
Google tried to resist FBI requests for data, but the FBI took it anyway - cwilson
http://venturebeat.com/2013/06/06/google-tried-to-resist-fbi-requests-for-data-but-the-fbi-took-it-anyway/
======
mtgx
300,000 NSL's? Is that really how many terrorist plots they've foiled or even
suspected? Because I'm very skeptical about that.

The fact that the government can put a gag order 300,000 times on companies
and people like this is insane. Forget about "future abuses". It has already
happened and keeps happening. It's pretty clear the government is very loosely
using these NSL's now. Where are the checks and balance?

~~~
e40
We found out the PATRIOT Act was really used for drug enforcement[1] so I
wouldn't be surprised if it was the same with NSLs.

[1] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/patriot-
ac...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/patriot-act-used-to-
fight-more-drug-dealers-than-terrorists/2011/09/07/gIQAcmEBAK_blog.html)

------
EGreg
Let me get this straight, when you receive an NSL from the FBI (executive
branch) then you are not allowed by law to contest it in court (because of the
gag order) without fearing repercussions for violating the gag order by
revealing the NSL to the executive branch? Where are the checks and balances??

~~~
chiph
You aren't even allowed to contact counsel for advice.

~~~
EGreg
What happened to this:
[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/14254522342/shocke...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130315/14254522342/shocker-
court-says-national-security-letters-are-unconstitutional-bans-them.shtml)

------
jordanthoms
So what happens if you tell them to go away anyway? They take you to court?
Raid your datacenter? Good luck getting public support for that. Seems the
problem with these secret orders is, you can't actually _enforce_ them without
making them public, you can just make threatening gestures.

I'm dissapointed no tech company has decided to play hardball on this...

~~~
bobsy
Wouldn't defying the court order mean you are breaking the law? I wonder what
that would mean in terms of fines and possible legal implications for the
directors?

I am sure the Government would say that the company is with holding data
essential to counter-terrorism. With a bit of Government spin I don't see how
the tech company could come off positively from making such a stand.

~~~
pestaa
I hate the counter-terrorism card being played so often to get free pass with
no consequence at all, usually not involving terrorism in retrospective.

Counter-terrorism is the new terror.

~~~
Domenic_S
You and I both, but the problem is convincing the rest of America.

------
AddisonRyan
Are people actually upset with Google and the other tech companies over all of
this? It seems they were legally compelled to do it. Be furious at Washington,
not Silicon Valley.

~~~
b6
In this case, I would be happy if some CEO refused, breaking the law in
support of a higher principle.

~~~
FireBeyond
Good luck finding someone who is willing to risk his own reputation and
livelihood, including hireability (after he and the company have the shit sued
out of them by their shareholders, including institutional investors), as well
as the livelihood of his employees.

~~~
wavefunction
These guys have millions of dollars already, and just think about the goodwill
generated from standing up on principle. We're not at the point where the
government can seize their assets "because f___ you, that's why"

They're just as cowardly as many others facing this situation, except the CEO
has a lot less to lose (if you can understand this paradox, cheers)

~~~
krichman
Isn't that the reason they seized Dotcom's assets? They had no legal basis for
that.

~~~
wavefunction
in dotcom's case, the calculation was that he would be an unsympathetic
character:

fat, obnoxious, foreigner, fortune gained from a somewhat illicit business
(let's be honest about the service he provided to both licit and illicit
customers)

------
andyl
If you don't want Google giving your data to the FBI, then don't use google.
Oh - wait - Google is gonna get your data no matter what. Google Analytics.

~~~
SquareWheel
Google Analytics doesn't profile users - it's aggregate data for webmasters.

~~~
josephlord
Can you prove that Google doesn't gather that data for themselves?

------
kiba
Even if we could trust google to fight for our interest, we may not be able to
trust our governments to do the right thing.

~~~
marssaxman
Here in the USA, we can trust our government not to do the right thing.

------
dschiptsov
Companies like Google, FB, Tweeter even Amazon and Opera are intentionally
built to collect, mine and analyze, then sell (or profit from) its user's
data. This is just a standard way of making money - collect a huge dataset of
user-generated data and then monetize it.

No wonder that authorities will use the data, because, well, it is just
business as usual.)

~~~
mtgx
Sure, but let's say there was a very popular e-mail company where you paid for
the service. They would be keeping _your_ e-mail anyway. Do you really think
it would make any difference for NSA/FBI? They'd still get them just as easily
as from Google, Apple and others.

------
rpgmaker
Misleading headline. Google fought that one time but it's been years since
they've been part of PRISM.

~~~
alexandrosjanis
PRISM is the NSA. This article was about the FBI.

The FBI has always had less access to SIGINT than the FBI.

The NSA has one purpose: SIGINT. The FBI is a much broader and, in this
sphere, weaker authority.

------
mrschwabe
Oh OK Google "tries" to resist FBI requests, but how about requests from the
NSA? Top secret:

[http://www.pcworld.com/article/217550/google_watchdog_white_...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/217550/google_watchdog_white_house.html)

------
pcx66
I can't help but wonder how such a system can be practically implemented. I
cannot imagine that engineers at companies like Google, Apple, MS etc, the
ones working on stuff like Gmail, YouTube, iOS, would co-operate with such
unethical practices.

But it has been proved again and again that authority trumps conscious.

~~~
Silhouette
This is a classic "technology is neutral" situation, or if you prefer, "social
problems don't have technical solutions".

I'm sure some of the technologies I've worked on during my professional career
_could_ be used to do things under ethically dubious circumstances. They could
also be used to do the exact same things with a sound ethical and legal basis
that almost everyone would agree was reasonable. And they could also be used
to do many other completely unrelated and useful things where there is no
ethical dilemma at all. Context is everything.

I would guess that the majority of people who work in any kind of
manufacturing or information services industry could say the same thing,
probably including technicians working on communications systems at the kinds
of organisation you mentioned. Most of those people have no way to know or
influence the way their work will ultimately be used further down the line.
Society is too big and too complex to expect action or accountability for
everything at that level.

That means the only practical position is to say that responsibility for
(mis)use of general purpose tools must lie with the (mis)user, and if the
system isn't working, that is the level where any fixes need to be applied.

------
neaanopri
I'm surprised google didn't go public with all of this information. They have
more legitimacy and support than the government at this point, and I think
that if push came to shove, google would just refuse and call the NSA's bluff.

------
malandrew
Could they just partition user data so that data locality on citizens of
country X are located in country Y and therefore outside the jurisdiction of
country X.

When you sign up, they could make this an option. "Do you prefer faster access
to your data or have you data located in a specific jurisdiction?"

------
Tosh108
How does this effect foreign users of these services? I mean I'm pretty sure
that they haven't restricted their data collection to US citizens. Is there
international law about this?

~~~
danso
Uh, the NSA's primary mission is to conduct data surveillance on foreign
entities. The reason why PRISM exists is that much of this data flows through
American companies' servers.

~~~
Tosh108
Of course. Just surprised that EU politicians don't take the chance to gain
some popularity by screaming that they're angry at the US.

~~~
andrewmccall
Don't worry, they will.

------
Quarrelsome
Wait.... if I use Google Analytics on a site this implies that the IPs of
every visitor to the site is available to the NSA? Correct?

------
grandalf
Someone high up at Google could have risked jail time if the issue mattered.
None did. That says it all.

------
_progger_
Probably not as easy as resisting paying proper taxes...

------
chrisgd
Says google

