DOJ's non-ironic arguments rejecting Google, Facebook user data transparency requests

DOJ's non-ironic arguments rejecting Google, Facebook user data transparency requests

Summary: On Monday the US Department of Justice rejected the formal request of Google, Facebook and other Internet giants to share government user data requests with the public with some unsettlingly non-ironic arguments against data transparency.

U.S. Department of Justice (Image: Wikimedia Commons)

This week the US Department of Justice surprised no one when it rejected the formal request of Google, Facebook and other Internet giants to share government user data requests with the public.

What was a little surprising — to me — was the government's bizarre arguments against... well, everything.

The rejection was released as a public document with redactions on Wednesday, just after a coalition of tech companies including Apple, CloudFlare, Dropbox, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Yahoo — except Verizon, who was too busy lining the NSA's catbox with your metadata — sent an open letter to Congress asking them for greater transparency rights.

After the Snowden revelations in which companies were shown to be somehow involved in both foreign and domestic NSA and DOJ surveillance programs, the companies formally requested the ability to publish aggregate data totals on the government's FISA requests for user data.

Google and Microsoft specifically have asked to publish the number of FISA requests each receives under each separate provision of FISA.

The government's rejection — a 33 page filing in the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court — told the court that the request made by major technology firms to disclose more about US intelligence services’ data requests would "cause serious harm to national security."

It also told the court a few other things...

If we give you transparency, then everyone will want transparency

This is actually a reason DOJ gives in its Monday court filing.

On page 10 the government says that if these companies get to disclose FISA requests, then ALL the companies will want to do it too.

If these leading Internet companies are permitted to make these disclosures the harms to national security would be compounded by the fact that other companies would surely seek to make similar disclosures.

I remember this argument from fourth grade when the teacher told someone that if they wanted to go to the bathroom then all the kids would want to go, and they should have thought of going to the bathroom at recess.

The bad guys might stop using Skype

Right now the perception worrying everyone — except the US government — is that all of the companies in the filing are used for government surveillance and so hypothetically each of their platforms are compromised.

On page 11 the DOJ argues that disclosing the info will not 'prove' that the government is only going after specific targets and will reveal the massive scope of companies and platforms the government is surveilling.

The companies’ contemplated disclosures risk significant harm to national security by revealing the nature and scope of the government’s intelligence collection on a company-by-company basis throughout the country.

Such information would be invaluable to our adversaries, who could thereby derive a clear picture of where the government’s surveillance efforts are directed and how its surveillance activities change over time. 

If our adversaries know which platforms the Government does not surveil, they can communicate over those platforms when, for example, planning a terrorist attack or the theft of state secrets.

There is a reason for part of this to hold weight: the DOJ is saying that if it's made public that Skype is somehow being used for government surveillance, then the bad guys will stop using Skype. And it's way easier for the government if the targets don't change methods, like they did in The Wire.

However, this argument fails to address the fun fact that when you substitute "adversaries" with "public" and "collection with "abuses" the disclosures could also potentially reveal the nature and scope of the government's intelligence abuses on a company-by-company basis.

Because we said you can't

The doc reads, "The companies assert that the information they seek to disclose is not classified, disregarding the harms to national security the proposed disclosures would likely cause."

However on page 14, the DOJ says it doesn't matter anyway.

Consistent with the Executive Branch's authority to control classified information, that provision explicitly provides for Executive Branch approval of the companies' procedures for maintaining all records associated with surveillance.

The government asserts that it controls the companies' government-"pwned" data and the management of that data anyway, so the companies don't have the right to touch it and plus they already agreed to that when the companies handed it over in the first place.

It's the nonconsensual NDA that just keeps on giving.

Here's a Reuters article coincidentally tailored to dismantle your argument 

As a result of the Snowden revelations, the companies have faced plummeting public trust. 

Two of the arguments the companies make is that they face financial losses due to the bad press and resulting loss of public trust, and that the disclosures should be made because the public conversation demands acts of transparency.

In a page 20 footnote during its argument against the companies asserting any First Amendment rights to publish FISA request data, the government claims that the companies are doing just fine in the press and it doesn't matter what the public is talking about because: national security.

The DOJ says that the companies have done a heck of a job with PR ("they have been able to clearly and forcefully respond to the inaccurate or misleading reporting") without the need to disclose any FISA request information — referring to statements made by Larry Page, David Drummond and Mark Zuckerbeg.

The DOJ was definitely not referring to Zuck's recent TechCrunch SF Disrupt 2013 mini-rant against the government's surveillance request practices. The Facebook CEO told the audience last month that the government "blew it"  and "we feel that people deserve to know" more about the government's requests.

Yahoo's CEO Marissa Meyer had a slightly different viewpoint, telling a crowd she most likely viewed as ignorant peasants that sharing information about the requests would be an act of treason.

The DOJ concludes by citing Reuters article Analysis: Despite fears, NSA revelations helping U.S. tech industry — an article which had a star turn on Reddit's Not The Onion.

In a complete coincidence no one saw coming, the Reuters article serves the sole purpose of thoroughly tearing apart and undermining a report cited in the companies' request; a report stating that American companies are being hit with economic consequences — and included projections for billions in losses — as a result of the American government's current surveillance scandal.

The article claims that "insiders"  ("Google employees" and "a person briefed on Microsoft's business in Europe") told Reuters that each company "has seen no significant impact on its business."

ZDNet's Zack Whittaker analyzed the August 2013 report, including:

The "low end" scenario estimates assumes the U.S. loses about 10 percent of its foreign market to European or Asian competitors, or $21.5 billion over the next three years. 

However, the "high end" of $35 billion assumes a 20 percent loss to foreign markets by 2016.

The government seems to not understand that the trust of humans is now part of doing business. By the end of July, 10 percent of European cloud contracts with American cloud providing businesses had been canceled with the reason cited being the PRISM/NSA scandal.

This court can't stop us

At the document's conclusion, the DOJ tells the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (which handles secret government requests and applying restraint over intelligence abuses) that it doesn't really have the power to do anything.

On pages 24 and 25, the filing ends saying the court should reject the companies request because,

...this court lacks jurisdiction to review the applicability of the nondisclosure agreements or any other laws or regulations beyond FISA that restrict the disclosure of classified information...

And so there you have it: the DOJ doesn't think the court has power to make them do anything anyway.

Which really just puts us right back at square one.

Topics: Security, Cloud, Google, Government US, Microsoft

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • This is a secret state

    Doesn't it bother you that the government wants to wiretap your communication?

    Or that the government doesn't want you to know you're being wiretapped?

    Or that the government and courts can only come up with childish schoolboy excuses (listed above) as to why they don't want you to know you're being wiretapped?

    Or that those company CEOs launching the court case are not allowed to speak out about it, for fear of arrest?

    Or that a German author, Ilija Trojanow, who's sole crime was to speak out and say that what the NSA does is unethical, gets barred from entry to the United States, and stopped at the border?

    Is this the kind of state you feel comfortable living in?
    • It is

      not the kind of state I am comfortable living in. Secret laws, secret courts, and the criminalization of any meaningful discussion of the scope, nature, and potential for abuse of the surveillance state is not in keeping with the idea of government by of the people, by the people, and for the people.
      • Nor is it... of the free, AFAIKT.... :-/
  • criminals will stop using Skype

    Fringe elements stopped using Skype about a decade ago. Then we knew it was being monitored. This is not news.

    It is not criminals, but normal people who might stop using Skype, is what those guys fear.
  • Some suggestions for ZDNET

    1. Do not display an ad. whenever I switch from one post to another. No matter how much the vendor is paying for your subjugation.

    2. Stop spam being the 2nd message following a post. Maybe have an ACTIVE moderator? Just an idea.

    3. Restore the 'edit' button for reader comments. I might - with manifest justification - want to offer a barrage of foul-mouthed invective in reply to your complete and utter tripe. But I'm a decent sort of chap and will replace instances of the oedipal noun with family-friendly terms such as 'unethical organisation supported by a corrupt Government' ... or maybe on a generous day ... 'protector of American shareholder value'.

    4. Please dismantle your failed institutions: the Government; NSA, DOJ, FCC, ... all those with three letter acronyms. Remodel the same along the original lines of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Maybe add in some non-legal phrases ... like 'common sense', 'ethics' and 'following a referendum by the voters 99.99% in favour of NOT destroying the global economy, invading other countries to prevent their development and calling sporting events "World Series" when only America participates ' ... while you are about it.

    There. That will save you the bother of greeting me with 'we have another resource- YOU' and asking me to fill in a marketing survey every few days. It is surely very troublesome for ZDNET to continuously analyse the responses. No need to thank me for my consideration - you're welcome.

    Send this to the support desk? I tried that ... was it in 2012 or 2011? I forget. No reply.
    I think it's closed. Something to do with a Government shutdown I believe.
    • Have a nice day.

  • Plumetting public trust...

    Interesting choice of words. I suppose that there is a portion of the public that is not paying attention and trusts the government? This is probably the best argument EVER that taking an exam before being allowed to vote is a great idea.
    Tony Burzio
  • ...this court lacks jurisdiction ...

    Talk about arrogance! "We can do what ever we feel we need to and no court in the country can stop us." That says a lot for how out of control the NSA is.
  • Plan B, then

    The affected companies, Apple, CloudFlare, Dropbox, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Yahoo!, could choose to use their considerable resources to mobilize the U.S. citizenry to engage in sustained, massive, peaceful protests in Washington, D.C. calling for the repeal of the U.S.A. Patriot Act.

    They can partner with appropriate, non-corporate organizations seeking the repeal of the U.S.A. Patriot Act to organize the protests; provide funding for buses and trains to transport citizens to Washington, D.C., from all over the country; and provide the citizenry with signs and magic markers with which to craft their personal messages.

    Fanboys and fangirls can choose a sign with the logo of their favorite tech company pre-printed on one side. Or a sign with all of the logos of the sponsoring tech companies pre-printed on one side. Or, perhaps, a completely blank sign for those individuals that prefer not to advertise for the sponsoring tech companies.

    Finally, have the CEOs of these tech companies on hand to deliver speeches to the protesters and news media covering the protests. Along with ordinary citizens and representatives of the appropriate, non-corporate organizations as well as prominent individuals including Hollywood types, U.S. Congressman (and women), Governors, Mayors, etc.
    Rabid Howler Monkey
    • Excellent idea ...

      ... after that we can ask the new Government to exact their revenge on the big corporations.
      I want my corporation tax for UK operations, for instance.
      Yeah, let's have a 2nd American civil war, based on money, and resulting in an outflow to the world as reparations for past crimes.

      There's only one flaw with our plans :-(
      • Google left China rather than implement the Chinese govt's censorship

        Yes, that's China, the "largest and fastest growing Internet market" in the world:

        Given that Google's HQ is in Mountain View, California, United States of America, I rather doubt that it would leave the U.S. over the U.S.A. Patriot Act and all of its requirements. However, Google can choose to stand and fight. Would any of the other tech companies stand at Google's side in such a fight? I'm quite sure that many U.S. citizens would stand and fight with Google.

        P.S. Rather than a "new Government", perhaps the U.S. Congress and President would have more respect for it's citizens if the U.S.A. Patriot Act were repealed. In addition, perhaps U.S. citizens would learn that they are not mere spectators. Both results would be quite positive.
        Rabid Howler Monkey
    • Another idea ...

      ... if ZDNET wasn't complicit with misguided American institutions, then it could run a concerted campaign against exploitation.

      OK, so we need the 'then' clause :-(
  • Don't use Facebook or Google

    Try out Ravetree, DuckDuckGo, and HushMail. You're never going to completely get away from the NSA, but at least you can use sites that don't explicitly say they will track your browsing history.