If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Google files First Amendment suit against NSA for the right to disclose information about NSA spy program   (money.cnn.com) divider line 50
    More: Interesting, First Amendment, NSA, Google, computer surveillance, intelligence assessment, court cases, gag orders, privacy  
•       •       •

6143 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jun 2013 at 10:41 AM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



50 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-06-19 08:59:30 AM
How meta.

Or would that be "meta meta" in this case, given the kind of data gathered?
 
2013-06-19 09:13:24 AM
They have to do this - their core business is at risk. Users must be able to at least quantify the security and distribution of data before they place it in a public cloud.
 
2013-06-19 10:42:35 AM
NSA: "we invoke national security"

done and done
 
2013-06-19 10:43:49 AM
Interesting case, if this were before SCOTUS it makes me wonder what the corporate whores on the bench would do
 
2013-06-19 10:44:12 AM
good luck
 
2013-06-19 10:44:45 AM
JUST DOO EET.
 
2013-06-19 10:46:58 AM
All for show.
 
2013-06-19 10:49:40 AM
The two information giants fighting. How dare they steal my . . . coolness.

img.fark.net img.fark.net
 
2013-06-19 10:52:43 AM

Teaser: NSA: "we invoke national security"

done and done


Not that simple this time.
 
2013-06-19 10:53:48 AM
I would be happier if they would resist the requests entirely on 4th amendment grounds.  If anyone has the money and influence to fight the feds on that case, it would be Google.
 
2013-06-19 10:56:08 AM
I'm not an attorney, but I play one - in my mind.  Why would they having standing in this case?  How were they harmed?

/damaged, injured, insulted, or otherwise grievously pissed off?
 
2013-06-19 10:56:23 AM
google was in talks to acquire waze (crowdsourced mapping and traffic) for something in the neighborhood of $1b... waze pulled out because they are an israeli company and google simply could not give them privacy assurances; you can't put "we promise to refuse subpoenas, and tell you when we receive a subpoena that we aren't legally allowed to tell you about" in a contract.

it goes a lot beyond consumer confidence, and it isn't because google is trying to be not evil or just a show because google really is evil -- now that it is known, its going to fark with the bottom line of some really big companies.  i dont think this one is going to be all that easy for the nsa to win.
 
2013-06-19 10:58:04 AM
Google owns the information about what it did just like it owned the info on what the people using google did.

Can't they just hand over the info to the public like they handed info over to the government?
 
2013-06-19 11:00:06 AM

stampylives: google was in talks to acquire waze (crowdsourced mapping and traffic) for something in the neighborhood of $1b... waze pulled out because they are an israeli company and google simply could not give them privacy assurances; you can't put "we promise to refuse subpoenas, and tell you when we receive a subpoena that we aren't legally allowed to tell you about" in a contract.


Source?  Last I heard the deal was done.
 
2013-06-19 11:01:03 AM

Giltric: Google owns the information about what it did just like it owned the info on what the people using google did.

Can't they just hand over the info to the public like they handed info over to the government?


That's what they're arguing. The NSA is claiming it would be akin to a company that worked on (and owned) a classified defense system releasing that information to the public, though.
/At least, that's what I've gathered so far?
 
2013-06-19 11:03:12 AM

stampylives: google was in talks to acquire waze (crowdsourced mapping and traffic) for something in the neighborhood of $1b... waze pulled out because they are an israeli company and google simply could not give them privacy assurances; you can't put "we promise to refuse subpoenas, and tell you when we receive a subpoena that we aren't legally allowed to tell you about" in a contract.

it goes a lot beyond consumer confidence, and it isn't because google is trying to be not evil or just a show because google really is evil -- now that it is known, its going to fark with the bottom line of some really big companies.  i dont think this one is going to be all that easy for the nsa to win.


What are consumers' options if the 9 biggest companies (in similar but ultimately different business lines; and, presumably, the same laws would apply to any new ventures that arise) are all in that same boat? Foreign companies, where privacy may be less guaranteed or where the environment is not as business-friendly?

To me, if all those industries said "Fark you, no" would the USG have the resources to litigate against 9 of the biggest companies in the world simultaneously? Especially if those companies' strategy was to NOT join into a single suit and drown the government in its own paperwork? (Could that even work? Am I now a co-conspirator in a terroristicly-led assault-speech on the NSA necessitating a liquefied conversation with the Fibbies?)
 
2013-06-19 11:03:23 AM

SoupJohnB: I'm not an attorney, but I play one - in my mind.  Why would they having standing in this case?  How were they harmed?

/damaged, injured, insulted, or otherwise grievously pissed off?


Off the top of my head and excluding the actual time, material, and effort they need to comply with the NSA side of the request, there are quite a few regulatory laws that Google probably has to be able to comply with having to provide 3rd party access to the government probably violates some of the required access controls stipulated by SOX or HIPAA. If not, it might also prevent them from being able to provide email/storage service to companies who are required by law to maintain extensive logs and strict access control for that kind of information. However IANAL and this is just pure conjecture off the top of my head.
 
2013-06-19 11:03:44 AM

AngryDragon: stampylives: google was in talks to acquire waze (crowdsourced mapping and traffic) for something in the neighborhood of $1b... waze pulled out because they are an israeli company and google simply could not give them privacy assurances; you can't put "we promise to refuse subpoenas, and tell you when we receive a subpoena that we aren't legally allowed to tell you about" in a contract.

Source?  Last I heard the deal was done.


It is a done deal.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhochman/2013/06/18/why-google-is-cra z y-for-spending-a-billion-dollars-for-waze/
 
2013-06-19 11:06:51 AM
Google should separate and publish the FISA requests, 'illegal' or not be damned.

If there was a recent moment for some civil disobedience, this would be it.
 
2013-06-19 11:06:55 AM
Hmmm.. this should be interesting. At least some company with the clout to fight this is doing so, even if it's just for show. Haven't heard peep from Verizon, which unnerves me because I'm a customer, quickly thinking of becoming someone else's. Problem is, finding a company that DIDN'T just bend over and hasn't at least made a show of resistance is proving futile.

/We are the Borg.
 
2013-06-19 11:08:30 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: Interesting case, if this were before SCOTUS it makes me wonder what the corporate whores on the bench would do


They're National Security State whores first.
 
2013-06-19 11:10:39 AM
Google CEO:
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

And that's pretty much their stance on protecting user privacy.

They would rather sell your data to the highest bidder than give it to the government for free, though.
 
2013-06-19 11:11:16 AM
Don't Be Evil.


course, those words mean nothing to the No Strings Attached.
 
2013-06-19 11:12:33 AM

automaticman: Hmmm.. this should be interesting. At least some company with the clout to fight this is doing so, even if it's just for show. Haven't heard peep from Verizon, which unnerves me because I'm a customer, quickly thinking of becoming someone else's. Problem is, finding a company that DIDN'T just bend over and hasn't at least made a show of resistance is proving futile.

/We are the Borg.


I'd like to think along those lines as well, but the skeptic in me thinks clout - as in leverage, will result in a settlement involving something to the effect of "We won't use our leverage to pursue our First Amendment suit if other branches of the government will look the other way when it comes to our business practices."

But I hope you're right.  I definitely get a dirty feeling from the government on this whole subject.
 
2013-06-19 11:15:17 AM
I am shocked, SHOCKED at all the fifth columnists on this website who do not understand that national security is the Most Important Thing In The Universe.

Remember, they do not record calls under this program. This program is responsible for metadata collection only. Also, Congress did not hold a completely scripted hearing about this program, while failing to ask about any other programs or really to express anything other than complete support.

Congress is not corrupt, America is free, and the best, and national security is really super mega important.
 
2013-06-19 11:18:08 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: Interesting case, if this were before SCOTUS it makes me wonder what the corporate whores on the bench would do


They would say that classified means classified and that state secrets are a protected exception to the First Amendment.

Google already knows they will lose... but they need to put on a song and dance to show the public they "care".

At least thats the only way I can see it going, regardless of the actual words on paper.  Otherwise every person who ever revealed anything classified could use the same defense.
 
2013-06-19 11:18:48 AM
google is just trying to save face. They have a very cozy relationship with the government and won't do anything to disrupt that.

They are simply trying to save face in the court of public opinion. They got on board with the NSA just like the telcos and all the others.

Google has business docs etc. If folks don't trust them, and they shouldn't it hurts their bottom line.

What is interesting is that if you are a foreign company working in the US and calling your main office outside the US your communications are completely fair game for the NSA to intercept and listen in on. Makes me wonder what kind of corporate espionage is taking place under the guise of National Security
 
2013-06-19 12:34:16 PM
They should sack up and release what they have and/or know.

Dare someone to come after them.
 
2013-06-19 12:34:19 PM

AngryDragon: stampylives: google was in talks to acquire waze (crowdsourced mapping and traffic) for something in the neighborhood of $1b... waze pulled out because they are an israeli company and google simply could not give them privacy assurances; you can't put "we promise to refuse subpoenas, and tell you when we receive a subpoena that we aren't legally allowed to tell you about" in a contract.

Source?  Last I heard the deal was done.


oh really? it definitely snagged on that... i guess they sorted it out.

still... i think my point was more, no matter how good/evil/otherwise you think google may be, this whole thing is bad for their bottom line, and they have the pockets and probably the impetus to at least fight the good fight.
 
2013-06-19 12:44:27 PM
little late asshats
 
2013-06-19 12:58:55 PM
I'd like to give Google credit for trying to be transparent, but all the govt. has to do is say no and that's it. Then Google can say it "tried" to do the right thing and was stopped by the awful, awful govt. They look righteous to people too dumb to know how this works. 


If Google was sincere, they'd release the info and dare the govt. to prosecute. But they won't.
 
2013-06-19 01:01:09 PM
So what's next, Google? Gonna sue China?
 
2013-06-19 01:04:55 PM
Hear that?  That's the sound of 100 attorneys clicking on bmw.com.
 
2013-06-19 01:20:56 PM

AngryDragon: I would be happier if they would resist the requests entirely on 4th amendment grounds.  If anyone has the money and influence to fight the feds on that case, it would be Google.


That's what I've been wondering. What could the feds really do about it if google just told them to fark off? If they arrested top executives from the major internet companies it would start to look pretty suspicious, then those same ISP's could break silence and tell everyone why they were arrested. What else, shut down the company? Think of the back lash if the US govt. forced google or facebook offline. .
 
2013-06-19 01:22:00 PM
This sort of move might have meant something BEFORE the scandal broke...
Now? It stinks of PR spin to deflect from the revelation that Google has happily fed them data for years.
 
2013-06-19 01:22:48 PM

mizchief: AngryDragon: I would be happier if they would resist the requests entirely on 4th amendment grounds.  If anyone has the money and influence to fight the feds on that case, it would be Google.

That's what I've been wondering. What could the feds really do about it if google just told them to fark off? If they arrested top executives from the major internet companies it would start to look pretty suspicious, then those same ISP's could break silence and tell everyone why they were arrested. What else, shut down the company? Think of the back lash if the US govt. forced google or facebook offline. .


The big tech companies just need to:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-d6elcbJ54
 
2013-06-19 01:28:41 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: JUST DOO EET.


Indeed -- release what you like & worry about the lawsuits later.  What is NSA going to do, break up one of the largest companies in the country?  If so, that's a strange way of "protecting" the country.
 
2013-06-19 01:29:50 PM

Smelly Pirate Hooker: I'd like to give Google credit for trying to be transparent, but all the govt. has to do is say no and that's it. Then Google can say it "tried" to do the right thing and was stopped by the awful, awful govt. They look righteous to people too dumb to know how this works. 


If Google was sincere, they'd release the info and dare the govt. to prosecute. But they won't.


Keep in mind they are only causing a stink now that the information was made public and it's harming  them.Had the information not been leaked they would still silently shovel your information over to the fed and thank them for the opportunity.

It's OK to like googles services and general contributions to the technical community, while still understanding they are a corporation who will gladly stab your grandma in the eye to make the stock price go up .00001%.
 
2013-06-19 01:42:04 PM

IRQ12: It's OK to like googles services and general contributions to the technical community, while still understanding they are a corporation who will gladly stab your grandma in the eye to make the stock price go up .00001%.


Better for Google to use its largesse in our favor rather than to stab my grandma in the eye.

// plus, if throwing their weight around for us is good for the stock price, that may set some good precedent
// though my Bubbe's been dead since 1993 (and Grandma since 2009); stab away
 
2013-06-19 02:04:30 PM

IRQ12: It's OK to like googles services and general contributions to the technical community, while still understanding they are a corporation who will gladly stab your grandma in the eye to make the stock price go up .00001%.


In fact, I would say that it is healthy to bear that in mind.
 
2013-06-19 02:22:49 PM

SoupJohnB: I'm not an attorney, but I play one - in my mind.  Why would they having standing in this case?  How were they harmed?

/damaged, injured, insulted, or otherwise grievously pissed off?


Didn't Sweden make a rule that their government entities cannot use Google services now?
 
2013-06-19 02:23:14 PM

IRQ12: It's OK to like googles services and general contributions to the technical community, while still understanding they are a corporation who will gladly stab your grandma in the eye to make the stock price go up .00001%.


To be fair, they're not quite like the typical publicly traded corporation, because they have crappy corporate governance.

That is, the founders still have control, so they don't *have* to blindly pursue stock price increases, as other corporations do. They still *can* if that's what the founders want to do.
 
2013-06-19 02:42:50 PM

HazMatt: SoupJohnB: I'm not an attorney, but I play one - in my mind.  Why would they having standing in this case?  How were they harmed?

/damaged, injured, insulted, or otherwise grievously pissed off?

Didn't Sweden make a rule that their government entities cannot use Google services now?


Don't know.  Although most 'government entities' everywhere have been cautious about limiting the use of search engines by employees for a long time.

/with good reason
 
2013-06-19 02:43:09 PM

Smelly Pirate Hooker: I'd like to give Google credit for trying to be transparent, but all the govt. has to do is say no and that's it. Then Google can say it "tried" to do the right thing and was stopped by the awful, awful govt. They look righteous to people too dumb to know how this works. 


If Google was sincere, they'd release the info and dare the govt. to prosecute. But they won't.


Or perhaps the info is not as damning of the NSA as it appears and they'd only be pissing off the government for illegally releasing information that doesn't look as evil as the "Worst Case Scenario" Conspiracy Types want it to be.
 
2013-06-19 02:52:38 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: IRQ12: It's OK to like googles services and general contributions to the technical community, while still understanding they are a corporation who will gladly stab your grandma in the eye to make the stock price go up .00001%.

To be fair, they're not quite like the typical publicly traded corporation, because they have crappy corporate governance.

That is, the founders still have control, so they don't *have* to blindly pursue stock price increases, as other corporations do. They still *can* if that's what the founders want to do.


True, but the original point stands:  They have been doing this for a long time and only now are suing because it has become public.

It's weird thing to think that all of these companies are basically wiretapping services for the fed at the end of the day.
 
2013-06-19 03:05:32 PM
img.fark.net
 
2013-06-19 03:09:36 PM
Google is a corporation.  A huge one.  They have repeatedly demonstrated that, like all other obsidian monoliths, they pursue their own interests first.  Let's make some popcorn and see what ensues.
 
2013-06-19 06:17:20 PM

TheDirtyNacho: Google should separate and publish the FISA requests, 'illegal' or not be damned.

If there was a recent moment for some civil disobedience, this would be it.


And for the right price, they won't publish the FISA request naming you.
 
2013-06-19 08:53:17 PM

IRQ12: Gaseous Anomaly: IRQ12: It's OK to like googles services and general contributions to the technical community, while still understanding they are a corporation who will gladly stab your grandma in the eye to make the stock price go up .00001%.

To be fair, they're not quite like the typical publicly traded corporation, because they have crappy corporate governance.

That is, the founders still have control, so they don't *have* to blindly pursue stock price increases, as other corporations do. They still *can* if that's what the founders want to do.

True, but the original point stands:  They have been doing this for a long time and only now are suing because it has become public.

It's weird thing to think that all of these companies are basically wiretapping services for the fed at the end of the day.


Bullshiat.  They've been publishing this for some time:

http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government/

There's no reason to believe that Google would ever want to be cozy with ANY government (remember China?  Pakistan?  Every-other-I-want-your-data company?) - why would the US be any different?  Knowing that this kind of sh*tstorm could erupt and erode consumer confidence in them (their biggest asset), and there's no really good evidence it was ever helping more than required by law.  Seriously, from everything the founders have ever done at Google, it makes absolutely no sense to anyone that doesn't already have a stake in believing the rumors to be true.
 
2013-06-19 09:53:35 PM

bunner: Hear that?  That's the sound of 100 attorneys clicking on bmw.com.


More like Bentley, Lamborghini or Konigsegg
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report