For your amusement...
EFF has produced a great timeline of
NSA’s domestic spying, here.
“They made me do it!”
Google sent a letter to the Attorney
General and FBI this morning:
Dear Attorney
General Holder and Director Mueller
Google has worked
tremendously hard over the past fifteen years to earn our users’
trust. For example, we offer encryption across our services; we have
hired some of the best security engineers in the world; and we have
consistently pushed back on overly broad government requests for our
users’ data.
We have always
made clear that we comply with valid legal requests. And last week,
the Director of National Intelligence acknowledged that service
providers have received Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
requests.
Assertions in the
press that our compliance with these requests gives the U.S.
government unfettered access to our users’ data are simply untrue.
However, government nondisclosure obligations regarding the number
of FISA national security requests that Google receives, as well as
the number of accounts covered by those requests, fuel that
speculation.
We therefore ask
you to help make it possible for Google to publish in our
Transparency Report aggregate numbers of national security requests,
including FISA disclosures—in terms of both the number we receive
and their scope. Google’s numbers would clearly show that our
compliance with these requests falls far short of the claims being
made. Google has nothing to hide.
Google appreciates
that you authorized the recent disclosure of general numbers for
national security letters. There have been no adverse consequences
arising from their publication, and in fact more companies are
receiving your approval to do so as a result of Google’s
initiative. Transparency here will likewise serve the public
interest without harming national security.
We will be making
this letter public and await your response.
David
Drummond
Chief Legal Officer
Chief Legal Officer
Of course, Google has
nothing to lose by this publicly disclosed request. They
get brownie points for trying, even if the government says no.
Will the government agree? If
the President is serious about having a debate and more transparency,
they should agree to the request. Somehow, though, I’m not holding
my breath.
(Related) “We use the old, obsolete
and uncool technologies because the government can't keep up with
us.”
Kim Zetter got a great scoop today:
Google does not
participate in any government program involving a lockbox or other
equipment installed at its facilities to transfer court-ordered data
to the government, a company spokesman says, refuting with some
finality one of the lingering theories about the NSA’s PRISM
program.
Instead the
company transmits FISA information the old fashioned way: by hand, or
over secure FTP.
“When required
to comply with these requests, we deliver that information to the US
government — generally through secure FTP transfers and in person,”
Google spokesman Chris Gaither told Wired. “The US government does
not have the ability to pull that data directly from our servers or
network.”
Read more on Wired.
(Related)
As Mark said last
week, we strongly encourage all governments to be much more
transparent about all programs aimed at keeping the public safe. In
the past, we have questioned the value of releasing a transparency
report that, because of exactly these types of government
restrictions on disclosure, is necessarily incomplete and therefore
potentially misleading to users. We would welcome the opportunity to
provide a transparency report that allows us to share with those who
use Facebook around the world a complete picture of the government
requests we receive, and how we respond. We urge the United States
government to help make that possible by allowing companies to
include information about the size and scope of national security
requests we receive, and look forward to publishing a report that
includes that information.
I'm not going to post any more of
these, but iuf anyone knows where I can find a quick count from time
to time, I'll post as the numbers grow...
… An interactive graphic examining
the secret FISA Court order revealed last week is available here.
Worth a read.
Phil Ciciora writes:
When Web surfers
sign up for a new online service or download a Web application for
their smartphone or tablet, the service typically requires them to
click a seemingly innocuous box and accept the company’s terms of
service and privacy policy. But agreeing to terms without reading
them beforehand can adversely affect a user’s legal rights, says a
new paper by a University of Illinois expert in technology and legal
issues.
Law professor Jay
P. Kesan says the current “non-negotiable approach” to user
privacy is in need of serious revision, especially with the increased
popularity of Web-based software that shares information through
cloud computing.
SOURCE: University
of Illinois
Only in Massachusetts? (and
Califirnia?)
Amy Crafts writes:
In January 2011,
David Cheng (Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against his former co-worker
and fellow radiologist, Laura Romo (Defendant), alleging a violation
of the Stored Communications Act (SCA) and Massachusetts privacy law.
After the U.S District Court of Massachusetts denied Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment on both counts, the case went to trial
and the verdict came down at the end of April. The jury found that
Defendant violated both the SCA and Massachusetts privacy law, and
awarded Plaintiff damages totaling $325,000. This case is
significant in that courts have struggled to interpret the language
of the SCA yet the jury very clearly decided in favor of Plaintiff.
Read more about this case and ruling on
Proskauer.
As Crafts explains, the case isn’t quite over yet.
De-clutter the sky?
Queenie Wong reports:
The Senate
approved a bill Monday that would limit the use of unmanned aircraft
called “drones” by law enforcement and government bodies amid
growing privacy concerns.
House Bill 2710,
which passed on a 23-5 vote, was sent back to the House for
concurrence on changes made to the bill.
Read more on Statesman
Journal.
Somehow, I think NOT...
… This bill would require the
Attorney General to declassify significant Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court (FISC) opinions, allowing Americans to know how
broad of a legal authority the government is claiming to spy on
Americans under the PATRIOT Act and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act.
Sure we “can” the question is “may”
we?
Orin Kerr writes:
Google argues that
the answer is “yes,” in this
oral argument today in the Ninth Circuit in Joffe v. Google.
It’s an interesting
question as a matter of statutory interpretation, largely because
Congress wasn’t thinking about wireless Internet networks when it
was writing about “radio communications.” The statute reflects
different carve-outs from different eras that each reflected
technologies of its era, all of which now are now barnacles on the
hull of the statute that exist decades later when the technologies
are very different. As a common sense matter, it would be surprising
if the courts hold that anyone can intercept unencrypted wireless
communications. It would be the kind of surprising interpretation
that I suspect Congress might revisit if the courts reach it. But
purely as a matter of statutory interpretation, it’s an interesting
and difficult question.
Read more on The
Volokh Conspiracy.
Perspective: I predicted this some
time ago. (But of course, no one ever listens...)
Cisco
Report – The Financial Impact of BYOD
“To help companies determine the
current and potential value of BYOD, Cisco IBSG conducted a detailed
financial analysis of BYOD in six countries. Our findings show
that, on average, BYOD is saving companies money and helping their
employees become more productive. But the value companies currently
derive from BYOD is dwarfed by the gains that would be possible if
they were to implement BYOD more strategically.”
Perhaps a first step on the road to
students creating their own textbooks...
Collaboratively
Create an iPad or Android Magazine
Last month Flipboard
made it possible for anyone to create
digital magazines about their favorite topics. You can do this
with the Flipboard iPad app, the Android app, or in your web browser.
Yesterday, Flipboard made this service even better by allowing you
to invite other Flipboard users to collaborate on magazine creation
with you. Learn how to co-create Flipboard magazines in the video
below.
Applications
for Education
Co-creating Flipboard magazines could
be a great activity for students studying current events. Your
students could share the articles that they're reading and put them
into one magazine for the whole class to read.
As a professional development activity
co-creating Flipboard magazines could be a great way for teachers to
share articles with each other.
No comments:
Post a Comment