HideWe're off for the long weekend! For now, check out our Black Friday sale on all Techdirt gear »
HideWe're off for the long weekend! For now, check out our Black Friday sale on all Techdirt gear »

Judge In Twitter Lawsuit Over Surveillance Disclosure Dings DOJ For Cut-And-Paste Legal Argument

from the government-control-c dept

As you will hopefully recall, there is an ongoing case between Twitter and the government over exactly how specific or not the social media service can be regarding the number of government surveillance requests it receives. Most of the rest of the big internet companies reached a settlement with the DOJ, including rules how specific companies could be (not very) in revealing such requests. Those rules basically were an attempt by the government to get tech companies to play hide-the-ball on transparency issues, in which the more specific a service attempted to be about how many individuals would be impacted by government orders, the more additional orders had to be lumped into those specifics, rendering the information useless.

Twitter, to its credit, was alone in saying that the proposed settlement wasn't good enough, and continued its fight with the DOJ. Essentially, the fight is over whether Twitter can be specific when it discloses how many orders it has received, or whether it must only disclose "bands" or ranges of orders. Recent arguments made by both sides do a nice job of highlighting the absurdity of the government's argument.

Twitter has argued that just as it has been precise in other areas of its transparency report, so too should it be allowed to say how many national security orders it has received from American authorities.

"Even under the most generous First Amendment standard, there is nothing in there that it is a national security harm to say that we received 44 as opposed to 0 to 499," Lee Rubin, a lawyer representing Twitter, said during the Tuesday hearing.

In court filings, DOJ lawyers have said that allowing Twitter to provide this specific level of information would be detrimental to national security. This assertion is according to a declaration filed by Michael Steinbach, the executive assistant director of the national security branch of the FBI, where he argued that "the disclosure of the information at issue would provide our adversaries a clear picture of the Government’s surveillance activities pertaining to national security investigations."

The DOJ has been conditioned through the acceptance of the argument by far too many courts, as well as the court of public opinion, to simply shout "national security" at any challenge to disclosing anything at all. And that's what it's doing here, as well. So much so, in fact, that the judge presiding over the case pointed out that the legal filings the DOJ had offered didn't address any of the specifics Twitter was arguing.

During the Tuesday hearing, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, an Obama-appointed judge, seemingly rebuked the government at one point and noted that its legal responses did not directly address Twitter’s arguments. "The analysis that has been provided to the court is generic to any company," she said, explaining that there was "nothing in here that is specific to Twitter.

"If I had five different cases, one by Twitter, one my Microsoft, one by Facebook and all the other groups that do this social media stuff that none of us judges do, [Steinbach] could have taken this exact same declaration and cut and paste the declaration, switched out the names of the company and I would have the same generic explanation for why it is that the government wants to do what it wants to do."

There's no ruling yet, although one is expected in the coming months. Still, it doesn't look good to have the judge dinging the DOJ for failing to address Twitter's argument that there is no national security risk in disclosing a specific number of NSLs it receives, as opposed to a range. Perhaps more importantly, it's refreshing to see a challenge to the longstanding tradition of the government being able to simply shout "national security!" at any attempt at transparency to make it go away.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: disclosure, doj, first amendment, nsls, section 702, surveillance
Companies: twitter


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Feb 2017 @ 1:49pm

    Friendly Reminder...

    National Security "Trumps" (pun intended) Your 1st Amendment Rights folks!


    "During the Tuesday hearing, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, an Obama-appointed judge, seemingly rebuked the government at one point and noted that its legal responses did not directly address Twitter’s arguments."

    More posturing for brownie points. I don't see Yvonne doing anything other than lip smacking, like most other judges. They will talk a big game and "act" like they disagree with old Uncle Sam, but they are going to do what is "expected" of them... and that is to get out the rubber stamp but put on a good show for "the sheeple".

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

    • icon
      TechDescartes (profile), 16 Feb 2017 @ 2:42pm

      Re: Friendly Reminder...

      No matter what political view is being expressed, the "pun" that X "Trumps" Y lost any minimal cleverness a year ago.

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

    • identicon
      Wendy Cockcroft, 17 Feb 2017 @ 5:52am

      Re: Friendly Reminder...

      Being appointed by the Trump administration doesn't necessarily make her a bad person. I'm not a fan of Trump but let's not be ragging on him or his appointees for imaginary offences. There are plenty of real ones to bash them for. In this case, the judge told the government off for behaving badly. Let's give her a chance and see what happens before we condemn her for "posturing." Innocent till proven guilty and all that.

      I can't stand the partisan pattycake game. Let's not be playing it, people.

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

  • icon
    Norahc (profile), 16 Feb 2017 @ 2:14pm

    Well, now at least we know where copyright trolls got the idea to cut and paste their legal arguments. After all, if it works for the DOJ it should work for them.

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


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)

Close

Add A Reply

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

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

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