gagorder
Latest
Facebook's government data requests continue to rise
Facebook releases a bi-annual report that details all the data requests it gets from governments. The company just shared its latest Transparency Report for the first half of 2017. In addition to the usual information, like account data, content restrictions and internet disruptions, the company is including reports from rights holders related to copyright, trademark and intellectual property counterfeiting.
Microsoft drops its lawsuit over gag orders on DoJ searches
It's been more than a year since Microsoft sued the government (with backing from Amazon, Apple, Google and many others) over the right to tell its customers when the authorities ask it to hand over data, and now the DoJ has responded with a new policy. Microsoft says that the new rules restrict the use of secrecy orders and it says they should have defined time periods. With those conditions applied, President and Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith said Microsoft is dropping its lawsuit, but also says more changes are necessary, as he called on Congress to amend the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act that is at the center of the dispute.
The FBI served Google with a secret subpoena
Tucked into Google's latest bi-annual transparency report, the search behemoth quietly revealed that it received a secret subpoena from the FBI sometime during the first half of 2015. While the subpoena itself wasn't necessarily out of the ordinary, what's troubling is the fact that it was accompanied by a gag order that prevented Google from revealing publicly that the government came knocking.
Amazon, Apple and Google back Microsoft fight over US gag orders
Microsoft isn't going it alone in its lawsuit fighting gag orders for data requests. Amazon, Apple, Google and Mozilla have contributed to a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Microsoft's case against the US government over the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which lets officials bar companies from telling customers when officials want their info. In theory, the brief could sway the court's decision and have it deem the ECPA a violation of the constitutional right to be informed about searches and seizures.
ISP wins 11-year battle to reveal warrantless FBI spying
A US district court has struck down an 11-year-old gag order imposed by the FBI on Nicolas Merrill, the former head of a small internet service provider. Originally issued in 2004, it forbade Merrill from revealing that he'd received a so-called national security letter (NSL), a warrantless demand for customer data. The Electronic Frontier Foundation believes about 300,000 such letters have been sent since the Patriot Act was enacted in 2001, but the decision signals the first time that a gag order has been lifted. "Courts cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, simply cannot accept the Government's assertions that disclosure would... create a (public) risk," said Judge Victor Marrero.
Google: We fought to notify WikiLeaks about email warrants
We still don't know everything about the information Google handed over to the government about three WikiLeaks employees, but a lawyer for the search giant has answered one question about the incident. While a gag order prevented Google from the three staff members, attorney Albert Gidari told the Washington Post it fought the government for four years to overturn it. Apparently, the government allowed Twitter to notify supporters -- including Icelandic politician Birgitta Jónsdóttir -- of surveillance in 2010 and was shocked at their disagreement. Afterwards, it was determined to avoid that, and fought hard to keep gag orders in place. The lawyer claims it's policy to challenge any gag order with an indefinite time period, but as a law professor told the Post -- the targets of the surveillance have the strongest potential case to reduce the scope of a warrant, if only they knew that it was happening. [Image credit: Associated Press]
Apple most assuredly NOT slapping family with "gagging order" over iPod fire
Across the pond in the UK, in what may be a bit of a legal "lost in translation," an 11-year-old girl was using her iPod when, according to her, there was a hissing noise and an ominous pop. It rapidly heated, and then allegedly jumped 10 feet into the air. She was left with a melted mass of unplayable music. Needless to say, not usual iPod behavior. (To be fair, you might not be surprised at spontaneous suicidal combustion after asking it to play anything by, say, Paris Hilton, though there's no evidence the girl committed that particular crime against nature.) She and her father contacted Apple, seeking a refund for the presumably out-of-warranty iPod. Apple apparently agreed to return the purchase price of the iPod, and sent a letter to the family offering the refund, denying overall liability with regard to the incident, and included a standard confidentiality clause in it. This is where things went a bit off the rails. The little girl's father went ballistic, refused to sign, and soon enough, there was press coverage. The Times UK covered the incident, complete with photograph of the girl holding her toasted iPod, accusing Apple of slapping the girl with a "gagging order" and attempting to "silence" them, mafia-style. Whoa, there, Times. 1) This is no gagging order. As nice and evil and meaty as such an accusation sounds, a gagging order comes from a court and no court is involved here. It implies that Apple has gone after this family legally, and that there's been a hearing and a decision and a court order. Quite the opposite. This is just a regular, ho-hum contract between two parties, describing the things they want out of each other. While the family may be shocked they got a letter, from a legal perspective they should be shocked if they didn't get one. Apple doesn't feel like they've done anything wrong and isn't going to start admitting its products are combustion risks by returning money out of warranty, which is exactly what it would do it if gave money to these people without some sort of settlement agreement. 2) A confidentiality agreement is standard operating procedure. Sure, a letter filled with legalese is a little heavy-handed, but hey, the iPod was out of warranty and when a company agrees to give you money it doesn't feel it owes you, especially in a situation such as this one, it can very well request confidentiality you keep your trap shut about it going forward. It's standard practice even when the company thinks it probably does owe you money. No courts are involved, and litigation is spared where the parties would fight over whether or not the money is owed. And when a confidentiality agreement is sought, it's also pretty standard to remind the parties the possible consequences of breaching the agreement. Remember: no court is involved here and Apple and this family can reach whatever agreement they want. If the family wants an admission of liability from Apple, they remain absolutely free to pursue a lawsuit in which it will be determined whether or not Apple is at fault. And now, of course, having disclosed all the contents of the letter, Apple I'm sure has rescinded whatever refund it offered. The UK Times has vastly overstated the standard form letter that Apple sent to them when they sought an out-of-warranty refund. I suspect, however, that Apple could have averted this public relations issue had it said, "look, we're happy to give you your money back. We have no idea why that iPod went kablooey. It could be any number of reasons, including many that don't involve us at all. So if you want us to give your money back, we will, but you have to agree not to discuss it. Why? Because that way people won't think we make defective and dangerous products when it's not at all clear that we do, and giving you your money back is good business, not an admission of liability." And then, when a legal-sounding letter shows up in the mail, nobody is shocked.
MBTA affirms that vulnerabilities exist, judge lifts gag order on MIT students
No surprise here, but the kids from MIT were (presumably) right all along. The three students who were muffled just before presenting their case at Defcon have finally been freed; the now-revoked gag order had prevented them from exposing insecurities in the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority ticket system, but during the same court setting, the MBTA fessed up and admitted that its current system was indeed vulnerable. Of note, it only confessed that its CharlieTicket system was susceptible to fraud, while simply not acknowledging any flaws in the more popular CharlieCard option. Pish posh -- who here believes it doesn't have dutiful employees working up a fix as we speak?
