back to article US spy court says internet firms can't report surveillance requests

The US Department of Justice has issued a formal response to requests by Google, Microsoft, and other internet companies to disclose more information about government requests for user data under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And – surprise, surprise – it's firmly against the idea. "Although the Government has …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    How convenient.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      The US Department of Justice has nothing to do with Justice whatsoever.

      They are on the same level as a "Volksgerichtshof".

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        The really sad thing is that the NSA is trying to hide the fact that it is spying on American citizens, not terrorists!

    2. LarsG

      Freedoms

      The people that make up the rules are in charge....

      At times like this the freedom of the press and the freedom of the judiciary from interference from the legislature is essential.

      Unfortunately the judiciary increasingly has its strings pulled by the legislature and does what it is told.

      For now the press is still free, but how long before Government changes the rules and legislates to change this. Imagine that after the Leveson inquiry the biggest advocate for press control, the Labour Party get into power, they could dictate what can and what cannot be printed by the papers.

      Not good.

      1. Scroticus Canis
        Unhappy

        Re: Freedoms

        It's already happened in South Africa. It's soon going to be illegal to report on any corruption or wrong doings by ANY government or local authority body or official.

        The ANC is begining to make the old Nationalist (Aparthied era) government look like paragons of virtue.

        Of course there was nothing political when Zuma (the current president) had his bribery and corruption charges over a massive arms procurement deal railroaded out of prosecution. The irony, the judge who allowed this to happen was also the judge who found his co-corruptee guilty and in the verdict stated that an obviously corrupt relationship existed between Zuma and Shaik.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    In which case ...

    In which case:

    a) assume that everything is insecure

    b) especially assume that everything American is insecure

    c) don't put anything in the Cloud, Hotmail, Gmail, SkyDrive, Dropbox, etc.

    d) don't buy any form of American hosting service, Cloud, SaaS, PaaS, etc

    <encrypted>

    cins8475098ds9841t0$$43856c~%zxcusd009841-89sd09f=091=56909-095e-bfd98b52skcoqwi

    </encrypted>

    G

    1. Someone Else Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: In which case ...

      I do hope that was and appropriately targeted obscenity.

    2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: In which case ...

      Or more effective - a ruling from the eu that using a US cloud provider means you violated eu data protection laws. Closely followed by one banning using American software products in confidential eg. medical or government applications.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: In which case ...

        Several members of the EU work closely with the NSA and probably do the same thing with UK, French and German software products. Pretty soon you'd be down to a choice to use only Chinese software!

        1. marcyd

          Re: In which case ...

          I get tired of pointing this out. It's one thing to be spied on by our own governments, we elected them and in theory we have some kind of control - what control do we have over a foreign government? And specifically, one that passes commercial information to US competitors?

    3. James Micallef Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: In which case ...

      How about instead of Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, etc etc being "disappointed" by the ruling, they all simply say:

      "We will stop giving campaign contributions to anyone who supports secret surveillance. and instead we will throw our financial muscle behind candidates who will work to repeal the current laws"

      <tumbleweed>

      Hmmm, thought not

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: In which case ...

      In which case:

      a) assume that everything is insecure

      b) especially assume that everything American is insecure

      If you didn't arrive at that conclusion well over 10 years ago you're either young or tragically naïve. It's also not just the US that is at it (not that that is any excuse).

      BTW, I keep hearing that US sysadmins of multinationals now should not be allowed into data centres in other nations - anyone know why?

      1. alain williams Silver badge

        Re: In which case ...

        BTW, I keep hearing that US sysadmins of multinationals now should not be allowed into data centres in other nations - anyone know why?

        Because such sysadmins must obey the laws of the USA. This means that they can be ordered by their government to spy (copy data, insert backdoors, ...) from where they are employed, even if their employer has nothing to do with the USA.

        If you handle anything remotely sensitive you should not use a USA citizen. I find this amusing, when I were a lad you would not employ a citizen of the USSR for much the same reason; how the world has changed!

        1. Rol

          Re: In which case ...

          This truly is an opportunity for EU companies to step in and take EU clients away from the US,

          Hell, it should be made mandatory to keep EU data within the EU, on EU servers, owned and run by EU companies.

          As an EU citizen I expect, nay demand, that all government systems are protected from international intrusion, which in practise would require ripping Microsoft out of the equation and blacklisting ALL non EU compliant companies from providing IT services, something that wouldn't have been possible before, but now the argument for such a trade barrier is overwhelmingly incontestable.

          Growth in EU IT will be exponential and strategically speaking totally necessary, as our reliance on America's "benevolence" in keeping the LEDs flickering, isn't a sound basis for our future.

          We could make a start by pumping a few beellion into creating a professional Linux based system with a view to making this the de-facto OS of all EU governments.

          As a user of Linux, I appreciate it is already of a standard that deserves the moniker professional, but a paid for workforce dedicated to supporting it, should be the mission target.

          1. cortland

            Re: In which case ...

            Well... data posted by you is appearing in the USA.

            Upvoted anyway. Go to it.

        2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
          Meh

          Re: In which case ...

          " I find this amusing, when I were a lad you would not employ a citizen of the USSR for much the same reason; how the world has changed!"

          Quiet.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @alain williams

          Uh, no they can't. The US government can't ORDER a citizen to do any such thing. They can't order a citizen to do anything at all. They can't even order citizens to pay taxes. There are laws specifying the penalties for not paying taxes, but if you really don't want to pay taxes you can refuse to pay and suffer the penalties specified under law.

          They can't compel citizens to do what they want via secret laws as you seem to imagine they might - the citizen has to know what the law is to comply! But just because there is a law doesn't mean the citizen will comply unless the penalties for non-compliance are pretty severe. There are laws against speeding, for instance, which I break to some degree or another every time I get behind the wheel.

          They aren't even ordering corporations like Google to turn over information, it is more of an arm-twisting (or threat of arm-twisting) that makes it happen. Probably they're threatening (or implying a threat) to put them on a blacklist making them ineligible for any government business, or that hey'll get a rectal exam from the FTC, IRS, and any other agency they can think of.

          If you believe otherwise, why did that NSA document show years between the time the first companies started sharing data, and the time the last company listed, Apple, did so? If they were forcing them they'd all have started complying at pretty much the same time, not over a period of 3-4 years.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Wait, what?

    The US department of Justice is still running?

    Has anyone told the White House?

    1. edge_e

      Re: Wait, what?

      America was not shut down properly.

      Would you like ti restart America in safe mode

      with free health care

      and no guns ?(recommended)

      credit to jesuslikesaparmo sickipedia.org

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

        Re: Wait, what?

        I would prefer no healthcare and cheap guns.

        At least it wouldn't be a liberalwank with everyone happy and born equally retarded.

      2. John70
        Joke

        Re: Wait, what?

        "America was not shut down properly.

        Would you like to restart America in safe mode"

        Have they tried turning it off and on again?

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Wait, what?

        Please insert the disk labeled "The Constitution" and reinstall...

        1. RonWheeler

          Re: Wait, what?

          <takes pince nez glasses off>

          The red one or the blue one?

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    > Such information would be invaluable to our adversaries..

    Such information would be invaluable to our critics...

    Fixed it.

    1. asdf

      No adversaries are the phrase they use for the US public. After all the NSA's job is to protect the US government not the US people regardless of what they claim.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "NSA's job is to protect the US government". I think it's worse than that, now it's more about the "tail wagging the dog".

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    err ,,,,

    Are there any lawyers out there who can advise me which specific act of the UK parliament (not EU, UK) gave FISA the right to authorise people snoop on my Internet traffic? What happened to innocent until proven guilty - or, innocent until a court that is accountable to the public actually grants a specific warrant for my communications?

    I mean, the majority of people on El Reg know it's been going on for years, but still .....

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: err ,,,,

      I'm with you. Fuck everyone who legislates themselves the right to read my fucking email. It wasn't that long ago that interfering with the post was the next thing to treason.

      Frankly, if left to myself -with the privacy that is my fundamental fucking human right- then I'm harmless. Consider me the enemy long enough and continue treating me as such; then the more likely it is to happen. Possibly it's some sort of terrorist-creation program, to justify the security theatre. Or possibly, if you think that you can blackmail every single citizen then you think that everyone will be compliant. Either plan works only up to a point.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: err ,,,,

        "...legislates themselves the right to read my f'ing email. ..."

        Legislates?

        The new M.O. in the USA and elsewhere is that they simply do whatever the hell they want. This may include murdering by remote control those accused (as distinct from convicted, and perhaps based on bad info extracted by torture) of being a terrorist, and anyone else within the kill radius. This may include using torture and indefinite detention without trial. This may include imposing a Constitution Free Zone covering 75% of the US population. This may include 'capturing' your private data, and then examining it later if they feel like it.

        The cornerstone of this crap is having one of their own legal beagles write a convoluted garbage memo that you're typically not allowed to see.

        The system is seriously broken and there is no fix.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: err ,,,,

        This is how organisations like Anonymous come into being and why their ranks are constantly swelling.

    2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Re: err ,,,,

      *SIGH*

      Innocent UNLESS proven guilty.

      Innocent until proven guilty implies that you are, in fact, guilty...it just hasn't been proven yet.

      Innocent until proven guilty is no different than guilty unless proven innocent.

      I realize that you've had people feed you "innocent until proven guilty" your whole life, but that's a glorious example of newspeak changing the language to match the desires of those in power. And you're going along with it.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: err ,,,,

        "... And you're going along with it."

        You've spelled "you're" correctly. That may confuse people.

        1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge
          Thumb Up

          Re: "You're"

          You've spelled "you're" correctly. That may confuse people.

          OK, now THAT made me laugh. Thanks :)

      2. panhead20

        Re: err ,,,,

        “It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, "whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection," and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.”

        - John Adams

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: err ,,,,

          @ panhead20

          But did John Adams ever envision a day when a guilty man went free, THEN went on a rampage and killed many people and a few cops before being killed himself? It's happened in real life here within the last two decades, meaning innocence has been lost EITHER WAY.

          1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

            Re: err ,,,,

            Did John Adams ever imagine that imprisonment would become an industry, with nearly 1% of the total population behind bars at a cost of over sixty billion dollars per year?

            It is better that a hundred guilty men should go free than that a single innocent man should be jailed unjustly. If you are worried about mass murders sort your fucking gun laws out, mate. While you're at it, maybe you could try a dozen or so fewer Wars On Things. You'll find that makes for a less pissed off, edgy population.

            But what do I know, eh? I'm from a country that mostly works.

            1. Nick Ryan Silver badge

              Re: err ,,,,

              But what do I know, eh? I'm from a country that mostly works.

              You are? Just out of curiosity, what country is this?

              1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                Re: err ,,,,

                Canada, eh?

                Oh, we have our problems; corrupt politicians and stupid laws among them...but we have a judiciary that sides with the people and actually gives fucks about the charter of rights and freedoms.

                We have decided that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, but the needs of the one outweigh the desires of the many." Things we regularly bitch about - wait times being long for health care, as one example - are not nearly so bad as we make them out to be. In the case of health care, wait times are long because access it needs based; medical triage by professionals is the standard by which need is determined, not money. When things like queue-jumping for the well-connected occur it's a bloody scandal here, and the judiciary very definitely gets involved.

                If Canada has a fault it is that we roll over for the Americans too easily. Our current masters - the Tories - are far too quick to shelve "made in Canada" legislation and solutions to issues like intellectual property in the hopes of getting a pat on the head from the Americans.

                Like any country, we have things we are not proud of. Our RCMP (the Canadian equivalent of the FBI) have been involved in some human rights scandals that boil down to "treating women badly and treating aboriginal peoples worse."

                What makes us different from the US of the UK is that these are big fucking deals here. We actually use terms like "human rights scandal" to describe these events and we will see senior RCMP officers and public officials in front of a judge on these topics. Months go by and we still talk about these issues. We don't get distracted on topics that matter like this and we still have real journalists that actually keep digging.

                We have flaws. We have problems...but we actually care enough to correct them. The latest season of television isn't enough to keep us from holding our elected officials to task. We don't just have two political parties, each mostly identical to the other. We have many and change happens here rapidly and overwhelmingly.

                So Canada, eh? There's definitely some problems...but it mostly works. That's a lot more than I can say of the cretins to the south of us.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: err ,,,,

                  That's a lot more than I can say of the cretins to the south of us.

                  I think that's one of Canada's biggest issue: being right on the border of that lot. I feel for you.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: err ,,,,

              "I'm from a country that mostly works."

              Which Joseph Conrad had a character observe of late 19th century England in his book "The Secret Agent". Although I think his usage was along the lines of "where everything almost works".

              An Amazon reviewer says "Adolph Verloc is the eponymous Secret agent who , as an agent provocateur, seems to have spent more time and effort falsifying reports to justify his employment than actually provoking anarchy. "

              The Kindle edition is free - as is "Heart of Darkness".

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: err ,,,,

        as original AC saying err, I'd like to point out:

        Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."

        Council of Europe of the subject: "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law".

        Or, if you prefer, Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms: "Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal".

        Until.

        Until.

        Until.

        I'm not the one who wrote "until" in to those documents. I haven't had people feed me that my whole life, I read the documents in question. I'm not going along with it, it's already in place, and I strongly resent your assertion that I'm being taken for a ride - when all I'm doing is reading the documents in question. Next you'll be saying I think Comrade Bob is a nice guy just because the UN is ignoring his thousands of breaches of the ICCPR.

        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          Re: err ,,,,

          The UDHR is not the only document with that error. Literally hundreds of key documents in the past hundred years have that same error...but we don't have to follow along whit it.

          Innocent unless proven guilty is a far more important concept than innocent until proven guilty. Change the language, change the thinking.

          Which would you rather be?

          Me, I'm innocent unless proven guilty. I've done nothing wrong, so there is no "until". Unless your "until" involves falsifying evidence. Unless that happens I eschew until for unless.

          Until later!

          1. Denarius
            Unhappy

            Re: err ,,,,

            much as I wish that could be true, there are so many laws, rulez and directions it is impossible not to do something illegal without knowing it, just by walking down street now. One is guilty, just unconvicted. The greenies, loud defenders of liberty that they are, have stated their goals of covert surveillance to protect blowflies, feral animals and pests. My enemies enemies are more enemies. In a continuing trend, New Scientist have a wishful review of a book arguing civilizations grow out of their gods. Cynics like me suggest the gods merely change names. But it is a palatable myth to keep the gullible, such as lefties and humanists quiet as the slave masters get bigger chains ready.

          2. auburnman

            Re: err ,,,,

            Innocent UNTIL proven guilty. You say hundreds of key documents have that error, when in reality you just disagree with the wording. Which is fair enough, but look at it this way. If someone commits a murder, and that murder is witnessed live and recorded on CCTV, it is STILL wrong to say that person is guilty before a court verdict EVEN WHEN THE EVENTUAL VERDICT IS GUILTY.

            If a paper calls the defendant guilty while the relevant trial is still ongoing, then it is slandering an innocent and interfering with Justice. That doesn't retroactively become okay three days later when the guilty verdict comes down under innocent until proven guitly, but under innocent unless proven guilty? I'm not sure.

            In the context of the principles of law, It's not about whether you ARE innocent or guilty - no court will ever 100% truly know that - it is about WHEN the duty of the legal system to treat you as an innocent becomes the right to deal with you as a convicted criminal.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: err ,,,, [auburnman]

              "If a paper calls the defendant guilty while the relevant trial is still ongoing, then it is slandering an innocent and interfering with Justice. That doesn't retroactively become okay three days later when the guilty verdict comes down under innocent until proven guitly, but under innocent unless proven guilty? I'm not sure."

              It is only slander/libel if it is untrue (or rather a defence against a charge of slander/libel is that what you said/wrote is true). So if a person is subsequently found guilty there is evidence that what you said was true. The interfering with justice aspect stands regardless of the verdict. By publishing claims that have a direct bearing on a case you may be preventing a fair trial - that remains true whatever the verdict. The fact that a correct verdict is reached despite what is done only mitigates the consequences of the action - not excuse the action.

              So to my mind "unless" still works - though I agree that the it is widely written as "until"; but I do love a good argument.

              IANAL - so this may be a hopelessly naive view of what the law should be rather than what it is.

              1. auburnman
                Go

                Re: err ,,,, [auburnman]

                "It is only slander/libel if it is untrue (or rather a defence against a charge of slander/libel is that what you said/wrote is true). So if a person is subsequently found guilty there is evidence that what you said was true."

                My point is that it is still slander at the time because the accused has the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty and they don't get takesies backsies for the offence after the guilty verdict - when the statement was made the defendant was false as they were legally innocent then. Innocent unless proven guilty could theoretically provide wiggle room for a slick tongued lawyer.

                Look at it this way - if you told everyone I was a car thief (when I wasn't) and I later stole your car in retaliation, your statement, although now true, remains false at the time of making.

                I am not a lawyer either, but I too like to argue over wordings.

                1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                  Re: err ,,,, [auburnman]

                  Laws don't say "innocent unless/until proven guilty." High-minded documents do. Laws talk about the presumption of innocence which is a way of avoiding the whole debate entirely.

                  Your argument, however, is still horribly flawed. Being found guilty in a court of law is being "proven guilty." Full stop.

                  You are innocent unless proven guilty. That guilt is proven in a court of law. No newspaper may say you are guilty unless you are proven to be so. Until that point they must say things like "alleged murderer", "the accused" and "suspect".

                  If you prefer to live in a society where you are innocent until you are proven guilty then please make sure that society is a fuck of a long ways away from me. It sounds thoroughly terrifying.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: err ,,,, [auburnman]

                    Trevor_Pott: "No newspaper may say you are guilty unless you are proven to be so. Until that point they must say things like "alleged murderer", "the accused" and "suspect"."

                    Well provided they are not interfering with justice they may say it if they have reason to believe it to be true; you then have the option of sueing them for libel. In that court case their reasons for believing it to be true might be judged (if they use that defence) and the verdict would be on the balance of probabilities.

                    Of course they might also say these things if they think you are unable [too poor] to take them to court, or if they think they can defend the charge in some other way [e.g. you are dead so can't be slandered/libeled]; but generally they avoid these risks by using careful wording because it is easier to do so.

                    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                      Re: err ,,,, [auburnman]

                      In civilized countries which have found a balance between the individual and the group this isn't determined by your pocketbook. Nor is it a financial burden to go after those who have libelled you. Only in cretinous backwaters like the USA where "free speech" is applied with maximalist strokes, unless, of course, said speech is directed at government officials. (Which is ironic, because calling out government officials is why "free speech" is in their constitution in the first place.)

                      So no, you cannot simply say someone is guilty unless they are proven to be so. Not here in Canada. If you do so then you will in all likelihood be yourself guilty of libel, and the person whom you have wronged will not end up out-of-pocket to pursue this.

                      How the barbarians choose to handle their mewling masses is rather irrelevant. Their take concepts like "freedom of speech" or "presumption of innocence" are as utterly corrupt as the Chinese, merely different in the implementation of that corruption. (Though decreasingly so.)

                      The UK is not far behind.

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: err ,,,, [auburnman]

                  AC: "It is only slander/libel if it is untrue (or rather a defence against a charge of slander/libel is that what you said/wrote is true). So if a person is subsequently found guilty there is evidence that what you said was true."

                  auburnman: "My point is that it is still slander at the time because the accused has the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty and they don't get takesies backsies for the offence after the guilty verdict - when the statement was made the defendant was false as they were legally innocent then. Innocent unless proven guilty could theoretically provide wiggle room for a slick tongued lawyer."

                  Well not quite. The word guilty has a technical meaning in court and a broader range of meaning outside. Now anybody can say anything about anybody at anytime - that is freedom of speech. If what is said is not true then the injured party may be able to sue for defamation under the slander/libel laws. Such a claim might be defended by 'proving' that what was said was true. Such a case would be heard by a civil court and would be judged on the balance of probabilities [or for the more cynical - the size of your bank balance]. Whether or not you have yet to be found guilty by some other court would not be relevant - though if you were it would make things much easier.

                  auburnman:"Look at it this way - if you told everyone I was a car thief (when I wasn't) and I later stole your car in retaliation, your statement, although now true, remains false at the time of making."

                  But that is a different set of circumstances, as I would [should] be unable to prove that my statement is (was) true. The situation as previously presented would be more akin to you having stolen my car, but because plod decided it was not worth the effort you were not brought to justice. Being unhappy about this might publicly accuse you of being a car thief (which you are). Now the ball is in your court [so to speak]. Being a bit of a chancer you might decide to sue me for slander/libel. When this gets to court I might choose to use a defence of it being true, and if I am able to provide a case that is convincing on the balance of probability then I should win. The fact that you have not been found guilty of the crime in a criminal court is not relevant. Of course the real winners would be the lawyers, this is why the tabloids and the like use carefully chosen words like allegedly, or print damning accusations in quotation marks (as a record of what is said in court by a prosecutor) - hence headlines like "auburnman is a habitual car thief" appearing in large print on the front pages, with the "said prosecuting council" appearing in much smaller type in the full story on page 55.

      4. Bernard M. Orwell

        Re: err ,,,,

        I used to belabour this same argument about "unless" vs "until", but eventually someone who was actually a lawyer showed me that the case is "until" and always has been, dating right back to Roman law in essence and back to the 17th century in practice.

        The bottom line is that in law neither Unless or Until are used, but instead it is called "presumption of innocence" and fundamentally means that the state (or prosecuting power) must begin with the assumed innocence of an accused party.

        Even the universal charter of human rights says "until". So, whilst I might agree that "unless" would be more grammatically and linguistically accurate, it is not the case that using "until" is newspeak.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

    3. davemcwish

      Re: err ,,,,

      IMHO RIPA (2000), Sec. 2 & Sec. 21 and Intelligence Services Act (1994) Sec. 5

  6. Someone Else Silver badge
    WTF?

    Now wait just one fscking minute here...

    How is it that the FISA court is writing a brief? A brief (at least on this side of the Pond) is a document of pleading, outlining the case that is to be made in front of a court of law. If indeed the FISA court is writing a brief instead of a decision, then we have the Alice-in-Wonderland scenario of the court pleading the case to itself...and I guess we kinda can get how that's gonna turn out.

    (Or maybe it's more of a Firesign Theater scenario...I recall the following snippet from "Don't Crush that Dwarf":

    Defendant: "I mean, I don't understand how you can be both the prosecutor and my defense attorney at the same time."

    George Leroy Tirebiter: "That's easy, son. This way, I can make sure you're prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law!"

    ...)

    1. Charles 9

      Re: Now wait just one fscking minute here...

      There's more than one court in the US. Courts of Appeal and the SCOTUS come to mind.

    2. James Micallef Silver badge

      Re: Now wait just one fscking minute here...

      "Firesign Theater scenario"

      or Black Adder IV, Speckled Jim episode

      "Where's that black cap, I'll be needing it..."

  7. panhead20

    The NSA and all the other alphabet agencies have completed destroyed the US cloud business and the internet. Time for the world to create a new network and leave these agencies to themselves.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Nope

      The NSA and all the other alphabet agencies have completed destroyed the US cloud business and the internet.

      The Internet still works as intended, and you're making some people very happy by blaming the NSA.

      Let's be a bit more precise here, shall we? The NSA merely executes directives - like any other member of the US acronym soup. Actually, like any other government agency (for example, GCHQ). let's not forget that it's not just the NSA which is tasked with walking all over your Human Rights in the name of whatever imaginary friend or enemy du jour.

      The people you need to blame are those who set that tasking. That has been going on for many, many years, with Bush Jr. being probably the most aggresive abuser (but he was allowed to finish his term, starting wars on a disproven pretext is clearly less of an issue than choosing an intern who cannot get a stain out of a dress). Sadly, not only has Obama allowed this abuse to continue, he also extended some of the laws. Entertainingly, the companies that have grown fat on the back of this privacy erosion such as Google are now screaming the loudest. I guess they now have enough money in the bank.

      Privacy is like freedom - you will have to fight to keep it, because nobody is going to do it for you.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Solution...

    Google just pops an SD card in the post to Wikidribble.

    To preempt the obvious repercussions, mark it "Fr0m 5n0wden."

    Done.

    I do not condone such an approach, it just seems feasible.

  9. Old Handle

    If any of these companies really wanted to get that information out, instead of asking for permission, it would be so much easier to leak it and blame Syrian hackers or whatever.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Maybe there's a secret (Easter Egg) Google query that will 'accidentally' dump the core and return a complete list of the secret government requests.

      A misconfigured Ethernet switch, oops. Sorry...

      Google could tell them it's a legal release of info, based on a secret memo that the Google lawyers subsequently wrote. And no Mr. Government, you can't see the secret memo.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    File an appeal which surely must be heard by the Supreme court. The FISA court was setup to mimic the public courts. So a lawsuit against the FISA court and the DOJ being heard by the Supreme court could quickly lead to the end of the FISA court. You would still have things kept a secret due to national security reasons, but at least you don't have a secret court with no accountability running things.

    1. Duncan Macdonald

      Would the Supreme Court hear the case

      With few exceptions, the US Supreme Court has the right to decline to hear appeals. Given the current makeup of the court, they may decide that the best approach (for them) is to decline to hear the case.

      (Only about 80 of the 10,000 or so appeals is heard - there is no right to have an appeal heard.)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Would the Supreme Court hear the case

        Quote: "With few exceptions, the US Supreme Court has the right to decline to hear appeals."

        I believe they already did. An appeal was filed by EFF on the first or second week of the Snowden scandal and the court promptly declined to hear it.

        1. Charles 9

          Re: Would the Supreme Court hear the case

          "I believe they already did. An appeal was filed by EFF on the first or second week of the Snowden scandal and the court promptly declined to hear it."

          So what if another firm makes the same appeal, and another and another. There's such a thing as persistence. Eventually the SCOTUS will decide hearing it and answering the constitutional question is preferable to having to refuse to hear appeal after appeal (once the question is answered, any further appeals to the same--now answered--question can be ignored).

  11. Mephistro
    Unhappy

    R.I.P. First Amendment

    "...does not give the companies the First Amendment right to disclose information that the Government has determined must remain classified"

    That paragraph really says it all. The First Amendment is dead, as the American Gov. has found a convenient way to silence any critic, any fact, any dissension, by labelling them as 'classified'. Giving a strict set of rules regarding what can and can't be classified would fix most of this problem, but there is too much to gain for the big fish with the current situation.

    1. Pirate Dave Silver badge
      Pirate

      Re: R.I.P. First Amendment

      That's the real kicker, isn't it? In its essence, the FISA and (un)Patriot Act, as well as the guilty accomplices in the Congress and the White House that have allowed this to continue, have recast the US as a surveillance state with absolutely no fucking end in sight. It's been 11+ years since we were attacked, and apparently the attack scared Uncle Sam soooo fundamentally that nothing must stop his efforts to avoid it again. Any arguments against this by us, the citizens, are stonewalled with this same "we can't tell you why we can't tell you why we have to spy on anyone at anytime but we're doing it to keep us all safe". Bullshit. For the past 80 years or so we've ALWAYS had folks who "want to do harm" to our country, but somehow we never had to turn into this current orwellian nightmare to avoid it. We didn't have to gag the press or the comms providers with threats of jailtime if they revealed what the oily bastards in the Government were doing with the ragged shreds of Liberty. But now it all has to be secret because it's "for our own good." Lady Justice has been raped and left for dead, lying on a soiled mattress stuffed with a shredded Constitution and lots of greenbacks.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: R.I.P. First Amendment

        Yes but "those people" were the Nazi's the Japanese empire and the USSR - they had no ability to do any harm to the government.

        Those people now are American citizens - they can do real harm to a government by not voting for them - these are the enemy you have to watch

  12. Denarius
    Meh

    relax, it's a disintigrating country

    The only question is how long to go. As for company responses, follow the money. No other motivation exists in most of western civilisations ruins. The USSof A is at war within its own ruling classes using their $deity, money, as the weapon. Religious wars tend to be messy. As fellow commentards have noted briefly, here is a chance for the remnants of Europe and the Asia to grow their businesses. (if the Europeans can eliminate their career bureaucrats and downsize the Eurozone so it is not supporting unmanaged countries who resemble the merkins in spending habits.) One wonders if nimble companies will move data center sites out of the Americas as profits get threatened.

    <off topic> the gun nuts might learn something about armed societies, if they can read, by going thru a study on historical sword usage, titled "The Sword and the Centuries" Armed societies can be polite, but still lethal as the psychopaths have even fewer restraints. </off topic>

  13. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge
    Mushroom

    We tried to call you but nobody answered for the past few days

    Release it anyway. The US Government is owned by big corporations so nothing bad is going to happen except for some lame lawsuits that Microsoft and Google can easily tarpit and smother. It will be the best PR that they could ever imagine. Besides, I expect that the courts will soon be overwhelmed with lawsuits related to this "shutdown" circus.

  14. T. F. M. Reader

    Adding insult to injury

    The parts of the "brief" quoted in the article read as rather insulting mockery of the petitioners and of the public.

    "The public debate about surveillance does not give the companies the First Amendment right" - The public debate does not, but the Constitution does.

    "Such information would be invaluable to our adversaries" - So are little things like presumption of innocence, freedom of travel, restrictions on unreasonable search and seizure, and so on and so forth...

    "They can also use that information to engage in deceptive tactics or disinformation campaigns" - Spies and terrorists do engage in deceptive tactics, what a shock! Isn't truthful information the most important tool against "deceptive tactics" and particularly against "disinformation campaigns"?

    "But that implausible reading ignores the forest for the trees" - An appeal to "the big picture" is ironic in the context, IMHO: spies and terrorists are but a few individual trees in the huge forest, and the "forest" should not, REPEAT NOT, concern a properly functioning security agency. By "properly functioning" I mean, among other things, distinct from KGB or Stasi - for those the "forest" is an adversary.

    "It would permit damaging disclosures that would reveal sources and methods" - I'd say the cat is out of the bag by now - the paw that collects information from Google et al., anyway.

  15. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    Opening up a can of worms is manna from heaven for phishes

    Frankly, if left to myself -with the privacy that is my fundamental fucking human right- then I'm harmless. Consider me the enemy long enough and continue treating me as such; then the more likely it is to happen. Possibly it's some sort of terrorist-creation program, to justify the security theatre. Or possibly, if you think that you can blackmail every single citizen then you think that everyone will be compliant. Either plan works only up to a point. …. moiety Posted Wednesday 2nd October 2013 22:21 GMT

    After which point, and that point has been passed and surpassed, does planning and program applications suffer terrifying paralysing stasis and terrorising FUD reaction to systemic zeroday vulnerability exploit attacks in defence of self-destructive overlode ore collapse …. SMARTR Virtual Machine Intervention with Source Intelligence Supply Interruption.

    And the following simply complex methodology for presentation of what the future will bring for promotion to the paraphysicality of a media hosted and newsworthy virtual reality which is to be perceived and accepted by native undereducated masses as a heaven sent and/or devilishly cunning uncontrolled natural reality from streams of shared consciousness [and most usually documented for business and posterity and adjudgement of responsibility and/or just fabulous reward], is whenever not copyleft, a prior art copyrighted and a priori art phorming and certainly a base staple of NEUKlearer HyperRadioProActve IT Systems of Executive Admin in Global Operating Devices. …….

    "The bet is that greater reader involvement will attract a bigger audience, and more advertising dollars. The editors regularly mine the reader comments for story ideas and potential contributors." ….. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/10/07/131007fa_fact_auletta?currentPage=9

    IT has been ongoing since forever there was SMARTR IntelAIgents in Earthbound Human/Virtual/Machine Operator Systems Interfaces with Sublime InterNetworking Space ProgramMING for Mined Intelligence Networking Games that Guarantee MetaDataBase Information and Cosmic Source Supply Intelligence Generation, CyberIntelAIgent Security and Virtual Protection against and/or with Hostile Infection and Bug Infestation of SecuredD Operations Systems.

    And that New Yorker/Guardian expose, which be dated October 7 2013, …… ANNALS OF COMMUNICATIONS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION is a right ripping post modern Goth David versus Goliath read in the spirit of a Rover or Wizard rather than Dandy or Beano piece.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So what?

    "Secret spy court says..."

    The secret spy court has no authority to say anything under the US constitution; indeed the constitution is there specifically to prevent secret spy courts having this power. The media should be laughing at these wannabe Nazi control freaks, not blandly reporting their ravings as if they were serious.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Big Brother

    Depressing, but expected....

    The FISA court needs to come clean. How many orders are approved, and how many Americans are affected by each order that is approved.

    Also, they might consider denying a government request at least once a week....

  18. Benjol
    Happy

    Sooo, Microsoft mailed you twice with the same quote?

    How lazy of them...

  19. Number6

    You are not being monitored...

    So just give your subscribers a little flag that tells them all is well, and delete it if not. One is not allowed to tell people they are being monitored, but in the best traditions of US lawyers mangling the law, why not tell them they aren't being monitored until it's not possible to do so truthfully?

  20. marcyd

    Goodbye US cloud industry - and good riddance, sort your crap government out and then we can talk. My company is cancelling plans to roll out cloud MS products and I can see that pattern repeated in many, many other companies and government organisations.

  21. Nigel 11

    Install a Kill Switch?

    One could (maybe) pre-empt them by going to a lawyer and swearing an affidavit to the effect that one had NOT received any surveillance requests, and intends to repeat this process periodically unless it becomes illegal to do so. Then post the affidavit in a public place (if that's not automatic for sworn documents).

    If you do receive a surveillance request it becomes illegal to swear that affidavit (i.e. perjury).

    If they order you to commit a crime ... ISTR the fifth amemdment guarantees one's right not to be forced to incriminate onself, and making an untrue sworn statement is most definitely criminal.

    If they make it illegal to tell the truth on oath ... the entire legal system and rule of law collapses?

    I think this is to copyleft, as nuclear weapons are to bullets?

    1. Charles 9

      Re: Install a Kill Switch?

      ISTR the second amendment prevents the government from seizing legally-owned firearms, yet that happened quite a bit in Louisiana post-Katrina. At least one incident made the news. The justification? Martial law.

      I would think a similar 'threat to national' security that uses a different part of the Constitution might be used to override the Fifth Amendment on the grounds that, without it, the US is doomed, rendering the Fifth moot anyway.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Since the NSA bulk collect pretty much everything it seems a bit of a moot point about people jumping services to avoid surveillance. With the capture of Silk Road's supposed founder & other recent events, even services like Tor don't seem safe from interception & decryption.

  23. john devoy

    Assume all Internet compromised

    Since the USA now considers itself above all international laws it would be safest for internet users to consider all ISPs etc to be compromised and take steps to encrypt anything they want to keep private. This will probably result in a new online arms race between the NSA and encryption writers.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Assume all Internet compromised

      Unless they just go with the nuclear option and outlaw any and all encryption. There are various approaches a truly dictatorial government could take that could reduce possible avenues of covert communication to a trickle: mangle media files to defeat all but the most robust stego (and those stegos can't carry much due to all the error correction), sanitize the whitespace in all textual comms to defeat hidden-space stego, etc. Just saying Big Brother is more real than most people realize. Truly covert communications of anything of size is such an art that it's requirements of perfection challenge the limits of the human condition.

  24. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    Advancing SMARTR IntelAIgent Systems Integration

    The NSA and all the other alphabet agencies have completed destroyed the US cloud business and the internet. Time for the world to create a new network and leave these agencies to themselves. …..panhead20 Posted Wednesday 2nd October 2013 22:43 GMT

    Hi, panhead20,

    The present situation is both far worse and much better and therefore somewhat new and significantly different from the most recent pasts, [which are all completely different in different parts/time zones of this world] and would bode well for the future because one needs to be more than just simply intelligent to macromanage microelectrical interindependent environments with positive signals and transmit-able [SMARTREnabled] signal receiver units ….. which you might like to consider and realise can be both virtual and real as humans ……. for it is probably and possibly most definitely certainly the case that the NSA and all the other alphabet agencies which be involved in any and all types of malicious and nefarious, self centred and inequitably advantageous and perversely lucrative and corrupt and oppressive shenanigans have completed destroyed the US cloud business and the internet for themselves [ which is the far worse present situation which they can enjoy and continue to play in whenever really stupidly led in intelligence fields that work with REST* in Play Pauses which deliver supplies of/for Core Ore Source CodeXSSXXXX for Novel Noble Event Calendaring/Hedged Derivative FuTuring]

    The much better situation is/are the new networks which are creating new worlds which leave those dumb agencies behind and to themselves with their failing and flailing and wailing partners facing a thick and impenetrable prison type wall.

    *REST ….. Representational State Transfer (REST) is an architectural style that abstracts the architectural elements within a distributed hypermedia system.[1] REST ignores the details of component implementation and protocol syntax in order to focus on the roles of components, the constraints upon their interaction with other components, and their interpretation of significant data elements.[2] REST has emerged as a predominant web API design model. …. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational_state_transfer

    And we all know how quickly and how far things progress in fields which are unlocked and unbound by Moore's Law, don't you. And that it is only natural that there comes a time in that space whenever quantum leaps be made to accommodate the infinitely large into the incredibly small.

    The Future is Brighter when its IT Units are SMARTREnabled.:-)

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like