I think this is the first time I've seen the phrase "post Edward Snowden world", used like "post 9-11 world" has been for the last decade-plus. I hope that catches on. Edit: can't believe I got the name wrong. Fixed.
Edward.
Twitter sues U.S. government over ability to disclose surveillance orders
11–20 of 131 posts
Re: Twitter sues U.S. government over ability to disclose surveillance orders
#12I think this is the first time I've seen the phrase "post Edward Snowden world", used like "post 9-11 world" has been for the last decade-plus. I hope that catches on. Edit: can't believe I got the name wrong. Fixed.
Its Edward Snowden
Re: Twitter sues U.S. government over ability to disclose surveillance orders
#13This eminently reasonable - Basically all Twitter wants to say is we have received X requests of Y type. Right now they are restricted to broad categories 0-999, between 6 & 8 thousand etc. I thought they were going farther - that they wanted a per account notification ability; not the case.
On the plus side, I wonder if DoJ says, "Guys, we've only got 20 more requests until we bump into the next bracket -- is this one worth it?" That is, do they care what anyone thinks about how high or low the numbers are?
Re: Twitter sues U.S. government over ability to disclose surveillance orders
#14Re: Twitter sues U.S. government over ability to disclose surveillance orders
#15I've never really understood why companies aren't able to disclose these numbers. It tells the public nothing about specific investigations.
To me - it seems like the government has chosen to draw the line in the sand so far beyond where it should be, to avoid having the actual debate over corporate disclosure of more-specific information.
Re: Twitter sues U.S. government over ability to disclose surveillance orders
#16This eminently reasonable - Basically all Twitter wants to say is we have received X requests of Y type. Right now they are restricted to broad categories 0-999, between 6 & 8 thousand etc. I thought they were going farther - that they wanted a per account notification ability; not the case.
Hopefully even small such victories against NSLs will encourage more companies to sue the government for using NSLs. Or we can just push for Congress to stop renewing the Patriot Act next year.
Just push?
With the intelligence community hacking into Senators' computers to defend themselves from investigation, even admitting it, at will, with no reprimand? And have it barely scrape the news?
Is it that easy? Can we just repeal bills like the Patriot Act? Look at how easy it was for Australia to invent a media blitz of fear to pass legislation allowing surveillance that has no counter terrorism purpose.
Re: Twitter sues U.S. government over ability to disclose surveillance orders
#17If I understand correctly, companies cannot say "we have received X (let's say 9) requests".
So, is it possible for them to say "We have NOT received 8 or 10 requests"? This clearly doesn't say how many they have received but gives a clue that they might have received 9.
Please ignore me if this is silly.
Re: Twitter sues U.S. government over ability to disclose surveillance orders
#18If I understand correctly, companies cannot say "we have received X (let's say 9) requests". So, is it possible for them to say "We have NOT received 8 or 10 requests"? This clearly doesn't say how many they have received but gives a clue that they might have received 9. Please ignore me if this is silly.
It's not silly but it won't work. People in the tech community typically don't see that you can't "hack the law" like it's machine or program. Judges just don't put up with it. They're adept at augmenting the law with case law that covers the loopholes.
Re: Twitter sues U.S. government over ability to disclose surveillance orders
#19If I understand correctly, companies cannot say "we have received X (let's say 9) requests". So, is it possible for them to say "We have NOT received 8 or 10 requests"? This clearly doesn't say how many they have received but gives a clue that they might have received 9. Please ignore me if this is silly.
It's not silly but it won't work. People in the tech community typically don't see that you can't "hack the law" like it's machine or program. Judges just don't put up with it. They're adept at augmenting the law with case law that covers the loopholes.
Totally, when I first started learning and caring more about the law I came up with all these clever hacks around various legal agreements and laws... Luckily for me I had friends who went to Law School to explain to me that the law is primarily about intent and most of my hacks weren't loopholes but instead plainly in the wrong and would be dealt with in court if they hadn't already through case law. I think its pretty common for hackers to look at legal agreements like a series of boolean statements that can be solved... sadly it doesn't work that way. Law is complicated :/
Re: Twitter sues U.S. government over ability to disclose surveillance orders
#20Can someone help me understand if this is a big deal?
If you believe that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done then yes, if you don't then it doesn't matter.
But really, trials and the rule of law are so 2000.