What if Silicon Valley just released data request figures anyway? Think again, lawyers say

What if Silicon Valley just released data request figures anyway? Think again, lawyers say

Summary: The U.S. National Security Agency may have "court-sanctioned" legal powers to tap into the servers of Silicon Valley giants, which are fighting back against secretive gagging orders. But what happens if they lose their legal battle? What the lawyers are saying may surprise you.

TOPICS: Security
(Image via CNET)

"We don't know."

These three little words, on their own and without context, may seem meaningless. But when spoken by a lawyer, by all accounts should send shivers of sheer terror down your spine. 

In a rare act of unity, several Silicon Valley giants are collaborating in a legal bid to save face after a torrent of leaks — relating to the U.S. government's mass surveillance machine — broke in June.  At the time, reporters' claims — which were later retracted — appeared to implicate the companies as willing particpants in the surveillance scandal.

But should their legal bid fail — a likely prospect when dealing with a secretive Washington D.C. court charged with defending national security within the U.S. government's mass surveillance system — these major technology companies may have no recourse from claims made against them.

The legal bid is simple: These companies want to show that they were forced under federal law to hand over customer data, by disclosing how many secret data request orders the U.S. government served on them over a six-month or yearly basis.

The trouble is that they're not allowed to release the figures. Federal law permits such disclosures. 

The logical conclusion, therefore, is to throw caution to the wind, and with the might and power, money and influence of their customer base and economic footprint in the U.S., to simply disclose the figures anyway.

But even lawyers and experts in this area aren't entirely sure of the consequences should Silicon Valley take matters into their own hands.

"Direct access" and claims of complicity

Slides posted by The Guardian and the Washington Post lifted the lid in early June on the U.S. National Security Agency's (NSA) vast domestic and foreign intelligence gathering and surveillance machine, revealed by former U.S. government contractor turned whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Snowden revealed a shadowy program known as PRISM, what is now understood to be a data requesting tool used by federal government agencies in order to acquire records held on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

PRISM allegedly gave the government "direct access" to servers. The claim was quickly retracted (albeit not quickly enough), but nonetheless caused immense damage to the reputations of the companies involved.

Since then, Microsoft and Google, Yahoo and Facebook have all joined the fight to clear their names by filing lawsuits against the U.S. government to allow the disclosure of data requests. The companies retorted with claims of free speech under the First Amendment. This, they hope, shows that they resisted government requests to disclose user and customer data to the NSA or any other intelligence agency or law enforcement unit.

But the federal government is fighting back.

Citing "national security," the Justice Department is attempting to conceal the number of requests it makes to these select major technology companies for fear that it will harm ongoing intelligence operations or investigations and threats to national security.

Ultimately, the legal exercise may not reveal much about the secret serve-and-grab program. According to the Washington Post, one of the publications in possession of the Snowden documents, PRISM does not require individual warrants from the court each time a search is made.

Despite the murk and mud from the confusing and ever-developing spread of leaked classified materials, it is clear that the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), created under its aforementioned namesake law, holds the keys to the scandal.

All roads lead back to Washington's secret surveillance court

The secretive Washington D.C.-based court has faced extreme scrutiny in recent months following the Snowden leaks as it became clear that the panel of 11 judges systematically authorized more and more programs, allowing the NSA to collect vast amounts of data belonging to both Americans and foreigners alike.

With almost zero accountability, retained records are classified to the rafters, with very few outside government and Congress given access. 

Out of 1,789 eavesdropping requests, only one was not passed — because the U.S. government withdrew the request.

There have  been only a few occasions where the court has snipped the wings of the NSA's power. According to one report sent to Congress, the court approved all but one of the 1,789 eavesdropping requests submitted by the government in 2012. The government withdrew the one remaining.

In total, 40 of the requests were modified for unknown reasons — likely to expand or more likely limit the scope of surveillance.

On one occasion, the FISC ruled a secret NSA program illegal and in breach of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The court's judges were "troubled" over the NSA's acquisition of Internet traffic, which vacuumed up American's email and other data.

It was the third time in less than three years that the federal government disclosed a "substantial misrepresentation" of the scope of its collection programs, according to heavily redacted court documents.

The New York Times in July, in response to the NSA-related leaks, compared the FISC to being "almost a parallel [to the] Supreme Court" on issues relating to surveillance and intelligence issues. 

Out of the loop

If you are served with a FISA court order, you had better lawyer up. And not just any lawyer: one that has security clearance. Because the court's activities are shrouded in the highest level of secrecy, lawyers who have not been vetted prior to hearings are not even allowed access to the thick-walled, soundproof chambers.

"What exactly goes on in that court... we have to rely on some of the reports who have sat on the bench for that court, and some of the FBI agents who have appeared before the court," according to Deborah Caldwell-Stone, deputy director for the Office of Intellectual Freedom at the American Library Association, who spoke to ZDNet on the phone. 

"Neither FISA or the [FISA Amendments Act] prohibit Facebook from disclosing the aggregate data. The First Amendment also ensures Facebook's right to report these data and to respond to public criticism." — Facebook legal motion, September 2013

"Any subpoena or demand for a record that carries the weight of a court, can contain a gag order," Caldwell-Stone said, should an argument that disclosing certain facts may jeopardize an investigation. 

Few have challenged such accompanying gag orders, but those who have are often forced to wait years for their cases to resolve. 

"Individuals under Patriot Act gag orders can be permanently gagged," she added, which is why some of those cases have been brought against the orders under claims of First Amendment rights to free speech. 

But, she warned, "we don't have a factual basis to go off," noting that she and others could only speculate, because the law itself does not specify what such penalties might be.

Under 2006 amendments to the Patriot Act, those who receive data requests and subsequent gag orders were then allowed to share with others only if they are in a position to assist in serving the government's request. All those informed are immediately subject to the gag order themselves, and face the same penalties should they violate that order.

But very few people within a company will be allowed to deal with FISA court orders and data requests, including National Security Letters, which are often served in accompaniment to data requests to gag recipients in order to prevent their disclosure. In some cases there will be a dedicated department of just a handful of people in a company that take in data demands and are able to fulfil those requests — specifically acquiring user data and sending it back to the requesting U.S. government agency. 

In most cases, particularly with larger companies — such as the named nine Silicon Valley giants — the chances of anyone in the executive-level suite knowing are slim, allowing chief executives and their senior staff to appease shareholders with an air of plausible deniability.

But the buck nonetheless stops with those select few inside corporate walls who are subject to the court order, as well as the companies they work for and represent.

Just release the damn numbers already: What's the worst that could happen?

There is an uncertainty over what penalties companies and individuals face in regards to wide-ranging orders that can vacuum up all "tangible things," which under Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the mass collection of a company's user's data. 

Under the National Security Letters provision, the law is relatively clear. "You're subject to a fine and up to five years in prison," Caldwell-Stone said. 

Read this

Obama's legacy: Domestic spying scandal that could prove greater than Watergate, WikiLeaks

Obama's legacy: Domestic spying scandal that could prove greater than Watergate, WikiLeaks

U.S. President Barack Obama, just six months into his second term, has his legacy set out for him: the greatest domestic spying program the U.S. — perhaps the world — has ever seen.

But trouble arises when companies are served gagging orders under the FISA and not the Patriot Act.

"The individuals involved and subject to the court order could be subject to penalties," she said, but remained unclear as to whether there be a fine imposed on the company itself for the action of its "agents." As per the statute, she explained the individual is responsible for ensuring that the information is not released.

Patrick Toomey, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberty Union's (ACLU) National Security Project, said those who knew of FISA requests could also be prosecuted also for breaking the terms of their governmental security clearance.

"Individuals have to enter a specific agreement to handle these kinds of [FISA] materials," he said. "If the company disclosed the contents of a FISA order, they would be prosecuted or penalized by the FBI in violation of those security clearance agreements."

Toomey explained the text of the law governing gagging orders between National Security Letters and FISA orders are different. He said because the substance of the requests are so similar — all involving requests of customer data — many companies are applying the framework of the law that governs National Security Letters to the context of FISA requests, even without the penalties being spelled out the same way.

The companies implicated in the PRISM surveillance scandal are beginning to catch on.

Apple reiterated this point in a recent amicus brief that the law the FBI was citing did not provide any specific reasons as to why it couldn't disclose such data. The FBI claimed the FISA statute as the relevant issue, the brief noted. The iPhone and iPad maker argued, however: "Even on that issue, the FBI did not identify anything in the law that authorizes the Government to prohibit disclosure of the aggregate number of national security requests received by Apple."

"Nothing in FISA's text or legislative history suggests the Act prohibits a recipient of a FISA order from confirming (or denying) the basic fact that it has (or has not) received a nondescript legal process under FISA, or from disclosing the aggregate number of requests it has received," the document read.

Simply put, Apple argues that it should be allowed to disclose data, unless there is a secret internal interpretation at the Justice Department, for example. In such a case, this would not be too dissimilar from a comparable secret interpretation of the Patriot Act, as first described by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) more than two years ago.

On Wednesday, the FBI fired back on all cylinders in efforts to resist the efforts by the Silicon Valley giants. The understood-to-be secret interpretation was released, albeit heavily redacted, putting the companies at a great disadvantage. The reason: Because of the classified nature of the FISC court document, only the judges overseeing the case will be able to see the document.

"Companies are so risk averse with government interactions," Toomey said. "They don't want to test the limits in any serious way by violating the type of gag order the FBI appears to be insisting on."

"The statute that authorizes the business records collection under FISA doesn't have a prescribed penalty, whereas National Security Letters do," Caldwell-Stone said. "Under the U.S. system, if you violate a court-ordered gag order, that amounts to contempt of court. And the court is free to fashion a penalty to address the severity of the situation. It could be a fine, or it could be a jail term, or both," she said.

The outcome to the data request figures debacle, a scandal in its own right, could fall either way.

No doubt the companies are preparing for the worst-case scenario — a firm denial by the court — which would put the nine Silicon Valley-based firms squarely between a moral and ethical rock and a hard place.

In spite of the quandary, the consequences would be dire for companies and their employees subject to these secret laws — even if the penalties are not prescribed directly in law.

While it may have taken one person, a whistleblower, to disclose the data disclosure scandal in its own right, the chances are you won't find even a handful of people in each company willing to fall on their corporate sword for the sake of transparency.

Topic: Security

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
  • It still pretty much wipes out the "cloud"...

    Anyone using it is now subject to anyones curiosity...
    • obvious scenario, prepare for the reality with the USA fascist

      1) caused economic crisis due to irresponsible money wasting on NSA surveillance, and wars based on lies like Iraq's mass destruction weapons existence+ another murders by the USA
      2) people will stand up
      3) the fascistic USA will tell us lies there was a bomb thread
      4) all the communication is shut down, read here:
      5) citizens (leaders for freedom) are silently transferred into secret concentration camps built in the USA, read here
      • Not Rational

        Sorry anywherehome, but many of the reports on rationalwiki are not substantiatable. Rationalwiki would be better named "IRrationalwiki". It contains a lot of conspiracy theory and FUD, none of it substantiatable. If a FEMA camp did exist, it would occupy a specicifc volume of space and time and thus be detectable, and yet, no one has ever actually produced an undoctored document to support that even one such camp exists. Has the government proposed FEMA camps? There is documentation to support that. Have they built even one? There is no documentation to support that and ample evidence against.

        Doesn't mean you're wrong though. During WWII, Japanese Americans were sent to concentration camps and those camps hadn't existed before the war. Concentration camps can be created in less than a month. Given the documentation for the FEMA camps, if the government wanted to create them, felt a need to create them, they could do it quickly. But right now, why waste money on building FEMA camps when high security prisons and Guantanamo Bay will work just as well?
        • Yeah - Not Rational..

          There won't be any camps. Anyone who is too outspoken will just die mysteriously or be made to look like a nutcase on national TV. Anymore liberty is just a fringe idea.
        • you just lie and trying to hide facts

          even a us judge confirmed the camps
      • The question is...

        ...what do all of the paranoia and conspiracy theories accomplish? As far as I can see, there are two competing messages:

        1. The system is entirely corrupt and illegitimate and needs to be overthrown as soon as possible. But we never see an alternative and historically, the most likely alternatives when a representative democracy is overthrown are a military dictatorship and a one party state.

        2. Ordinary citizens neither have nor can have any appreciable influence over public policy. There is not and cannot be such a thing as free elections or meaningful activism (because the ruling elite act behind the scenes to secure their own interests to the exclusion of all others), so we might as well all stay home, secure our Internet connections (assuming its actually possible), and protect our minds from contamination by untrusted sources (pretty much anyone who might disagree).

        Wouldn't it be better for people to simply advocate such policies as they think to be correct, oppose such policies as we think to be wrong, and to use such small influence as most of us have to move things in the right direction? If things really are as bad as most posters on this article think, it might get people arrested or killed, but this would not be the sort of society they'd want to live in anyway, and risk taking is one of the things that moves things in the right direction. But if nothing bad happens to those who do become active because the conspiracy talk is all a lot of nonsense, then at least we can have a reasoned debate and take responsibility for the countries and communities in which we live and work (which is what citizenship really is) instead of playing victim.
        John L. Ries
        • Hmm...

          A decent, rational point from someone on a scare-tactic, paranoia-laced ZDnet article? Surely you're not serious!

          Perhaps this is how we should try to live our lives in this state of not-many-other-realistic-possibilities, as you so described?
  • Secret courts have no place in a Free society

    "With almost zero accountability, retained records are classified to the rafters, with very few outside government and Congress given access. "

    Not quite an accurate statement. There is ZERO accountability for FISA and the NSA. These nuts are running the nuthouse based on scare tactics that the country is falling for. You're going to wake up, America, in the not too distant future and find out how few freedoms you actually have left.
    • It'll be more like your country?

      that is scarey.
      • America is the pretty much the scariest country already.

        Murdering innocent people with impunity via drone strikes around the world.
        Locking people up for life with zero due process at Guatonimo Bay
        Spying on all its own citizens and as many non Americans as possible.
        All the while getting closer and closer to bankruptcy to sustain the above activities.

        Doesn't get much scarier.
        • You forgot a couple of things

          Militarization of police and unfettered police powers. Electronic dossiers and data mining for ALL citizens. It would make Stalin green with envy.
          terry flores
          • The most defining elements...

            ... in the ongoing shift toward fascism are the ubiquitous surveillance and the newly- militarized police. The DHS was formed to give the government a gestapo-like force designed to kick down doors and incarcerate those who speak out against the terrorist regime now running the U.S.A. They have been covertly training every metropolitan police force to act as the grunts in their newly formed pseudo-army. This training includes tactics for the long-term enforcement of martial law.

            You might wonder why they needed to create a new organization like the DHS. The reason is simple. The Constitution says the government can't use military forces against the citizenry. They have created an armed force which doesn't report to the Pentagon in order to get around this restriction. The label "national security" is being used to hide all of these activities as much as they possibly can. When the DHS ordered more bullets in the past 12 months than the military, it should be obvious that something bad is coming for U.S. citizens.

            We have the NSA monitoring all of us 24/7 and the CIA acting as a private assassination squad. The government has staged massacres and allowed terrorist attacks to happen right under our noses in order to scare the sheeple into letting them take away every freedom we have. Everyone needs to get educated on what is really happening in this country. Our government (among others) is under the direct control of a sinister group of people with nefarious long term plans for humanity.
          • And yet you post here...

            ...to a site owned by a company (CBS) that has been part of the Mainstream Media since the 1920s. If you're right, the probability that it's controlled by our "ruling circles" is close to 100%, so ZDNet is probably busy trying to trace your posts, so the Secret Service can figure out where you live, so they can arrest you and haul you off to Guantanamo for "enhanced interrogation".

            So perhaps you should frequent safer sites.
            John L. Ries
  • We got the government we voted for

    What has been really eye-rolling about all the fallout from the Snowden-NSA stuff is how both the news media and the American public have been acting like all this spook stuff came out of nowhere. No. Since 9/11, Congress has been passing law after law not only allowing the NSA to do what's it been doing, but actually being *required* to do it -- they operate under the thumbs of the Pentagon and CIA. While the Patriot Act got the most press, there were plenty of other similar laws since then that Congress either enacted or tried to enact (and mostly but not exclusively, pushed by Republicans like Michigan's Mike Rodgers and Texas's Lamar Smith.)

    Just fire up Google and do a search on "FISA Amendments Act" to see how many times it's been up for renewal or extensions by Congress over the past decade, yet was mostly only debated and worried about by privacy and liberty advocates outside of the general public because the mainstream news media deemed them unworthy of serious coverage. Still, if you were/are concerned about personal privace and government snooping, the debates were there nevertheless, along with the consequences would be of the laws that Congress was pushing, so....how does that saying go about "ignorance of the law"?
    • It's an illusion of democracy.

      Yes, we voted. However, in every case, our choices were hand picked by the real powers behind our government. In every case, we were given a choice between two individuals who were both tasked with pushing forward an ongoing agenda to eliminate the Bill of Rights and any other restrictions to governmental power. They are also both tasked with advancing the level of control the government has over individuals. Our so-called choice is an illusion designed to make us feel like we live in a democracy, when we actually live under a fascist regime wearing a friendly mask. We are monitored, controlled, and directed down a specific path in the same manner as cattle. We get to choose between two different gates which lead into the same fenced area.

      It's not just the government they control, either. Every time the economy fluctuates massively, it is by design. Somehow, the incredibly rich minimize their losses when the economy drops and then profit immensely as it rises back up. This sub 1% of the world's population holds 90% of the wealth in the entire world, so it's pretty easy for them to manipulate economies on a global scale. Every time the economy tanks and then recovers, their holdings increase dramatically. It's just one more element of their long term plans for complete control.
      • My vote

        When the change comes and the final purging of the corrupt regime has been eliminated (soon) I think that BillDem needs to be given a significant position of leadership within whatever context he feels comfortable. He clearly has a good understanding of the character of the problem and will be able to detect any efforts that might lead back to the ways of what will then be termed ‘The Old World Order’. Perhaps he would just like an educational or advisory position, but his ability to elucidate the situation clearly in words will be a great asset. The general masses will be clamoring to understand what has occurred and why and there will be a great need for people who can calm their fears with quality information.
  • Illegal powers

    You are assuming that the NSA's powers are legal because they are "court-sanctioned". These powers are forbidden under the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution.
  • Not the government that they people wanted!

    It should be clear by now that this is not the government that we voted for. Hasn’t it sunk in yet that all of the candidates that we have a choice to vote for are subject to the same shadow agenda, either willingly or unwillingly?

    Also with the vast power of the NSA and the REAL secret agencies that are so secret that you haven’t heard of them, these powers can tip the vote in any direction. The NSA revelations are only the beginning and Snowden is just the first salvo.

    Did you notice that when there was a 43% lead in the state of Washington last month to require labeling on food that allowed you to know what you were eating, after Monsanto and others spent tens of millions to defeat that the vote ended up going the other way. It is unclear how much was the money spent and how much may have been vote rigging, but I can guarantee you that the type of people who care to know what they put in their bodies aren't influenced by advertising lying to them and telling them that it will raise food prices significantly.

    The truth of the extent of this dark power far, far bigger than you realize.
  • National Security always trumps the right to life of the innocent.

    Some years ago, people who had worked on the design and construction of the stealth bomber and fighter began to get sick with the same "rare" diseases, which might have been curable if their doctors knew what toxins they were exposed to. They and their families tried to go go court, not to get compensation for their illness, not even to try to get the usage of those mystery toxins banned or controlled with better safety protocols, but just to find out WHAT THE MATERIALS WERE. The government fought to keep secret even enough information to cure or treat the toxicity of the materials, citing national security concerns that other hostile nations would learn enough to counteract, or duplicate, the stealth aircraft. By now, most likely, all those workers are dead, having not been able to get the proper treatment. Their "crime" was HELPING to serve their country.
    • Source?

      Link to info?