Feds Gagged Google Over Wikileaks Warrants Because They Were 'Upset By The Backlash' To Similar Twitter Warrants
from the that's-not-how-it-works dept
Earlier this week, we wrote about how the feds got a warrant demanding all email and other information about three Wikileaks-associated reporters. While the warrants issued in 2012, Wikileaks only found out about it a few weeks ago when Google told them, saying that an earlier gag order had been partially lifted. Wikileaks lashed out at Google for not letting them know earlier. However, in response, Google has noted that it fought the request and that it was gagged from saying anything until now.
Google says it challenged the secrecy from the beginning and was able to alert the customers only after the gag orders on those warrants were partly lifted, said Gidari, a partner at Perkins Coie.
?From January 2011 to the present, Google has continued to fight to lift the gag orders on any legal process it has received on WikiLeaks,? he said, adding that the firm?s policy is to challenge all gag orders that have indefinite time periods.
But, much more interesting was a separate point made by the lawyer, Albert Gidari, over why the feds demanded the gag order:
According to Gidari, whose firm has represented both firms, Google?s delay was not the result of foot-dragging but of opposition from prosecutors who were upset by the backlash that followed the disclosure of their court orders to Twitter.
[….]
?The U.S. attorney?s office thought the notice and the resulting publicity was a disaster for them,? Gidari said. ?They were very upset? about the prosecutor?s name and phone number being disclosed, he said. ?They went through the roof.?
Gidari also claims that “Google litigated up and down through the courts trying to get the orders modified so that notice could be given.”
If you don’t recall, the feds attempt to get information from Twitter made headlines back in 2011 for trying to get access to Icelandic politician (and Wikileaks supporter) Birgitta Jonsdottir’s account.
If it’s true that this was truly the reason for the gag order, that is equal parts ridiculous, pathetic and dangerous. There are legitimate reasons for limited gag orders in specific cases at specific times. But a general, unending, broad gag order “because we don’t like the backlash” is not one of them. At all. But that’s what you get when there’s no real oversight or pushback to the surveillance state.
Filed Under: backlash, free speech, gag order, surveillance, warrants
Companies: google, twitter, wikileaks
Comments on “Feds Gagged Google Over Wikileaks Warrants Because They Were 'Upset By The Backlash' To Similar Twitter Warrants”
This is really not a complicated subject
If you don’t want a public backlash over your actions, the proper response is not ‘hide everything and don’t let the public find out’, it’s ‘stop doing things that you know the public will object to‘.
Re: This is really not a complicated subject
In an ideal world this would result in real punishments for the nones involved. One way to avoid abuses would be to limit such orders in the law both in terms of time and also in scope and only if a judge issues an order that allows them.
Re: This is really not a complicated subject
The government doesn’t represent the public and what the public wants it only represents itself.
Re: This is really not a complicated subject
stop doing things that you know the public will object to
Come off it. That kind of thinking leads to democracy.
Re: Stop doing evil shit.
I think the problem is that our governments have gotten away with evil shit for so long. And they would have continued to do so if it weren’t for that meddling internet.
It may take a while for them to realize that small leaks can no longer be contained, rather explode spectacularly.
Re: This is really not a complicated subject
“But a general, unending, broad gag order “because we don’t like the backlash” is not one of them. At all.”
Federal judges apparently think it is.
There are legitimate reasons for limited gag orders…
No, there isn’t. A gag order, by its very definition, is a cover-up tool.
If there’s any legitimate reason, I’d like to see just one example of it in use.
Re: Re:
Sometimes they may be important. For instance, keeping some names secret so there won’t be public lynching before things are sorted out. Or keeping somebody investigated for some crime from knowing and jeopardizing the case. However gag orders should be narrow and limited by a reasonable time-frame. If you let it free as it is happening it becomes a tool for abuse and trampling of citizen’s rights.
Re: Re:
I would limit it to the end of the investigation at the latest. And I would require a warrant and full disclosure after the fact by the agents involved.
Re: Re:
I agree. It’s totally unconstitutional to make a law abridging freedom of speech.
Re: Re:
Where identifying the parents of a minor involved in a case would identify the minor themselves.
THIS isn’t one of those times. Gov’t should NEVER be allowed such luxuries.
\You can What-If until the cows come home, eventually godwin.
I am impressed. One comment by an attorney for Google and it is automatically established the reason why a gag order was sought. Digging into a story at its finest, even though neither the agency nor the court appear to have been contacted.
Stories here carry far more persuasive force and resemblance to journalism when pre-publication investigation reaches out to all parties, and not just the lawyer for one party to a matter.
Re: Re:
The problem here is that no one would be able to trust the agency or court anymore. Even if this isn’t the reason, the fact is it’s no longer necessary to ask the court or agency behind this because we expect to get lied to anyway.
Re: Re: Re:
I regret that I have but one ‘Insightful’ vote to give this comment.
Re: Re: Re:
So, because you of your distrust you are prepared to accept at face value what the attorney for a party has to say about the matter. You do realize, of course, that one role of any lawyer is to make his/her client appear to the public to be the second coming of Christ and other party the devil incarnate?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
One agency has a proven credibility problem – so yes, I’m prepared to distrust whatever they have to say. Aren’t courts also supposed to take the credibility of either side into question?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It’s not as binary as all of that. However, in the absence of evidence, we have to go with inherent trustworthiness. Due to the track record of the feds, between a random random lawyer and the feds, the random lawyer is a bit more trustworthy.
But that does not mean that I accept the random lawyer’s statements as gospel, just that the random lawyer is currently the more trustworthy source between the two.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
This is how far our government has fallen. Random lawyers are now more trustworthy than the FBI.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
That’s really not saying much though. A random homeless drunkard and/or crackhead on the street would be more trustworthy than pretty much anyone in the government at this point.
The drunkard/crackhead? They might lie to you, intentionally or not. The person from the government? They almost certainly will lie to you, fully aware that they are doing so.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, considering one has a long-storied history of l;ying to the public and its overseers, yes.
Re: Re: Re:
“The problem here is that no one would be able to trust the agency or court anymore.”
This.
At this point, I have very nearly no trust whatsoever in the truthfulness and accuracy of their statements, and so it doesn’t much matter what they have to say.
Re: Re:
Stories here carry far more persuasive force and resemblance to journalism when pre-publication investigation reaches out to all parties, and not just the lawyer for one party to a matter.
Obviously, you prefer the lazy “he said/she said” style of reporting that pervades mainstream media.
Techdirt doesn’t subscribe to that philosophy:
Real Reporting Is About Revealing Truth; Not Granting ‘Equal Weight’ To Bogus Arguments
Re: Re: Re:
You are right. TD does not subscribe to that philosophy, or any philosophy for that matter, or so it appears, that cuts against the grain of what it openly advocates in so many of its stories that it tries to pass off as news versus what they actually comprise, editorial opinion.
The author of the article would have you accept as fact that a gag order was sought solely because the agency did not like what allegedly happened in a prior case involving another website. If you accept this as the reason without question, then you have fallen prey to intellectual laziness. I would want to know more about the gag order, all the reasons underlying why it was requested, what the order actually said, etc. Otherwise, all you have is an unsubstantiated, single party account from a party having a strong interest in appearing entirely sympathetic to the public.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you know that if you type rahrahgoogle.com into your browser, you’ll be directed to techdirt?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“what it openly advocates in so many of its stories that it tries to pass off as news versus what they actually comprise, editorial opinion.”
Umm, you do understand that this is an editorial and commentary site, right? It has never claimed to be anything else.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Absolutely false. It proclaims to be a source of accurate information that relies upon objective, verifiable evidence, and with liberal reliance upon the inputs from third party experts. It could be just that, and perhaps early on that was its tendency. Over the past few years, however, it has in my view altered course and become an all too predictable advocacy organization that presents one-sided information.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Your opinion is noted and filed in the circular bin.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“I would want to know more about the gag order, all the reasons underlying why it was requested, what the order actually said, etc.”
None of which is possible to learn about, except perhaps the actual text of the order — which is very likely to be the same as the texts of other gag orders and so would not reveal the reasons.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
TD does not subscribe to that philosophy, or any philosophy for that matter, or so it appears, that cuts against the grain of what it openly advocates in so many of its stories that it tries to pass off as news versus what they actually comprise, editorial opinion.
Techdirt has ALWAYS maintained that it is an opinion blog. Not sure why you think otherwise.
The author of the article would have you accept as fact that a gag order was sought solely because the agency did not like what allegedly happened in a prior case involving another website.
Not really. Did you even read the last paragraph? Mike’s opinion was prefaced with: “If it’s true that this was truly the reason for the gag order…”.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
TD does not subscribe to that philosophy, or any philosophy for that matter, or so it appears, that cuts against the grain of what it openly advocates in so many of its stories that it tries to pass off as news versus what they actually comprise, editorial opinion.
From the very beginning we have always said that we are an opinion site. That has never changed. Why do you lie?
If you accept this as the reason without question, then you have fallen prey to intellectual laziness.
Of course, what you leave out is that you do this same thing all the time on stories about stories that you happen to agree with. You had no problem with DHS seizing websites because they must be infringing. You had no problem with stories about patent trolls because patents are lovely in your demented world. You have no problem with the NSA’s lies about surveillance because, surely, they are right.
You are an out and out authoritarian lapdog. Yet you are the one who comes here and pedantically pretends that only you are so wise as to know what’s really going on.
And then you want to flat out LIE and pretend we claimed we’re not providing an opinion? You’re hilarious.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Always said you are an opinion site? Seriously? All those definitive articles concerning subjects such as patents and copyrights, with citations as to why they are and can/should never be viewed as property. All the “analysis” of legislation as if articles are objective PSAs. SOPA “analysis” that was repeatedly defended as 100% accurate even when glaring errors were noted.
No, when I first stumbled upon this site and read some of its articles I believed that perhaps I had found a site that truly was interested in exploring for the benefit of its readers all sides of vexing issues. For a while this seemed to be the case, though clearly economic analysis seemed at times a bit one sided and cherry-picking of facts to fit a desired narrative began to appear with greater frequency.
My initial impression of the site gave way over time to the realization that is was shilling for a specific viewpoint, and had little interest in engaging in discussions that required a thorough knowledge of underlying facts and relevant law. Make a statement about what the law is and a quick retort followed that unnamed experts disagreed. Make a statement about factual information necessary to understand an issue and retorts followed that one was a shill, a maximalist, pathetic, and other choice words that I dare not repeat.
No, your site has begun to get drunk on the wine of its perceived popularity, and in such a state has embarked on a course where truth and objective reporting far too often takes a back seat to partisan advocacy.
While you will no doubt have a different recollection, I have attempted over the time I have submitted comments to avoid expressing any personal views pro or con concerning IP law. I have repeatedly stated I save my personal views of the law for work that I do in conjunction with law association committees in the crafting of legislative proposals, legal briefs, etc.
As for “authoritarian lapdog”, if mischaracterizing what someone says gives you a feeling of self-satisfaction and superiority, then so be it. But just once take the time to actually read in an objective, inquisitive manner what was said. Quite some time ago you mocked me when I stated the underlying motivation of copyright law as expressed at the time of the 1790 Act was the encouragement of learning, the very term used in the Statute of Anne in England. This was in response to your insistence that “progress” as used in the enabling constitutional provision could only mean economic progress. Funny how some years later I came to note that what I had originally said had seemed to sink in and was being repeated in your articles. Would it have been so hard back then to eschew mocking and actually take the time to engage in a back and forth conversation with a mindset of trying to expand your knowledge of copyright law?
I am the first to admit that I do not know everything. In fact, I have stated that with age I have come to understand just how little I truly know because issues such as discussed here rarely admit to easy answers and require researching facts, law, and other relevant considerations. I would be interested in having a conversation with you when you have such an epiphany. You would likely discover that we agree far more than we disagree, and where we disagree it is usually because based upon my experience you have not considered the possibility of other factors that tend to undercut your opinions.
On a closing note, you do realize, do you not, just how easy it is to get a rise out of you? Lighten up. Take the time to ask questions of comments with which you may disagree or may not fully understand, and you just might be surprised that a mutually beneficial and cordial conversation will follow.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I find it interesting that in this entire diatribe, you haven’t offered a single thing to support your contention that Techdirt has ever purported to be an unbiased news service.
Probably because it never has.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Perhaps because nowhere was it stated that TD is a news service, but only that many stories purporting to be news (fact based) are biased editorials disguised as news.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Are you saying that things quoting the MPAA, NSA, etc. and their actions aren’t fact-based?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Yes, because one’s personal beliefs are much more appropriately voiced in legislative proposals, rather than in the Comments section of an Op/Ed blog.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Perhaps it has not occurred to you that many of these matters are quite involved and require extensive discussion to express with a degree of accuracy. Professional associations exist in part precisely to foster such discussions.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Perhaps it has not occurred to you that this is the damn internet, and you are free to link to as many publicly published meeting minutes, briefs, and proposals as you wish? “I have irrefutable, unbiased evidence and arguments that support my position, but there is insufficient space to provide them” doesn’t really cut it.
More of the old mathematician dodge of “the proof is of course trivial, and left as an exercise”.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
And your side is staffed by trolls who regularly insult its “opponents” as pirates and freetards without citing their sources, tell everyone else to “FOAD” and generally act all high and mighty.
Every time the MPAA does something you’re the first to kiss the ground where Chris Dodd walked.
No, it’s far easier to get a rise out of you.
Re: Re:
The rest of us have to vocally declare our right to remain silent – simply doing so without declaring it can be used against us.
I see no reason to not apply the same logic here. They can certainly rebuke the claim if they want to, but at face value, I find their silence about the matter troubling.
Re: Re:
One comment by an attorney for Google and it is automatically established the reason why a gag order was sought.
Well, they sought mails from journalists reporting on crimes of the US government. So what exactly do you expect the reason to be they wanted these mails in the first place?
Asked differently: What are the chances that a criminal investigation would be hampered by the public knowing these mails were sought, versus the likelihood that this was a fishing expedition not aimed at the journalists in question, but to get their sources, and the gag order put in place to avoid backlash for their own wrongdoing?
Occam says it’s the latter.
Re: Re:
And when the MPAA makes a statement you eat it up like a dog and a turd.
Gag orders…..yet another abuse
Par for the course
Sounds like mainstream U.S. politics.
So they basically know what their doing would piss people off……well how do they think we feel now…..knowing they knew, doing it anyway, and attempting to silence anyone who’d be doing a public service by revealing esentially that their basically doing whatever the fuck they want, with NO regard to rights, priciples or morality, ……..these things
Possible hint in quote
Boldface mine. This could just be a slip of the tongue, but it could also be an indication that there are other, still fully gagged, orders that Google is litigating.
Idiot politician thinking
Problem: Public outcry over government censorship
Solution: More government censorship
Moan
If one were to gag a gaggle of Googles, how many Google gags would it take?
Public Opinion
Can we just get it put into law already that public opinion is NEVER a valid reason for a gag order or classification/redaction decision? And then put real teeth on the rule, so that officials making these decisions actually pay attention. Something like losing a challenge to a gag order results in jail time for the individual public official that made the decision?
Federal Agent Job = Embarrassment for their Familes
It must be an embarrassment for federal agents families to admit one of their own is an agent.
How can they still think they are remotely worth anything anymore when all they do is this garbage.
Re: Federal Agent Job = Embarrassment for their Familes
Well at one time CIA employees were instructed to tell anybody that asked that they worked “for the US government” and nothing more. If they went any further they lost their jobs. (Don’t know if that’s still true today but that’s what was required in the 1970s.)
Re: Re: "Um...I work for the government."
Yeah, that quickly became “I work for the government ” since anyone who merely worked for the “government” was working for the CIA…or something worse.
Savvy agents who didn’t want to raise questions would claim to work for the State Department.
Backlash and embarrassment are the driving force
Of course it is, “equal parts ridiculous, pathetic and dangerous,” that the government would impose a gag order to avoid backlash and/or embarrassment.
It is also my estimation that avoiding backlash and/or embarrassment accounts for around 85% of the times that the government imposes a gag, asserts “national security”, or says it “can’t invade someone’s privacy”.
The FOIA was supposed to have prevented the government from hiding malfeasance and incompetence, the primary causes of embarrassment and backlash. But it’s been effectively gutted because they just wave “National Security” and FOIA is gone.
To me, personal privacy excuses are especially annoying because the government doesn’t care at tinker’s curse about it. They violate it often enough when it’s to their advantage, but when they will be embarrassed, “Oh, gee, poor _____’s privacy, it’s soooo sacrosanct!” Hypocrites.
wifi banned in schools
You mention in your post that there is absolutely no evidence to support concerns about wifi and EFT’s harming people. Perhaps you should do a little more homework…or buy yourself a meter that measures such things and walk around your house.
For a start, try Dr. Magda Havas’ website: http://www.magdahavas.com/ at Trent University. She’s been studying/researching the field of electromagnetics for years! In the late 1980’s ago I went to a lecture at the College of Dentistry at the University of Toronto, where a British physician was lecturing on electromagnetic pollution and its effect on human energy fields…with lots of supporting evidence.
And how about the Resolution that was approved by members of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (RNCNIRP) at its Committee session on 3 March 2011. “The Resolution evolved from scientific statements adopted by RNCNIRP in 2001, 2004, 2007, 2008 and 2009, taking into account contemporary views and actual
scientific data. The Resolution represents a viewpoint of the professional scientific community and is meant for public dissemination, for the consumers of the mobile
telecommunications services, as well as for the legislative and executive authorities who develop and implement health protection, environmental, communication, scientific
and safety policies.” Check out: http://www.magdahavas.com/international-experts-perspective-on-the-health-effects-of-electromagnetic-fields-emf-and-electromagnetic-radiation-emr/ for a few more scientific bodies studying this subject…but then perhaps you already know that these guys are all quacks, eh!
Or try http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/12/e003836.full The British Medical Journal’s cross-sectional study on GSM radiation from mobile phone base stations.
Or try reading THE BODY ELECTRIC or CROSS CURRENTS by Robert O Becker, MD; or ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS by Blake Levitt; or THE GREAT POWER-LINE COVER-UP by Paul Brodeur; or CELL PHONES: INVISIBLE HAZARDS IN THE WIRELESS WORLD by Dr. George Carlo.
No evidence, eh?
Children’s skulls are thinner than adults, leaving them more suceptible to radiation of any sort. The computer industry cleaned up its act in terms of screens and computers, perhaps its time the wifi industry did it’s due diligence as well… Actually, the modern car is just as bad, with very high levels of EMF’s around the legs and feet.
My sense is that the profit motive and laziness, which seems to accompany those who are ‘attached’ to their devices is part of the issue rather than our well being.
Re: wifi banned in schools
Is it just me, or are NSA psyops programs getting weirder?
Unbelievable! The justice system appears to be operating in the shadows and free of public scrutiny. Service industries are forbidden from notifying account holders that their personal communications are being searched and seized by the government without a warrant.
I don’t know if authoritarian or totalitarian better describes these situations. I’m going to have to go with totalitarian, because the government is directly interfering and dictating the actions of citizens. Under threat of incarceration if they don’t obey the commands demanded of them.