Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 87 posts

Re: Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation

#41

Post by bediger4000 »

tedunangst wrote: post #31
bediger4000 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the text of the article, that's not true. The gag orders were to prevent the attorney from getting bad publicity. I suppose that they wrote "keep suspects in the dark" or the equivalent legalese in the motion, but the real reason appears to be otherwise.

Is that a fact or an opinion? The "text of the article" that supports that conclusion is a quote from Googles attorney, not an unbiased source.

After careful re-reading, I think you are correct. I didn't read closely enough. The key paragraph is attributed to Google's lawyer.

However, the whole "twitter didn't get a gag order" aspect does support the thesis that the Google gag order is to minimize criticism of the US lawyers.

Since the very same person (Jacob Appelbaum) appears to be the subject of both Twitter and Google search warrants, the "we don't want to alert TERRORISTS!" excuse for the gag order doesn't hold. Also, if it's a search warrant, and not a CALEA-type on-going surveillance warrant, why would a gag order be imposed? If Google has the data, they have to turn it over or face penalties, and I'm sure they have a policy to fork over any legally-demanded data. They may have a duty to their own consciences to contest the search warrants, but I'm sure that they hand over data.

I can think of one other motive for such a gag order, and that's to minimize the time that Appelbaum has to prepare a defense. That hardly seems fair, given that the USA is supposed to have a level playing field with ALL CITIZENS subject to the rule of law. I'd rather not think that the US Attorney, with all the legal and monetary resources of the federal government at hand, would stoop to cheap shots like that.

I think Gidari's conclusion, although an opinion, fits the facts as we know them. The Google gag order was sought to contain or minimize criticism. Assuming that seems to give the US Attorneys the benefit of the doubt, because otherwise I'd think they were trying to cheat, which they, as officers of the court have a moral duty to avoid.

Re: Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation

#42

Post by bediger4000 »

ForHackernews wrote: post #18

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...

"Nope. No gun to my head." ha ha ha!

Given US attorney's rules around client/attorney privilege, perhaps he was giving the "least untruthful answer".

I kill myself!

Re: Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation

#43

Post by belorn »

fixermark wrote: post #23
ForHackernews wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: Y…

The question has never been "Can you trust cloud services?" It's "Can you trust them more than the alternatives?" Yes, you can almost certainly keep your private data more secure in a system you build and monitor yourself(1). Until an NSA or GCHQ-level entity takes interest in you, and uses a 0-day exploit on your system or just physically walks in with a warrant and steals your physical media. How is that functional…

The difference is the same that enable a police officer to walk the street, but require a warrant before entering a home.

Even NSA do not like to invade peoples homes. Its a health risk for agents, its costly, it competes with other agencies, and its bad for PR. The legal steps required are also much smaller when asking a cloud service to hands over information.

Re: Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation

#44

Post by tonfa »

doctorshady wrote: post #38

I like how any questioning of Google's integrity is being shamelessly downvoted here.

Well, one of the target of the warrant is also supporting Google here: https://twitter.com/ioerror/status/560575339450347520 https://twitter.com/ioerror/status/560579349460815872

Re: Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation

#45

Post by lern_too_spel »

ForHackernews wrote: post #18

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...

Why is it interesting? It's since become clear that Google was not in cahoots with the NSA, just like Drummond said.

Re: Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation

#46

Post by [deleted] »

higherpurpose wrote: post #34
sarciszewski wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Yup. Going to the third party provider as if it owns your data is a complete bypass of the 4th amendment. To make an analogy it would be like the federal government having to serve a warrant/court order/gar order only to your local mayor to search your house without your permission. Imagine how messed up that would be. Yet, it's exactly what happens in the digital world, and somehow we've learned to take it for grant…

[deleted]

Re: Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation

#47

Post by sarciszewski »

Zigurd wrote: post #40
sarciszewski wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't dispute that there was some collusion or collaboration, but at the same time, I don't condemn people on an incomplete pictures. Period. For all we know, PRISM was more-or-less a euphemism for "we had a shallow collaboration that we used to pivot into a larger compromise of their networks". Conversely, I'm going to have to agree with 'tptacek and his (probably not popular) opinion on Google and their influence…

> I believe in charitable debate and skeptical inquiry. I believe in the odds. And the odds are that any technology that has a high potential to significantly add to surveillance capabilities has been exploited for that purpose either by hacking it or convincing (strong-arming if needed) the technology provider to cooperate. I don't deny that Google does a lot of great things in general, and in security research spec…

Joke's on you: he left Matasano.

Re: Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation

#48

Post by joshstrange »

lkbm wrote: post #4
bediger4000 wrote: post #2

The reason for the gag orders: to keep the Federal Attorneys from getting a pile of bad publicity. This flies straight in the face of any kind of transparent government. If the Attorney's office gets a ton of criticism, then they're probably doing something extremely unpopular. It's good to do unpopular things in defense of minority opinions, given the USA's free speech tradition, but if the criticism is large in vol…

Seems like the gag orders are "don't tell these suspects that we're monitoring them". Seems quite legitimate and essential in ordinary cases. But we need a robust court system that will restrict gag orders to legit things, rather than suppressing dissent.

> Seems quite legitimate and essential in ordinary cases

Is it though? I am of the mind that I am okay with making law enforcement's job harder if it means more transparency and the assumption of privacy for citizens. I'd rather a couple of criminals go free than that we secretly invade the privacy of one innocent person. People have a right to know when their personal data is being examined by law enforcement IMHO. Again this isn't saying they can't get access to the person's email but that the person IS notified when it happens.

> But we need a robust court system that will restrict gag orders to legit things, rather than suppressing dissent.

You mean another rubber stamp FISA court?

Re: Google says it fought gag orders in WikiLeaks investigation

#50

Post by tptacek »

Zigurd wrote: post #40
sarciszewski wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't dispute that there was some collusion or collaboration, but at the same time, I don't condemn people on an incomplete pictures. Period. For all we know, PRISM was more-or-less a euphemism for "we had a shallow collaboration that we used to pivot into a larger compromise of their networks". Conversely, I'm going to have to agree with 'tptacek and his (probably not popular) opinion on Google and their influence…

> I believe in charitable debate and skeptical inquiry. I believe in the odds. And the odds are that any technology that has a high potential to significantly add to surveillance capabilities has been exploited for that purpose either by hacking it or convincing (strong-arming if needed) the technology provider to cooperate. I don't deny that Google does a lot of great things in general, and in security research spec…

What exactly was it that you thought Matasano did, that the NSA might have ever leaned on them for anything? People on HN have historically had really weird ideas of how my work intersects with privacy. Matasano is a software engineering service.
Post reply on HN