Yahoo Wants To Know If FBI Ordered Yahoo To Scan Emails (onthewire.io) 90
Reader Trailrunner7 writes: In an odd twist to an already odd story, Yahoo officials have asked the Director of National Intelligence to confirm whether the federal government ordered the company to scan users' emails for specific terms last year and if so, to declassify the order. The letter is the result of news reports earlier this month that detailed an order that the FBI allegedly served on Yahoo in 2015 in an apparent effort to find messages with a specific set of terms. The stories allege that Yahoo complied with the order and installed custom software to accomplish the task. Yahoo officials said at the time the Reuters story came out that there is no such scanning system on its network, but did not say that the scanning software never existed on the network at all. "Yahoo was mentioned specifically in these reports and we find ourselves unable to respond in detail. Your office, however, is well positioned to clarify this matter of public interest. Accordingly, we urge your office to consider the following actions to provide clarity on the matter: (i) confirm whether an order, as described in these media reports, was issued; (ii) declassify in whole or in part such order, if it exists; and (iii) make a sufficiently detailed public and contextual comment to clarify the alleged facts and circumstances," the letter says.
P.S. (Score:5, Funny)
"And, while you're at it, could you tell Marissa where she left her car keys? She's been searching for days without any luck. "
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"And, while you're at it, could you tell Marissa where she left her car keys? She's been searching for days without any luck. "
It's probably not that they don't know, but that they can't. As in, they're prohibited from disclosing that information by the order itself. So they're passing the legal ball.
Re: (Score:1)
this is more like. we are trying to sell ourselves to verizon and are losing billions on the sale price, because of this, so we are pissed off, so we are setting our lawyers to attack mode
Classified (Score:2)
"And, while you're at it, could you tell Marissa where she left her car keys? She's been searching for days without any luck. "
No this is more like the federal government orders you not to tell Marissa or anyone else where the car keys are, but you can write a very public letter asking them to do so without admitting that you haven't been told not to.
What a brave new world (Score:5, Insightful)
All of this shit with secret judges signing secret warrants in secret courts, sending National Security Letters with gag orders attached, to the point where confidence in American business is being continually undermined and no one is even allowed to speak about it HAS GOT TO FUCKING STOP.
Re: What a brave new world (Score:4, Funny)
I'm voting for the power hungry narcissist who honestly doesn't give a rats ass about us little people.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm voting for the power hungry narcissist who honestly doesn't give a rats ass about us little people.
Look, you CAN'T vote for all of them... you have to pick one for each office.
I personally like the power hungry narcissist with the least amount of recent asshattery at the moment, who ever that is...
Re: (Score:3)
I personally like the power hungry narcissist with the least amount of recent asshattery at the moment, who ever that is...
So you definitely aren't voting for Trump. He's clearly the most worst but picking a least worst remains problematic even taking him off the table...
Re: What a brave new world (Score:2)
Which one is that again?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm voting for the goofy extremist who "can't possibly win" but who respects civil rights instead. I did that in the primary, too.
Re: (Score:2)
There isn't a vote that will make this change.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't beat a royal flush
The term "royal flush", especially the "royal" part makes me shiver given how recently a second Bush served as president, and during an election cycle where a third Bush was initially campaigning, and where a second Clinton could get elected. I like royalty; in Great Britain. There can be no place for sovereignty entitlement or regimes in the US.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The knee jerk condemnations and whiny hysteria HAS GOT TO FUCKING STOP. NSL's or their equivalent have existed in one form or another since the founding of the country. FISA warrants were instituted during the Carter administration. Acting like these items are some kind of secret weapon trampling on citizen rights is shallow thinking. Could these items be misused? Of course. Just like any other law. Has there been any evidence these items are actually harming a US citizen? I am talking about specific evide
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Irony (Score:2, Insightful)
So Yahoo, a company that made its name as a search engine, can't search through its own corporate records.
Now we know why Yahoo is no longer relevant to anyone.
Re: Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
They obviously know, but are legally forbidden from commenting.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what users remain must be brimming with confidence.
Microsoft, Apple, and others, are doing the same thing. They have issued "non-denial denials" that were basically admissions with a wink-wink. It is unfair to pick on Yahoo for just obeying the law.
Re: (Score:1)
unfair to pick on Yahoo for just obeying the law (Score:2)
Not necessarily so.
We don't know what the compelling paper was, whether it could be appealed, whether it was and Yahoo lost.
Yahoo could have said that they would do it, at such a cost, or perhaps gov. would prefer an appeal instead.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called being tone deaf.
AND they know the truth is better than the spin (Score:3)
It sure sounds to me like they are prohibited from talking about, so to get any information out they have to ask the FBI to do so.
ALSO this suggests they WANT information released. They could just say "we can't discuss that article". Instead, they are trying to get a copy of the order published. That strongly suggests that they believe once people see what's actually in the order, it'll be better than the speculation. Further, they calculate it'll be better *even though it'll renew interest, creating anoth
Re: (Score:2)
They obviously know, but are legally forbidden from commenting.
Maybe.
I think people often forget that corporations are about the furthest thing possible from monolithic. It's entirely possible for one organization within a corporation to receive a request that is within its own ability and authority and to handle it without bothering to tell anyone else, or with only brief consultations with legal, who may not have kept any records. Given government secrecy requests/demands, that possibility grows even more likely. Further, corporations aren't static. They're constan
Re: (Score:2)
So Yahoo, a company that made its name as a search engine, can't search through its own corporate records.
"we find ourselves unable to respond in detail" doesn't necessarily mean they don't have any records about this, it most likely means they legally can't respond because it is either classified and only cleared individuals given access to the information have it or they are simply under threat of felony prosecution not to divulge that they were under orders. Also, it is very likely they would not have been given any copies of those orders. It would be sufficient to show them the orders without giving them
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Another Yahoo Apologist AI chat bot?
Well, you either accept the leak and reported stories as fact... which means anyone at Yahoo that knows about it really can't legally say anything about it publicly without going to jail or you don't accept the facts as they have been reported and it may not even have ever happened.
I choose to believe the facts that were reported and that Yahoo did likely cooperate with the government under a secret order which means exactly what I said. Yahoo isn't saying they don't have information they are saying they c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One hand doesn't know what the other hand does (Score:1)
And now the snooping device is probably on the last step before their network.
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on your userID, your account probably isn't YOUR account anymore. They let new sign ups take existing names that hadn't been used in a long time.
I signed in, just so that no one could take my old account (on rare chance something incriminating, or important was sent there), haven't been back since (although I probably should just to keep account alive so they can't compromise my security).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Guessing the real story here (Score:5, Interesting)
If I were Yahoo, and my reputation was damaged from this, and I had received a government FISA order that I couldn't talk about, then I would do exactly this same thing. I see this as similar to a canary - Yahoo can't divulge what the government ordered, so instead, *publicly*, ask the FBA if "a, b, c" happened and to provide details. But I'd make sure I'd word "a, b, c" as what I actually know DID happen. So in fact I've hinted to the world the actual true story without actually providing the information that I'm not legally allowed to make public.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. I'd applaud them, too, if I this weren't an "oh shit, we got caught" maneuver.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It could be to contain the staff who don't really understand the FISA/FBI/NSA/NSL aspects and might walk to the media for a chat.
It was the FBI, it was very legal. That adds domestic protections against any talking about ongoing domestic case loads to the media.
That makes it sound like it was an everyday 24/7 ongoing operation to look for files already in the US court system by s
Re: (Score:2)
If I were Yahoo, and my reputation was damaged from this, and I had received a government FISA order that I couldn't talk about, then I would do exactly this same thing. I see this as similar to a canary
Well, that would be similar to a canary if they had done it when it happened, before their reputation was damaged. Now, the damage is done, and they're just looking for someone else to take the blame for them, as opposed to trying to expose unreasonable surveillance.
Deal Mechanics (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
They're setting the stage for when Verizon drops out of the deal they can sue the government for damages.
Other things Yahoo wants to know (Score:5, Funny)
* Whose erection lead to the hiring of Marissa Mayer?
* What will we do when Verizon cancels its acquisition agreement?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Ah yes, casual sexism is hilarious.
Marissa Mayer may be a terrible CEO but I don't recall anyone asking who's cock Daryl McBride sucked to get his job and he was a damn sight worse.
Several possibilities (Score:4, Insightful)
It's possible that the FBI served some middle managers with the NSL and forbade them from informing their superiors. Happens all the time with investigations. When I worked for Boeing, they were absolutely paranoid about employees being 'turned' by the feds to rat out unethical/illegal company practices. They had a corporate policy requiring any contact by gov't officials to be reported to management. But if the FBI letter says 'tell no one', the consequences could be a jail term vs just getting fired.
It's also possible that a fake NSL was served by agents working for some foreign security service posing as FBI*. A couple of fake badges and guns and I doubt many data center admins would question the order, let alone check on it's validity.
*Or actual FBI moonlighting for someone else. Everyone thinks Snowden was an anomaly. He was in that he went to the press with what he had. The revolving door between private company security and gov't TLAs is pretty busy. Its not unknown for some official to do a little 'research' for a future employer.
Re: (Score:2)
Security in any corporation would usually have a few former gov workers. Such efforts would be easy to uncover. If not every other nation and competitor would be filling US server rooms with "FBI don't touch" hardware and getting raw data from the depths of US brands using actors, dot com servers, a van and a printer.
Since the US is not full of reports to be on the look out for fake US gov
Re: (Score:2)
every other nation and competitor would be filling US server rooms with "FBI don't touch" hardware
TFS stated that Yahoo was (apparently) requested to install 'custom software'. So, no hardware warning labels to see.
Security in any corporation would usually have a few former gov workers.
An idea promulgated by the Union of Federal Employees Seeking Additional Income Following Retirement (UFESAIFR).
Re: (Score:2)
Break it and see if you go to jail.
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible that the FBI served some middle managers with the NSL and forbade them from informing their superiors.
It's very possible that the FBI served the people who made this announcement who are still forbidden of informing anyone. Don't assume there is deniability here.
Re: (Score:2)
who are still forbidden of informing anyone.
Too late for that. They've already announced the scanning to the public. That would be a gag order violation right there. If nobody goes to jail, it's possible that it was not an authentic NSL.
Be a dick (Score:5, Interesting)
If it were me, I would be a fucking dick about it.
Dear FBI, we may or may not be allow to discuss a letter we may or may not have received from you. Could you please confirm whether or not you have sent us a letter after November 2 2014 and before November 4 2014 where the first sentence of the letter was "Dear Yahoo, we are writing to you to demand your"?
Dear FBI, we may or may not be allow to discuss a letter we may or may not have received from you. Could you please confirm whether or not you have sent us a letter after November 2 2014 and before November 4 2014 where the second sentence of the letter was "complete cooperation on maters of national security"? ...
And all of these letters would be sent from the Yahoo Japan office.
The long term solution is to ensure that matters of security require, by design, cooperation of multiple corporate executives in different jurisdictions. Oh you want to compel me to sign a custom operating system that breaks into one iPhone? No problem, I will cooperate, and as soon as you get our other executive in Russia to cooperate then the binary will be signed.
About time (Score:2)