

How Yahoo Fought Against PRISM in Secret and Lost - maudlinmau5
http://mashable.com/2013/06/14/yahoo-fought-prism-lost/

======
danso
Blogspam at its worst:

> _The details of Yahoo 's challenge are not completely clear, since the
> procedure is in part still classified. All the information available on the
> case comes from the Times story_

The Times story is here: [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/technology/secret-
court-ru...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/technology/secret-court-ruling-
put-tech-companies-in-data-bind.html?pagewanted=all&_r=3&)

------
quotha
So, what exactly do you think would happen if a major company simply refuses/d
to comply? Would they arrest the whole company? The CEO? Would it happen
secretly? Would they just disappear? How can these "laws" possibly be
enforced?

~~~
LoganCale
Joe Nacchio, the former CEO of Qwest, is in prison for insider trading, which
he was charged with after refusing to hand over customer data without a
warrant.

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/qwest-ceo-nsa-
punished...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/qwest-ceo-nsa-punished-
qwest-refusing-participate-illegal-surveillance-pre-9-11)

~~~
kvb
Did he participate in insider trading? Do you believe he was framed?

~~~
bdcravens
I'd surmise that everyone's a little dirty, but if you play nice, the powers
that be will turn their head.

Put another way: racial profiling is real. That doesn't mean that those
racially profiled are innocent when caught with illicit substances, but that
doesn't make the profiling any less wrong.

------
jdp23
Back in 2009 (when the decision first came to light, although we didn't know
what company it applied to), Russ Feingold had some scathing things to say
about it:

 _The decision placed the burden of proof on the company to identify problems
related to the implementation of the law, information to which the company did
not have access.... Senator Feingold, who has repeatedly raised concerns about
the implementation of the PAA and its successor, the FISA Amendments Act
(“FAA”), in classified communications with the Director of National
Intelligence and the Attorney General, has stated that the court’s analysis
would have been fundamentally altered had the company had access to this
information and been able to bring it before the court._

 _In the absence of specific complaints from the company, the court relied on
the good faith of the government. As the court concluded, “[w]ithout something
more than a purely speculative set of imaginings, we cannot infer that the
purpose of the directives (and, thus, of the surveillance) is other than their
stated purpose....” One example of the court’s deference to the government
concerns minimization procedures, which require the government to limit the
dissemination of information about Americans that it collects in the course of
its surveillance. Because the company did not raise concerns about
minimization, the court “s[aw] no reason to question the adequacy of the
minimization protocol.” And yet, the existence of adequate minimization
procedures, as applied in this case, was central to the court’s constitutional
analysis._

More at [http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/06/14/feingold-yahoo-
blind/](http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/06/14/feingold-yahoo-blind/)

