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

How DOJ Gagged Google Over Surveillance of Wikileaks Volunteer

firstlook.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–27 of 27 posts

Re: How DOJ Gagged Google Over Surveillance of Wikileaks Volunteer

#21

Post by tsotha »

deelowe wrote: post #10
csense wrote: post #8

Presumably a number of people at Google had access to the orders, if only to implement the government's surveillance. What's always baffling to me is how seldom stuff like this is leaked -- all it takes is one person with the right access, conscience and the technical skills to work out how to siphon off their own unofficial copy, then put that unofficial copy anonymously on the internet when the appeals to do it leg…

No one wants to go through what Chelsea Manning went through. Psychological torture and completely ruining someone's life is a powerful deterrent.

Manning was in a different position because he was military. Putting your signature on that recruiting document both increases the legal expectations on your conduct and decreases the rights you have after you break the rules.

Re: How DOJ Gagged Google Over Surveillance of Wikileaks Volunteer

#22

Post by junto »

how_about_no wrote: post #12
junto wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone with a bit of UI design skills should make a mocknup of this. A visual idea conveys so much more to the general public than words.

Please clarify. Is it your position that the general public would be better informed of the actual state of the world if someone created a non-functional prototype of something you imagine to exist? Or is your intent not to inform them of the actual state of the world, but to convince them of your beliefs about it?

No, I'm talking about fictional examples of near possible future dystopian scenarios. For a good example you can look up some guy called Orwell.

Visual fictional examples often work even better. See Alan Moore.

The concept of the entire world's population in an NSA database is of course unrealistic, but would it be a realistic end goal? I don't see why not.

Re: How DOJ Gagged Google Over Surveillance of Wikileaks Volunteer

#23

Post by mellavora »

grossvogel wrote: post #11
csense wrote: post #8

Presumably a number of people at Google had access to the orders, if only to implement the government's surveillance. What's always baffling to me is how seldom stuff like this is leaked -- all it takes is one person with the right access, conscience and the technical skills to work out how to siphon off their own unofficial copy, then put that unofficial copy anonymously on the internet when the appeals to do it leg…

I was thinking along similar lines. Does anybody know more about the penalties for violating a gag order, like this? Is there some trick that could be built-into sensitive services like email, maybe some kind of per-account warrant canary?

The penalties for violating a gag order can be very high indeed. Research "National Security Letters" Or think of Aaron Scwartz. If you get on the bad side of LE, they can hunt and harrass you for years.

There was one service which suggested people/organizations report in once per week that they had NOT received a NSL. Presumably when a company did not report this, it would suggests that they had. I'm not sure what happened to the service.

Re: How DOJ Gagged Google Over Surveillance of Wikileaks Volunteer

#24

Post by mellavora »

tsotha wrote: post #21
deelowe wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one wants to go through what Chelsea Manning went through. Psychological torture and completely ruining someone's life is a powerful deterrent.

Manning was in a different position because he was military. Putting your signature on that recruiting document both increases the legal expectations on your conduct and decreases the rights you have after you break the rules.

True, Manning was in a different position.

But you may be surprised to find how little respect LEOs have for your rights if they decide to target you. Once you become a target, they have one job- to hunt you down and throw you in jail. The training, culture, and expectation is that of a predator (and you are the mouse).

Re: How DOJ Gagged Google Over Surveillance of Wikileaks Volunteer

#25

Post by uxp »

notduncansmith wrote: post #20
WalterGR wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His point is still correct. "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.'"

Do you have a source for this quote? Google didn't turn up anything meaningful but I'd like to give proper attribution when I hang it on my wall.

The attribution is arguably to Raymond Wolfinger who actually said the opposite, "The plural of anecdote is data", supposedly at a seminar at Stanford in the 60's or 70's. It also could be attributed to Roger Brinner, who said it to congress while testifying in 2012. I'd argue that it belongs unattributed, since it makes logical sense and no one ever attributes the phrase "the sky is blue" to anyone either.

http://blog.revolutionanalytics.com/2011/04/the-plural-of-an...

http://freakonomics.com/2010/04/29/quotes-uncovered-whats-th...

http://www.c-span.org/video/?307248-1/lessons-president-calv...

Re: How DOJ Gagged Google Over Surveillance of Wikileaks Volunteer

#26

Post by diafygi »

But Google’s attempt to overturn the gag order was denied by magistrate judge Ivan D. Davis in February 2011. The company launched an appeal against that decision, but this too was rebuffed, in March 2011, by District Court judge Thomas Selby Ellis, III.

Anyone have the actual decisions that were given? I can't seem to fine them.

Re: How DOJ Gagged Google Over Surveillance of Wikileaks Volunteer

#27

Post by caseysoftware »

deelowe wrote: post #17
caseysoftware wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> push back against government requests should be rephrased to: > push back against this government request We don't know if Google fights these by default or if this was the exception. Until we know further, we shouldn't assume either way.

There's more than one instance where examples have come up: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/google...

(thread resurrection!)

According to Mother Jones in 2013[1], Google hands over the data roughly 89% of the time. I think it's fair to say that when they fought it this time, it was an exception.

[1] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/google-microsoft...

Post reply on HN