to work out how to siphon off their own unofficial copy, then put that
unofficial copy anonymously on the internet when the appeals to do it legally
have been exhausted.

~~~
deelowe
No one wants to go through what Chelsea Manning went through. Psychological
torture and completely ruining someone's life is a powerful deterrent.

~~~
tsotha
Manning was in a different position because he was military. Putting your
signature on that recruiting document both increases the legal expectations on
your conduct and decreases the rights you have after you break the rules.

~~~
mellavora
True, Manning was in a different position.

But you may be surprised to find how little respect LEOs have for your rights
if they decide to target you. Once you become a target, they have one job- to
hunt you down and throw you in jail. The training, culture, and expectation is
that of a predator (and you are the mouse).

------
diafygi
_But Google’s attempt to overturn the gag order was denied by magistrate judge
Ivan D. Davis in February 2011. The company launched an appeal against that
decision, but this too was rebuffed, in March 2011, by District Court judge
Thomas Selby Ellis, III._

Anyone have the actual decisions that were given? I can't seem to fine them.

