Google Files First Amendment Challenge Against FISA Gag Order 163
The Washington Post reports that Google has filed a motion challenging the gag orders preventing it from disclosing information about the data requests it receives from government agencies. The motion cites the free speech protections of the First Amendment. "FISA court data requests typically are known only to small numbers of a company’s employees. Discussing the requests openly, either within or beyond the walls of an involved company, can violate federal law." From the filing (PDF): "On June 6, 2013, The Guardian newspaper published a story mischaracterizing the scope and nature of Google's receipt of and compliance with foreign intelligence surveillance requests. ... In light of the intense public interest generated by The Guardian's and Post's erroneous articles, and others that have followed them, Google seeks to increase its transparency with users and the public regarding its receipt of national security requests, if any. ... Google's reputation and business has been harmed by the false or misleading reports in the media, and Google's users are concerned by the allegation. Google must respond to such claims with more than generalities. ... In particular, Google seeks a declaratory judgment that Google as a right under the First Amendment to publish ... two aggregate unclassified numbers: (1) the total number of FISA requests it receives, if any; and (2) the total number of users or accounts encompassed within such requests."
SCOTUS is final (Score:5, Informative)
Unconstitutional laws are unenforceable
Not if the Supreme Court disagrees with you that a particular statute is unconstitutional.
Re:Uhm Yeah (Score:5, Informative)
we may have an actual chance to hear what the Government is actually requesting
They're only asking to be allowed to release counts, not the content of the requests. So, no, still no chance of finding out what's being requested.
Re:why not just publish them? (Score:5, Informative)
YES. Because it ACTUALLY HAPPENED BEFORE [stanford.edu].
The QWest CEO/Chairman got 10 years in prison for refusing to wiretap his own customers.
Do you even remember seeing any news about that anywhere?
That's how easy it is!
And EXACTLY because people like you think "Naaah, that's *too* crazy.".
It's one of the two secrets for every successful con job too.
Re:It's PR (Score:2, Informative)
They're doing this, knowing full well they'll get denied, because it looks like they're "standing up for their users."
Just smoke and mirrors.
Coming from someone who happens to be sporting a big blue F on his profile.
Sorry mate, you lost all credibility, pot kettle and all that.
Re:Uhm Yeah (Score:4, Informative)
Why would they "get blown out of" court exactly?
The Government will just say the spying program and information about the reasons for the data requests are a matter of national security and that will be the end of it.
Re:why not just publish them? (Score:4, Informative)
He got 10 years for insider trading. Nice try though.
Re:What would happen if they defied the order? (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously, what would the government do if Google just went ahead and released the information?
Uh...put people in Jail for breaking the law? There is no legal defense--so unless you want to move to China, you beg for permission to speak.
Let me give you an example of what sorts of things they can do.
I worked for a bank, once. Banks are closely monitored by the Federal Government.
One of our obligations was to feed everyone and everything to a Federal database of terrorists, drug dealers, money launders and other suck ilk. Including, at one point, the entire duly-elected Palestinian government.
The requirements were so all-encompassing that I used to joke that if you so much as walked your dog past the building, both you and your dog were supposed to be checked against it.
Failure to comply in a satisfactory manner could result in:
o Severe fines and penalties
o Revocation of the bank's charter
o Extensive prison sentences for both corporate management and the board of directors
o Ditto for the CIO, my boss and me/co-workers
o Ditto also, I think for the corporate legal department
We once went into a major panic because someone had opened an account and their (fairly common) name didn't come up as a "hit" against a money-laundering Mexican travel agency. Other people with that name have made national news just trying to buy a new car, which is why Federal databases can be so dangerous.
Google may not be a bank, but considering their size, I'm sure that there are more than a few things that come under government scrutiny and/or regulation. So I don't think they're likely to go "lone wolf" here.
Re:why not just publish them? (Score:5, Informative)
"And then the DoJ targeted him and prosecuted him and put
him in prison for insider trading -- on the theory that he knew of
anticipated income from secret programs that QWest was planning for
the government, while the public didn't because it was classified and
he couldn't legally tell them, and then he bought or sold QWest stock
knowing those things."
Wow.