DOJ Refuses To Let Tech Companies See Legal Arguments It's Making Against Them

from the isn't-that-convenient dept

The ongoing legal fight, in which a bunch of US tech and internet companies -- namely Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo and LinkedIn -- are suing the US government, claiming a First Amendment right to publish some details on the number of requests they get from the NSA under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, as well as the number of users impacted by those requests, is getting ever weirder. The government had filed its response back at the end of September. And, you might notice, large portions of it are totally redacted. For example, here is page 13 of the document (though, numbered page 8):

At least they didn't redact the page number
Of course, stuff gets filed under seal all the time, and it's not particularly uncommon to see redacted passages in legal documents -- especially (obviously) when it has to do with matters of national security. But, here's what's different. Normally the opposing parties in the case are allowed to see the details of what's redacted. Here, the DOJ is simply refusing to let the tech companies see its own argument. In response, the companies have filed a pretty direct and somewhat angry motion, asking the FISA court to either let them see the arguments, or to strike the redacted portions from the DOJ's motion. Basically, the DOJ is saying that it can make legal arguments that only the court can see, but which the tech companies suing it cannot see. That goes against every basic concept of due process.
The government has submitted a response and supporting declaration for ex parte, in camera review. It has given the providers only a heavily redacted version of its submissions, and it has rejected all requests for greater access.

Unless the government reconsiders its refusal to accommodate the providers' legitimate need to understand the basis for the government's response, the providers respectfully request that this Court strike the redacted portions of the government's brief and supporting declaration. The redacted version of the government's submissions does not comply with Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Rule 7(j) because it does not "clearly articulate the government's legal arguments," as the rule requires. If the government's interpretation of the rule were correct, the rule would violate both the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause. To avoid that result, the Court should construe the rule to require fuller disclosure to the providers.

Allowing the government to file an ex parte brief in this case will cripple the providers' ability to reply to the government's arguments and is likely to result in a disposition of the providers' First Amendment claims based on information that the providers will never see. The providers do not dispute that in some cases it may be appropriate for this Court to consider ex parte filings. In this case, however, such a course is neither justified nor constitutional. The providers already know the core information that the government seeks to protect in this litigation--the number of FISC orders or FAA directives to which they have been subject, if any. At issue here is only the secondary question whether the providers may be told the reason why the government seeks to keep that information a secret. The government has not argued that sharing those reasons with the providers or their counsel would endanger national security. Accordingly, unless the government allows the providers' counsel to access its response, the Court should strike the redacted portions of the response.
The whole thing is really quite incredible. Our government is so focused on the secrecy of its secret laws and secret demands that it won't even tell the companies fighting the secrecy the secret reasons it's telling the court it has to keep stuff secret? How is that possibly consistent with basic due process under the law?




Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Nov 13th, 2013 @ 5:49am

    Wait...

    This case is being judged by the 'I am not a crook/rubber-stamp' FISA 'court'? The companies filing suit are probably not only going to be told that the government is doing nothing wrong by filing their case almost entirely under seal, the 'judges' will likely try and berate them for 'putting national security at risk by attempting to publicize information regarding classified orders', or something equally insane.

    The odds of the FISA 'court' ruling against the government is about as low as it's reputation as an independent, impartial court.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Accused, Nov 13th, 2013 @ 7:56am

      Re: Wait...

      Your honor, in my defense [redacted]. and another defense I have is [redacted]. While I can't reveal my defense to you because [redacted] I can assure you that we are not guilty of [redacted].

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Nov 13th, 2013 @ 8:03am

        Re: Re: Wait...

        (if the defendant does this you must admit that both sides will have equally compelling arguments and so it should just be a wash).

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          That One Guy (profile), Nov 13th, 2013 @ 7:09pm

          Re: Re: Re: Wait...

          Which would be bad, as the case going away like that would be exactly what the government wants, allowing it to continue on, business as usual.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Bergman (profile), Nov 14th, 2013 @ 1:07am

      Re: Wait...

      My response, were I on the receiving end of a court ruling with everything so secret/redacted that I can't read any of it:

      You say I lost the case? Prove it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Tom Stone, Nov 13th, 2013 @ 7:44am

    Secret laws, redacted pleadings

    Simply let the Tech companies lawyers read the read the redacted pleading, then kill them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 13th, 2013 @ 7:48am

    it seems, however, to be in keeping with an authoritarian government or perhaps even a Fascist government, or how about a totalitarian government? it seems not, however, to be in keeping with a democratic government, one that supposedly is centered on freedom! that seems to be furthest from it's mind! i still reckon there is someone pulling strings here that has taken their position as being above everyone and everything, including the President and the Constitution! whoever that is, is obviously known, so why is the person, even the name of the person being kept from everyone?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 13th, 2013 @ 7:55am

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Nov 13th, 2013 @ 7:48am

      It's called congress... They have always been in charge. Who are we at war with again? Who is covered under the AUMF? How much of this falls under war powers? Why can't the american people know who we are at war with?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 13th, 2013 @ 7:49am

    If this is the rule of law, I am a flying farting jet propulsion powered pig.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 13th, 2013 @ 7:50am

    The tech companies should

    A: Refuse to let the DOJ see their legal defense.

    B: Accuse the DOJ of conspiracy and refuse to let them see the legal arguments against them.

    That way the court can declare it's a wash and no one gets punished without telling anyone how it came to its decision.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      ambrellite (profile), Nov 13th, 2013 @ 11:16am

      Re:

      I don't think there's a precedent in history (or sanity, for that matter) for a court to make a secret ruling based on the secret legal arguments of the defense and the plaintiff. But I wouldn't be surprised to see it, revealed ex post facto, in the FISA court.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 13th, 2013 @ 8:04am

    They should seriously think about investing in a Redactatron 3000 because it would save them a ton of money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Oblate (profile), Nov 13th, 2013 @ 8:09am

    Due process?

      How is that possibly consistent with basic due process under the law?

    That's a secret.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 13th, 2013 @ 7:18pm

      Re: Due process?

      [i]How is that possibly consistent with basic due process under the law?[/i]

      It's very consistent if [redacted] and [redacted] under [redacted] and [redacted]. If you knew this, you wouldn't need to ask that question.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Nov 13th, 2013 @ 8:09am

    But again, it's ONLY PR to publish some meaningless numbers.

    That you'll have no way to verify, NOR will those numbers include the number or amount of non-FISA data supplied.

    It's just PR, and this topic a standard on Techdirt.

    Meanwhile, those mega-corporations are actually worse snoops than NSA!

    Edward Snowden: Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, Apple, and the rest of our internet titans must ask themselves why they aren't fighting for our interests the same way -- Ed, those soul-less amoral entities care only about the billions they get BEING snoops!

    04:09:07[f-82-7]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Frankly, Nov 13th, 2013 @ 8:16am

    Just having fun

    They're laughing at everyone.

    Imagine the smug grins and giggling when they pull off these stunts, over and over again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 13th, 2013 @ 8:28am

    If only private citizens could redact things

    If only private citizens could redact things... then I could have some fun 'looting', err, legitimately suing, other people.

    Me: You owe me $100,000, I'm suing you for that money.
    Them: Ok, what do I owe you $100,000 for.
    Me: You know, security related things, see my court filings.
    Them: But those are all pages of redacted text, all that's not redacted is the page number and the header "you owe me $100,000" on the first page.
    Me: Those need to be kept secret, for you know, security reasons, the security of my sources of income.
    Them: Judge I'd like those briefings to be unredacted, or the redacted parts struck down entirely so that I can properly defend myself.
    Judge: No way, he's right, there's a legitimate security concern at stake here, if you or others knew what were in those filings there would be serious real world security consequences.

    *After the trial, and a $100,000 cash payment*

    Me: Here's your $25,000 cut of the verdict.
    Judge: Excellent, and I'll be sure to rule your next 10 filings also must be kept secret for our income security.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 13th, 2013 @ 8:33am

    I have seen the original documents, the read as follows.

    Because we said so ... neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener neener

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Crusty the Ex-Clown, Nov 13th, 2013 @ 8:33am

    I still like.....

    ..... the statement originally stated by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer that "If a law isn't public, it isn't a law,"

    Whatever happened to common sense?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 13th, 2013 @ 8:49am

    It appears nothing has changed, and the USA is still a country of secret courts, with secret laws.

    Nobody can challenge the secret laws, because nobody can prove the secret laws exist, and therefore everybody lacks standing to challenge our secret government.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 13th, 2013 @ 9:07am

    Perhaps the tech companies should redact their arguments against the government. Make them break the law to get the information, then sue the everloving shit out of them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 13th, 2013 @ 9:07am

    Secret laws from secret courts that are expected to be kept secret yet the citizen and company are beholden to obey the law. Yet ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law eh?

    It just keeps getting stranger and more far fetched the longer all these government agencies keep trying to come up with reasons why the public shouldn't know what they've been up to.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 13th, 2013 @ 9:17am

    But we're not an out of control police state, you see, because we can still listen to rock and roll music.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Rapnel (profile), Nov 13th, 2013 @ 9:23am

    Ohhhhh

    The Department of Just Us. I get it now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    McCrea (profile), Nov 13th, 2013 @ 9:23am

    Done with due process

    "Basically, the DOJ is saying that it can make legal arguments that only the court can see, but which the tech companies suing it cannot see. That goes against every basic concept of due process."

    Well, that just goes hand in hand with one of their reasons for blanket surveillance, that due process takes too long.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 13th, 2013 @ 9:38am

    Ah, 'murikah. Land of the human rights violation, the "do what we say not what we do", and of the "what is due process exactly?".

    Aladeen would be proud.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 13th, 2013 @ 9:39am

      Re:

      Why are you guys so anti-dictatorship? Imagine if America was a dicatatorship! You could let 1% of the people have all the nation’s wealth. You could help your rich friends get richer by cutting their taxes and bailing them out when they gamble and lose.

      You could ignore the needs of the poor for health-care and education. Your media would appear free; but would secretly be controlled by one person and his family. You could wire-tape phones. You could torture foreign prisoners. You could have rigged elections.

      You could lie about why you go to war. You could fill your prisons with one particular racial group and no one would complain. You could use the media to scare the people into supporting policies that are against their interests.

      I know this is hard for you Americans to imagine, but please: try!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    CTVic, Nov 13th, 2013 @ 9:55am

    In a follow up statement, NSA officials apologize for issuing such a heavily redacted document: "We didn't realize that our highlighter was actually a black marker."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 13th, 2013 @ 9:57am

    Leaders of the free world, providing liberty and justice for all. What truly scares me that other countries, including my own, look towards the US as a beacon of light and civilisation.

    Am I alone in wishing that the shutdown had continued to the point of the US defaulting on their loans? Personally, I think the world would be better off if the US economy collapses once and for all and gets us all out from under the financial and political control of the US.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jim Tyre, Nov 13th, 2013 @ 10:42am

    Nothing new here

    "This man, who seems to have led a life of unrelieved insignificance, must have been astonished to find himself suddenly putting the Government of the United States in such fear that it was afraid to tell him why it was afraid of him." Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 US 206, 220 (Jackson, J., Dissenting).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Coach George (profile), Nov 13th, 2013 @ 10:56am

    Pull Their Software Licenses!

    Microsoft and Google should suspend what ever licenses the DOJ is using, immediately and keep them suspended until open access to the court documents are made available!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Arsik Vek (profile), Nov 13th, 2013 @ 11:54am

    I'm picturing the discussion going something like this:

    Judge: Tech industry, the government has said some terrible things about you. How do you respond?
    Tech Lawyers: Well, what did they say?
    Judge: Terrrrrrible things. Things I can't even bring myself to repeat.
    Tech Lawyers: Well, how are we supposed to respond if we don't know what we're responding to?
    Judge: Terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrible things.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Wes, Nov 13th, 2013 @ 3:56pm

    I love the first sentence of the introduction:
    "The United States Govemment firmly supports a policy of appropriate transparency with respect to its intelligence activities.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Trevor, Nov 13th, 2013 @ 4:45pm

    WTF

    Did they really redact the footer title of the document?

    Also: Page 12, middle paragraph: "If these leading Internet companies are permitted to make these disclosures, the
    harms to national security would be compounded by the fact that other companies would surely seek to make similar disclosures..."

    so, If we let these internet companies exercise their First Amendment rights, OTHER companies would want to exercise THEIR First Amendment rights, too? SACRILEGE!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 13th, 2013 @ 7:14pm

    Reminds me of Anton Vickerman trial

    "the DOJ is saying that it can make legal arguments that only the court can see, but which the tech companies suing it cannot see. That goes against every basic concept of due process. "

    Anton Vickerman ran a TV Links site to torrents site. The trial included a portion of 'secret' evidence using a rule designed for gangland bosses and terrorists. Where the testimony is to the judge and the defense never gets to hear it or challenge it. Seriously, the judge permitted this in a copyright case!

    I've always suspected that this was GCHQ spooks testifying on surveillance data of Vickerman. Because one of the claims was that Vickerman was in collusion with Chinese pirates.
    I suspect they wanted it secret on the "terrorists will find out we're spying on Brits" rule.

    I think at this point, that case needs to be reviewed and the testimony revealed. We know GCHQ is spying on Brit comms now, so its not a secret.

    If it was GCHQ (or NSA) involved, then that would mean MPAA has intelligence agency links.

    http://pastebin.com/WAUm4dbi

    As you pointed out, New Zealand's argument against DotCom it looks like the spooks are involved in copyright cases now.

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130823/09375924294/did-new-zealand-spooks-tap-into-prism-to- spy-dotcom.shtml

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 14th, 2013 @ 7:36am

    So much for "democracy".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Matthew Cline (profile), Nov 14th, 2013 @ 8:48am

    At least they didn't redact the page number
    That's because the page number isn't a memetic hazard.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 14th, 2013 @ 7:48pm

    I think it's safe to say 1984 has arrived with the department of injustice running around.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This