Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation • Hacker News Board

Re: Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation

#11

Post by sarciszewski » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 4:40 PM UTC

dudus wrote: post #10

> But the case represents “an amazing Catch-22,” he said. > Google doesn’t “have the strongest right to challenge the > scope or the reasonableness of the warrant. The only people > who really have that are the targets of the warrant, and > they don’t know about it. So essentially the government has > carte blanche to get whatever they want.” Shouldn't in cases like this the gag order go to the target of the warrant.…

"why even involve Google at all"

"So essentially the government has carte blanche to get whatever they want"

I think your quote answered your own question.

Re: Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation

#12

Post by benlower » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 4:42 PM UTC

sarciszewski wrote: post #9

benlower wrote: post #7

(Any lawyers here who could weigh in?) Could a company nullify gag orders if it was their policy to post ALL their correspondence on their website? For example, AcmeCo gets a request from the US Government to share information about one of AcmeCo's customers (e.g. WikiLeaks). AcmeCo scans and posts this letter (as it does for everything it receives including its electricity bill) on its website. Could they then circu…

"Could a company nullify gag orders if it was their policy to post ALL their correspondence on their website?" Not a US-based company, because we have these nefarious things called National Security Letters. The penalty for knowingly breaking the gag order with the intent to interfere with an investigation is up to five years in prison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter Do you know any business o…

Thx for sharing that. That article says nothing about SCOTUS ruling so I wonder if this will eventually be challenged at the highest court.

I can't imagine a business owner going to prison as you suggest.

Re: Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation

#13

Post by datashovel » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 4:51 PM UTC

IMO governments need to learn how to adapt to this new "information age". That's not to say they need to try to find new ways to suppress information. They need to allow public discourse to help them define their limitations.

Re: Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation

#14

Post by jonlucc » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 4:53 PM UTC

benlower wrote: post #12

sarciszewski wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Could a company nullify gag orders if it was their policy to post ALL their correspondence on their website?" Not a US-based company, because we have these nefarious things called National Security Letters. The penalty for knowingly breaking the gag order with the intent to interfere with an investigation is up to five years in prison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter Do you know any business o…

Thx for sharing that. That article says nothing about SCOTUS ruling so I wonder if this will eventually be challenged at the highest court. I can't imagine a business owner going to prison as you suggest.

Would the case be public if a business owner were arrested? I would assume it would be in a sealed court.

Re: Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation

#15

Post by antocv » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 5:06 PM UTC

Google is good, not evil, they have fought for our rights, bravely and invented new genious technologies and social processes to protect our civil rights and society. Google is good, Google does what is in best interest for its users. Google stands up against an intrusive government. Being a user of Google services is supporting freedom and democracy. Google fights againt censorship and for open society.

Public announcment by Good Google.

Re: Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation

#16

Post by dublinben » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 5:07 PM UTC

sarciszewski wrote: post #9

benlower wrote: post #7

(Any lawyers here who could weigh in?) Could a company nullify gag orders if it was their policy to post ALL their correspondence on their website? For example, AcmeCo gets a request from the US Government to share information about one of AcmeCo's customers (e.g. WikiLeaks). AcmeCo scans and posts this letter (as it does for everything it receives including its electricity bill) on its website. Could they then circu…

"Could a company nullify gag orders if it was their policy to post ALL their correspondence on their website?" Not a US-based company, because we have these nefarious things called National Security Letters. The penalty for knowingly breaking the gag order with the intent to interfere with an investigation is up to five years in prison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter Do you know any business o…

How could you knowingly break a gag order, if an automated system publicly posts all correspondence before anyone reads them?

Re: Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation

#17

Post by saalweachter » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 5:16 PM UTC

sarciszewski wrote: post #9

benlower wrote: post #7

(Any lawyers here who could weigh in?) Could a company nullify gag orders if it was their policy to post ALL their correspondence on their website? For example, AcmeCo gets a request from the US Government to share information about one of AcmeCo's customers (e.g. WikiLeaks). AcmeCo scans and posts this letter (as it does for everything it receives including its electricity bill) on its website. Could they then circu…

"Could a company nullify gag orders if it was their policy to post ALL their correspondence on their website?" Not a US-based company, because we have these nefarious things called National Security Letters. The penalty for knowingly breaking the gag order with the intent to interfere with an investigation is up to five years in prison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter Do you know any business o…

Not to be, ah, subversive, but do you necessarily need business owners willing to go to jail, or business owners willing to employee willing martyrs?

Imagine you hire a number of people who happen to be willing to go to jail for their principles, who are strongly opposed to things like government secrecy, and put them in the line to handle a NSL. If they happen to violate a gag order and go to jail, well, you may have to fire them, but their contract is rather iron-clad and their severance quite impressive, more than adequate to take care of their family during a five year jail sentence...

Re: Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation

#18

Post by ForHackernews » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 5:25 PM UTC

Really interesting to read this in the context of David Drummond's statements a few years ago: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2013/jun/19/googl...

Re: Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation

#19

Post by ForHackernews » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 5:27 PM UTC

sarciszewski wrote: post #8

kwagmeyer wrote: post #3

Google was a premium partner in the Prysm NSA program. According to the first leaks, Google along with Facebook, Skype and Apple were the first to sign up to the NSA spying programs as partners. All along they're trying to paint themselves as victims of the spying, which is ridiculous really...but I guess they can still fool a large population.

The NSA was also wiretapping the connections between Google's datacenters, so they were victims of the NSA too. (Until we know more about their relationship with the NSA, I also don't condemn them for the PRISM allegations.)

I acknowledge there's a moral and ethical distinction there, but I dispute that there's any pragmatic difference: If you use Google services, your data is compromised, period.

It doesn't really matter whether the NSA or GCHQ are tapping Google's datacenters, paying off low-level employees, operating under a legal court order, or benefiting from the enthusiastic help of Google executives. The end result is the same: You cannot trust cloud services.

Re: Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation

#20

Post by ForHackernews » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 5:31 PM UTC

sarciszewski wrote: post #9

benlower wrote: post #7

(Any lawyers here who could weigh in?) Could a company nullify gag orders if it was their policy to post ALL their correspondence on their website? For example, AcmeCo gets a request from the US Government to share information about one of AcmeCo's customers (e.g. WikiLeaks). AcmeCo scans and posts this letter (as it does for everything it receives including its electricity bill) on its website. Could they then circu…

"Could a company nullify gag orders if it was their policy to post ALL their correspondence on their website?" Not a US-based company, because we have these nefarious things called National Security Letters. The penalty for knowingly breaking the gag order with the intent to interfere with an investigation is up to five years in prison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter Do you know any business o…

> Do you know any business owners willing to go to prison for five years for one of their users?

The Lavabit guy came pretty close, IIRC, and he's a small fry.

Do you really think the government would jail the wealthy executives of Google or Microsoft? They won't even prosecute Wall Street executives, and bankers are far less popular with the public than tech CEOs.