Live data from Hacker News

Google handed over years of e-mails belonging to WikiLeaks chatroom admin

arstechnica.com

21–30 of 85 posts

Re: Google handed over years of e-mails belonging to WikiLeaks chatroom admin

#21
post #3

What could Google have done better? (Specifically in regards to this case. And assuming they pushed back on orders like this, like they claim to do.)

They could have done what they thought was right in the interests of the Internet as a free, unregulated medium and by extension their business which depends on the Internet, even if that course of action (or inaction) was not clearly legal. Then they could have used some of their billions in cash on hand and their team of lawyers to defend themselves against prosecution. They, instead of some random sysadmin, could be the ones bringing this issue of Internet spying to the fore.

Now, before you say "What, do you expect them to break the law?", consider that they routinely push the boundaries of US law (securities law, copyright law, tax law, etc.) and lo and behold they are usually successful.

Now, I expect you might say "What you're suggesting is still nonsensical because resisting orders related to national security is, among other things, far too controversial and not in the interests of shareholders." And I would not disgaree with you.

My point is simply that Google, with its vast resources, is in a much better position than Ed Snowden to take on this fight for the future of the Internet and privacy of communications.

You could even argue Google has more skin in the game than Mr. Snowden, or any of us individually (aside from those who exploit others' private information for profit, of course)... because if this controversy brings about knee-jerk changes in privacy law, it could materially affect their bottom line.

Re: Google handed over years of e-mails belonging to WikiLeaks chatroom admin

#22
post #2

I've never owned a gmail account but have sent to plenty. Gmail is like the 21st century party landline but only a relative few people can listen in. > Because I talked to Julian Assange, all information held by Google relating to my user account with them can be handed over to US prosecutors—not just the contents of my conversations with Julian. There it is: If you have online contact with someone that's of interest…

"There it is: If you have online contact with someone that's of interest, there's a chance all of your info will be of interest also."

Aside from the obvious chilling effect this has, how do you know if the people you speak to will become "persons of interest" later? Anyone you speak to now could be a high-profile activist in a year. That means that anyone could be the subject of this sort of surveillance.

Re: Google handed over years of e-mails belonging to WikiLeaks chatroom admin

#23
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Push back more on the request? The 4th amendment includes this part: "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" Describing what you want as " all e-mails " is exactly the type of description this part of the amendment is meant to prevent. It's way too broad.

There is a 10-bullet list of the particular things to be seized. How would you have made it more specific?

By not having such broad categories of things to be seized. It is not "specific" to seize "every email message he sent to anyone ever."

Re: Google handed over years of e-mails belonging to WikiLeaks chatroom admin

#24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or, if you're in the "host your own email" crowd, what makes you think your ISP won't cooperate with the government just like Google does? They don't have the information Google does because it's on an e-mail server under your bed. And you enjoy certain legal protections as a citizen in your home country. It's not a particularly enticing solution but it does have its upsides.

If your email server were under your bed, the FBI would just serve the warrant on you in person, seize your computer and all other computers in the same building, any spare disk drives, routers, appliances, and whatnot laying around, and probably half of the rest of your belongings besides. For those of you outside the USA, the NSA/DIA will just hack into your server and take your email.

It is worth noting that they often choose to do this the "loud" way, but the FBI has been granted warrants to pick people's locks and copy their hard drives without leaving traces. Alarm monitoring companies are also subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, so that won't help you either.

Re: Google handed over years of e-mails belonging to WikiLeaks chatroom admin

#25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or, if you're in the "host your own email" crowd, what makes you think your ISP won't cooperate with the government just like Google does? They don't have the information Google does because it's on an e-mail server under your bed. And you enjoy certain legal protections as a citizen in your home country. It's not a particularly enticing solution but it does have its upsides.

If your email server were under your bed, the FBI would just serve the warrant on you in person, seize your computer and all other computers in the same building, any spare disk drives, routers, appliances, and whatnot laying around, and probably half of the rest of your belongings besides. For those of you outside the USA, the NSA/DIA will just hack into your server and take your email.

The NSA isn't the almighty spirit of the internet. They can't just clap their hands and magically get access to any server on earth. And even if they can, it certainly doesn't make the evidence obtained that way acceptable in court.

I don't like this argument that since the NSA is almighty, avoiding Gmail for security reasons is stupid. For the US government, accessing emails stored under my bed may not be impossible, but it's orders of magnitude more difficult than if they were on Gmail servers.

Re: Google handed over years of e-mails belonging to WikiLeaks chatroom admin

#26
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered the possibility that we hear about surveillance of GMail accounts only because so many people happen to use GMail? Is there any particular property of Google that makes it more likely to cooperate with government than any other email provider? Or, if you're in the "host your own email" crowd, what makes you think your ISP won't cooperate with the government just like Google does?

It depends on what you mean by "host your own email." Sure, a server at, say, RackSpace, might be vulnerable to government intrusion without your knowledge, but if you have a physical server at your home, then the best that the government can do (without your knowledge) is to tap your upstream connection, which does little for past emails.

>the best that the government can do (without your knowledge) is to tap your upstream connection, which does little for past emails.

Really only applies to emails before Room 641A. It might be easier to go after email at the provider level, but NSA is capable of capturing all internet traffic if it wants to.

Re: Google handed over years of e-mails belonging to WikiLeaks chatroom admin

#27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a 10-bullet list of the particular things to be seized. How would you have made it more specific?

By not having such broad categories of things to be seized. It is not "specific" to seize "every email message he sent to anyone ever."

Exactly. "All emails" negates all bullet points. It's like asking for 9 specific items in a real world warrant, and then point #10 is "and your whole house and everything in it".

Re: Google handed over years of e-mails belonging to WikiLeaks chatroom admin

#28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or, if you're in the "host your own email" crowd, what makes you think your ISP won't cooperate with the government just like Google does? They don't have the information Google does because it's on an e-mail server under your bed. And you enjoy certain legal protections as a citizen in your home country. It's not a particularly enticing solution but it does have its upsides.

If your email server were under your bed, the FBI would just serve the warrant on you in person, seize your computer and all other computers in the same building, any spare disk drives, routers, appliances, and whatnot laying around, and probably half of the rest of your belongings besides. For those of you outside the USA, the NSA/DIA will just hack into your server and take your email.

At least then you know.

Also it requires a much harder to get warrant as well as cost approvals.

Re: Google handed over years of e-mails belonging to WikiLeaks chatroom admin

#29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your email server were under your bed, the FBI would just serve the warrant on you in person, seize your computer and all other computers in the same building, any spare disk drives, routers, appliances, and whatnot laying around, and probably half of the rest of your belongings besides. For those of you outside the USA, the NSA/DIA will just hack into your server and take your email.

It is worth noting that they often choose to do this the "loud" way, but the FBI has been granted warrants to pick people's locks and copy their hard drives without leaving traces. Alarm monitoring companies are also subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, so that won't help you either.

Someone could rig up their own system to notify themselves which is very doable. I can see the situation where someone gets notified, then emails their server to backup offsite, and wipe the hard drives (and for those well versed in demo, there's always that option…).

Re: Google handed over years of e-mails belonging to WikiLeaks chatroom admin

#30
post #9
post #3

What could Google have done better? (Specifically in regards to this case. And assuming they pushed back on orders like this, like they claim to do.)

Push back more on the request? The 4th amendment includes this part: "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" Describing what you want as " all e-mails " is exactly the type of description this part of the amendment is meant to prevent. It's way too broad.

Google has a legal team whose full-time job is pushing back on these requests. At some point, they have to either obey the law, or go to prison themselves. Get off your high horse.

It feels like some people won't be satisfied unless Google says "well, our existence has many benefits, but it also makes it slightly easier for the government to spy on people, so we're closing up shop".

Post reply on HN