Google transparency report

[Larry]

Friend on Facebook posted this link.

Like other technology and communications companies, Google regularly receives requests from government agencies and courts around the world to remove content from our services and hand over user data. Our Government Requests tool discloses the number of requests we receive from each government in six-month reporting periods with certain limitations.

[Prosperity]

fun fact: the government doesn't need a search warrant to see your emails, well, not under current interpretations anyway

the courts are stupid as **** when it comes to evolving along with the rapid advances in social media and the internet

unless your email is less than 180 days old AND you haven't read it yet, you basically have no 4th amendment protection in it... ESPECIALLY if the internet service provider decides to give it to law enforcement rather than fight a subpoena in court.

[Teller]

Two things jump out at me here:

1) China is not on the list.

and...

2) Apparently our own government is getting a good bit of user info; presumably without a warrant.

---------- Post added October-30th-2011 at 03:02 PM ----------

fun fact: the government doesn't need a search warrant to see your emails

Speaking of loopholes that need to be tightened.

I'm singling out the Obama administration here, because it's the most current and appropriate example, but with things like Attack Watch out there, that fact sucks balls.

[Prosperity]

I think that's fair. It's not like the DOJ needs a supreme court precedent telling it to get search warrants for email searches, it could voluntarily enact that as a policy. It does not. Course, it's really the judicial branch's role to keep the executive from interfering w/ constitutional rights, so far they've proven to be a bunch of detached old men w/ no clue how society uses the internet.

[Larry]

Two things jump out at me here:

1) China is not on the list.

Google was kicked out of China.

Google was reluctantly allowed into China, subject to Google agreeing to allow the Chinese government to censor it. But their service kept getting disrupred. (Whereas the rival search engine that the Chinese government set up, never seemed to have problems.)

Then Google got hacked. By, as near as they can tell, the Chinese government. The intruders targeted the personal data of Chinese dissidents, including their email, contacts lists, and associations.

If I recall, Google then decided to stop censoring Google, and the Chinese government kicked them out.

Speaking of loopholes that need to be tightened.

I'm singling out the Obama administration here, because it's the most current and appropriate example, but with things like Attack Watch out there, that fact sucks balls.

Confessing that I don't know WTF Attack Watch is, but yeah, I suspect this is one of those areas where I agree with you. (S_S is part of the group, too.)

I have a serious problem with what I perceive as a real deliberate, systematic, assault on personal privacy. (By the government and private corporations.)

(I'm not saying that there's some evil conspiracy. Could simply be that they both share a common goal. But the result is the same.)

Edit:

I have to say, I'm surprised that the US shows up on the list at all.

I would have thought that they'd simply demand that ISPs allow them to monitor all traffic ina and out of Google's servers, or demand that Google install back doors into their system, so the government can come in any time they feel like it, without Google knowing about it, or something like that.

I'm surprised that the US Government actually asks.

[Teller]

Google was kicked out of China.

Google was reluctantly allowed into China, subject to Google agreeing to allow the Chinese government to censor it. But their service kept getting disrupred. (Whereas the rival search engine that the Chinese government set up, never seemed to have problems.)

Then Google got hacked. By, as near as they can tell, the Chinese government. The intruders targeted the personal data of Chinese dissidents, including their email, contacts lists, and associations.

If I recall, Google then decided to stop censoring Google, and the Chinese government kicked them out.

That's right. I had forgotten they were kicked out all together. Thanks.

Confessing that I don't know WTF Attack Watch is, but yeah, I suspect this is one of those areas where I agree with you. (S_S is part of the group, too.)

I have a serious problem with what I perceive as a real deliberate, systematic, assault on personal privacy. (By the government and private corporations.)

(I'm not saying that there's some evil conspiracy. Could simply be that they both share a common goal. But the result is the same.)

Attack Watch is a site set up by the Obama administration, where supporters are supposed to go and post emails, info about phone calls, websites, or just water cooler talk about people who speak negatively about the president. (Keep in mind my biases, of course, as I'm sure you always do; and should.) But there's a place for the reporter to put in personal information about the "offender," and the details of what they had to say.

I don't think people are going to start disappearing, or anything of the sort, but the whole concept kind of gives me the willies. Of course, the Bush administration was absolutely atrocious about protecting our confidential communication as well, so I'm not singling out this administration. It just seemed the most relevant example at the time.

Link: www.attackwatch.com

And Prosperity, I could not possibly agree with you more. IMHO, an email, or a text, is the same as a phone call. The government should not have a right to those communications unless there is a need, and a warrant.

---------- Post added October-30th-2011 at 03:21 PM ----------

Also, despite our most recent run-in, I have to say, Larry, that you educated me a lot on topics like these. As you may recall, post-9/11 I bought the BS about "we're just monitoring the phone calls of suspected terrorists." It was your patient and repeated explanation that helped me realize the error of my ways, and I appreciate that. And I hope you'll recall as well that I fully supported the ACLU's suit in that case, challenging the constitutionality of the government keeping a record of EVERY phone call, and listening in without FISA warrants.

[Larry]

Actually, I've made the statement for some time that I WANT the government to have the ability to spy on things like phone calls.

But to me, the operative words "spy". As in, the difference between the CIA and the FBI.

I've said that I'd be fine with a law along the lines of:

Agencies like the CIA, DIA, NSA, are designated as "national security agencies".

Agencies like FBI, Treasury, DEA, are designated as "law enforcement agencies".

Law enforcement agencies gave to comply with privacy restrictions, like warrants and so forth.

National security agencies can spy on anybody they want, using any methods available, limited only by their budget and technology.

But, security agencies are not permitted to DO anything with their information, except in very limited cases. The language I propose is along the lines of "evidence of a credible, imminent attack, against the US, (not "US interests". Too vague.), of military or paramilitary scale".

My example ism that I have no problem with the NSA vacuum-cleaning every email their gizmos can get, no warrant needed. They can scan them for whatever patterns their experts think will be the most efficient.

If they find two people exchanging encrypted emails, they can flag them. Even if one or both of them are in the US. They can crack the encryption, no probable cause needed.

If it turns out that it's one of Saddam's scientists, offerings to sell Ossama the info on where Saddam's hid the enriched Uranuim? Then Mr. Clark is allowed to make both of them dissapear. STILL without a warrant.

OTOH, if it's two guys trading kiddie porn? Then they can't do a thing. Not even an anonymous phone call to the local sheriff. (Because the information was gathered through unconstitutional means.)

Where I have the problem is with the government claiming these powers for CRIMINAL use.

[Hubbs]

This is how rights are eroded. Not with one big swing, but with a thousand paper cuts.

[skinfan133]

Actually, I've made the statement for some time that I WANT the government to have the ability to spy on things like phone calls.

But to me, the operative words "spy". As in, the difference between the CIA and the FBI.

I've said that I'd be fine with a law along the lines of:

Agencies like the CIA, DIA, NSA, are designated as "national security agencies".

Agencies like FBI, Treasury, DEA, are designated as "law enforcement agencies".

Law enforcement agencies gave to comply with privacy restrictions, like warrants and so forth.

National security agencies can spy on anybody they want, using any methods available, limited only by their budget and technology.

But, security agencies are not permitted to DO anything with their information, except in very limited cases. The language I propose is along the lines of "evidence of a credible, imminent attack, against the US, (not "US interests". Too vague.), of military or paramilitary scale".

My example ism that I have no problem with the NSA vacuum-cleaning every email their gizmos can get, no warrant needed. They can scan them for whatever patterns their experts think will be the most efficient.

If they find two people exchanging encrypted emails, they can flag them. Even if one or both of them are in the US. They can crack the encryption, no probable cause needed.

If it turns out that it's one of Saddam's scientists, offerings to sell Ossama the info on where Saddam's hid the enriched Uranuim? Then Mr. Clark is allowed to make both of them dissapear. STILL without a warrant.

OTOH, if it's two guys trading kiddie porn? Then they can't do a thing. Not even an anonymous phone call to the local sheriff. (Because the information was gathered through unconstitutional means.)

Where I have the problem is with the government claiming these powers for CRIMINAL use.

That's incredibly scary. First of all, encrypting data isn't criminal. I encrypt my data simply on principle. My data is MY data.

There are so many avenues of abuse in the system you just detailed.

[Teller]

Yeah, I completely misunderstood, and apparently completely misrepresented (unintentionally) your position, Larry. I'm surprised, to say the least.

[Larry]

Yeah, I completely misunderstood, and apparently completely misrepresented (unintentionally) your position, Larry. I'm surprised, to say the least.

Oh, no. I think things like THIS are scum.

I'm simply noting that, say, when the NSA monitors communication from the Russian embassy, they don't need a warrant. Pretty much everything they do is without a warrant.

Just like I recognize that we need the authority to torture people in tha ticking time bomb scenario. I object to the fact that it seems obvious that we're using it on cases of "he might know something useful".

[21cents]

I dont even know why even have the amendments. Its pretty obvious the govt could care less about them.

[Larry]

I dont even know why even have the amendments. Its pretty obvious the govt could care less about them.

I recently wrote a term paper on the ethics of torture, for a freshman class on Ethics.

As part of working on the paper, I read a dozen or so recent papers, written by various writers on ethics, on the subject.

And one argument that many (almost all of them) made, was that, while it might well be the case that society might, from time to time, need to torture somebody (the "ticking time bomb scenario"), but that society absolutely should not ever draw up rules or procedures for doing it.

One of their arguments for this position was that, the instant you write down rules for such a thing, you instantly begin the process of people attempting to dance as close to the lines you've laid down, as possible. Of spending months and years micro-analyzing every nuance of the rule, looking for ways to bypass or expand it.

And I think we can all agree that we've seen that.

We start with "freedom of speech". But then we decide that "well, that only really applies to political speech". And that "well, society can enact reasonable rules to restrict the place and time of speech". And so forth.

Which is how we get to situations where, when the President is expected to go some place, we have cops patrolling the places where the Presidential motorcade is expected to pass. And they'll go through the people standing along the street, and anybody who is holding a sign opposing the President, is ordered to the "free speech zone": A fenced-in cage, located a few miles away from any place where the President might go. (People with signs supporting the President are allowed to stay.)

And Americans seem to, mostly, be OK with the ides that the government can declare that one dead-end alley, somewhere, is a "free speech zone", and that everywhere else is, well, I guess someplace other than a free speech zone.

Heck, on the subject of torture, I've had posters, here in Tailgate, inform me, in what certainly appears to be full seriousness, that, well, the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" doesn't apply to the people in GTMO, because punishment is what happens to people who've been convicted of something, and the folks in GTMO haven't been charged, let alone convicted of anything. And that the Fifth's prohibition of compelling someone to testify against himself doesn't apply, because the people in GTMO aren't under oath, and heck, we don't even intend to ever give them trials.

In short, that the Constitution permits the government to do whatever it wants to, to any prisoner, as long as the government decides that it has no intention of ever giving the prisoner due process of any kind.

(I observed that somehow I don't believe that the Framers actually intended those words to even remotely imply that.)

[Corcaigh]

Encrypting your e-mail, web usage and other communications does not warrant suspicion. It's analogous to sending a letter in a sealed envelope versus using an open postcard.

I know full well that all my electronic communications can be intercepted, but if anyone who is not the intended recipient wants to read them they should be required to get a search warrant. If there is genuine suspicion of a serious threat, then a warrant after the fact is acceptable, but a warrant should always be required.

[Teller]

Oh, no. I think things like THIS are scum.

I'm simply noting that, say, when the NSA monitors communication from the Russian embassy, they don't need a warrant. Pretty much everything they do is without a warrant.

Just like I recognize that we need the authority to torture people in tha ticking time bomb scenario. I object to the fact that it seems obvious that we're using it on cases of "he might know something useful".

I got ya. Thanks for clarifying.

[21cents]

I recently wrote a term paper on the ethics of torture, for a freshman class on Ethics.

As part of working on the paper, I read a dozen or so recent papers, written by various writers on ethics, on the subject.

And one argument that many (almost all of them) made, was that, while it might well be the case that society might, from time to time, need to torture somebody (the "ticking time bomb scenario"), but that society absolutely should not ever draw up rules or procedures for doing it.

One of their arguments for this position was that, the instant you write down rules for such a thing, you instantly begin the process of people attempting to dance as close to the lines you've laid down, as possible. Of spending months and years micro-analyzing every nuance of the rule, looking for ways to bypass or expand it.

And I think we can all agree that we've seen that.

We start with "freedom of speech". But then we decide that "well, that only really applies to political speech". And that "well, society can enact reasonable rules to restrict the place and time of speech". And so forth.

Which is how we get to situations where, when the President is expected to go some place, we have cops patrolling the places where the Presidential motorcade is expected to pass. And they'll go through the people standing along the street, and anybody who is holding a sign opposing the President, is ordered to the "free speech zone": A fenced-in cage, located a few miles away from any place where the President might go. (People with signs supporting the President are allowed to stay.)

And Americans seem to, mostly, be OK with the ides that the government can declare that one dead-end alley, somewhere, is a "free speech zone", and that everywhere else is, well, I guess someplace other than a free speech zone.

Heck, on the subject of torture, I've had posters, here in Tailgate, inform me, in what certainly appears to be full seriousness, that, well, the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" doesn't apply to the people in GTMO, because punishment is what happens to people who've been convicted of something, and the folks in GTMO haven't been charged, let alone convicted of anything. And that the Fifth's prohibition of compelling someone to testify against himself doesn't apply, because the people in GTMO aren't under oath, and heck, we don't even intend to ever give them trials.

In short, that the Constitution permits the government to do whatever it wants to, to any prisoner, as long as the government decides that it has no intention of ever giving the prisoner due process of any kind.

(I observed that somehow I don't believe that the Framers actually intended those words to even remotely imply that.)

Everyone in my book is innocent until proven guilty. If these standards isnt exercised by the best county in the world united states, then we humans as a whole don't have much freedom to begin with.

[Disco Dave]

Encrypting your e-mail, web usage and other communications does not warrant suspicion. It's analogous to sending a letter in a sealed envelope versus using an open postcard.

I know full well that all my electronic communications can be intercepted, but if anyone who is not the intended recipient wants to read them they should be required to get a search warrant. If there is genuine suspicion of a serious threat, then a warrant after the fact is acceptable, but a warrant should always be required.

How do I encrypt my info? Do I need a special program or something? Sorry I'm a dumbass and thanks