

Facebook, Microsoft Disclose Government Data Requests, But Google Balks - anologwintermut
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/06/14/facebook-got-fewer-than-10000-gov-data-requests-in-2nd-half-of-2012/

======
LoganCale
This is a poor headline that does not accurately reflect the situation.
Microsoft and Facebook made deals with the government to include NSLs and FISA
warrants in their total disclosure numbers as long as they kept them grouped
together, but Google had already made a deal in the past to disclose NSLs
separately from regular law enforcement warrant numbers and accepting the new
deal would've forced them to lump the NSLs in with the rest, reducing the
usefulness of the overall numbers. Instead they seem to be pushing to be
allowed to disclose regular warrants, FISA warrants and NSLs all separately.
This is a good thing.

~~~
anologwintermut
I believe that data covered only NSLs and explicitly didn't cover FISA
requests. In fact, Google's spokes person makes this clear in the article:

" a Google spokesman said the company has 'always believed that it’s important
to differentiate between different types of government requests,' referring to
requests for data in criminal cases, and data requests stemming from national
security-related, classified orders.

'Lumping the two categories together would be a step back for users,' the
Google spokesman added in the statement. 'Our request to the government is
clear: to be able to publish aggregate numbers of national security requests,
including FISA disclosures, separately.'"

~~~
LoganCale
Facebook (and I presume Microsoft) are including regular warrants, FISA
warrants, and NSLs.

[https://newsroom.fb.com/News/636/Facebook-Releases-Data-
Incl...](https://newsroom.fb.com/News/636/Facebook-Releases-Data-Including-
All-National-Security-Requests)

Google is, and has been for some time, including regular warrants and NSLs but
not FISA warrants. They could have gone along with the same agreement Facebook
and Microsoft made, but that would've required them to group the NSLs and FISA
warrants in with the regular warrants. Instead they kept doing what they
currently do, which is to show NSLs separately but not include the still
forbidden FISA warrants.

[https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/U...](https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US/)

------
anologwintermut
Despite Microsoft and Facebook being allowed to release data, Google is
refusing. Google claims "Lumping the two categories together would be a step
back for users,” the Google spokesman added in the statement. “Our request to
the government is clear: to be able to publish aggregate numbers of national
security requests, including FISA disclosures, separately"

This strikes me as bullshit. One, more data seems always to be better. Two,
google already releases some data on non NSL/FISA requests[0]. We'd have some
idea which is which and not just lump it all together.

Microsofts numbers were odd too: they only gave requests, not effected
accounts (a marked contrast to the rather complete info Facebook gave out).
Why the discrepancy ? Did Facebook not get many request, so they were allowed
to release everything? Did Microsoft batch requests and so those mere 7k
requests did give out huge amount? Did Google actually make them file
individual requests -- which would be inline with their denial earlier this
week?

It seems the DOJ/NSA is only letting people release (accurate) statistics that
might understat the problem.

[0][http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/?m...](http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/?metric=targets)

~~~
tptacek
No, what's happening here is that Google is continuing to push the USG to be
able to publish fine-grained data, while Facebook is publishing less
informative aggregates.

In other words, Google is going to bat for its users, and being punished for
it because of the optics that sets up. How does it feel to be a tool of the
NSA? :)

~~~
anologwintermut
Thats noble if somehow publishing non-fine-grained information precludes or
hurts their chances of publishing fine grained information later. I can't
think of a reasonable argument that thats the case.

As for being a tool of the NSA,I feel grossly underpaid.

~~~
tptacek
Publishing the aggregates allows the USG to claim that Google has already been
authorized to disclose the important information. How much do you think it
costs Google to fight this fight with the USG? How much do you think a lawyer
who can participate in a team effort to make this kind of case bills an hour?

Why aren't you cheering for them, instead of trying to tear them down?

