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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2015 @ 9:46am

    Re: Re: Re: 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.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.