Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

In expressing his view that Google is being harmed by USG's lack of transparency (combined with the godawful operational security of the contractor-run intelligence agencies), is Google's chief counsel here starting to build the standing to sue the government?

If this whole debacle sets up an epic confrontation between Google and the DoJ, I may have to reevaluate how irritated I am at how "Prism" has been reported. More Greenwald agita! Let's see if we can pick a fight!

View on HN

This is wishful thinking.

I have two ideas that are just as well supported by the complete lack of facts that we all have.

First, that Google is setting us up to believe a half-truth related to FISA letter counts. There are such numbers, we will get them, and they will not include all surveillance conducted with Google's data but anyone who says that will be back to being a crank.

Second, that Google perceives an existential threat to their company along two related but separate axis. The first is that their customers will leave, but that is less likely than the second. The second is that their best employees will leave. Googlers will not want to consider themselves as clerks in the Ministry of Truth. If they and their peers began to think about it in that way, then they will leave and the business will eventually die. If their employees have a credible excuse to think of their employer as a noble crusader, then this threat is significantly mitigated.

How is that claim falsifiable?

It isn't a claim at all, its simply speculation. I think you raise an interesting point though, which is that there is no possible evidence, testimony or papers written by blue-ribbon commissions (coming in 2017!) that will ever "settle" these questions in some quarters.

Just to clarify, I think you are irritated with the inaccurate/sensationalist reporting of PRISM, and not that it was leaked to begin with?

My perspective on this is going to sound weird to you.

1. I am very irritated at inaccurate and sensationalized reporting.

2. I think the USG should have been much more open and forthcoming, at least in the aggregate, about how foreign signals intelligence was coming into contact with online services used mostly by citizens.

3. I think leaking details of signals intelligence programs should be a crime.

4. I hope Google picks a giant fight with the DoJ and wins it.

I agree with your perspective, with the exception of a slight modification to #3. I believe that leaking should be a crime, but I also believe that if the court of public opinion judges the original secret worse than the leak, that it should become politically out-of-bounds to actually prosecute the case.

I think there's a world of difference between Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden. And while I think Manning's treatment has been harsh, I do think he should be prosecuted because he was reckless and untargeted. Snowden clearly has a much more focused goal and surgical approach.

I don't know enough about what happened with Snowden to have an opinion about him one way or another; I'm just not of the opinion that leaks are by default heroic.

What if one of Kim Jung Un's subordinates leaks details on "abuses" in the prison camp system? Technically he's breaking the law - North Korea's law - but I think it would be difficult to say that it would be the wrong thing to do. Also, if these reports are accurate, then I wouldn't necessarily consider that analogy too hyperbolic.

The key phrase in tptacek's comment would be "by default."

> 3. I think leaking details of signals intelligence programs should be a crime.

This one surprised me. Wouldn't the strongest signals intelligence program be one that doesn't need to depend on obfuscation?

Can you expand on this idea?

I would think that one of the main points of signals intelligence and their efficacy is if the emitter is not aware that you are collecting their signal.

Then you run the risk (as it just happened) of having the program losing efficacy if knowledge about it is leaked. Compared to a hypothetical program where knowing of its existence doesn't weaken it. Whether such a system can be built is debatable (something like the universal eavesdropping in 1984), but not a priori impossible.

3. I think leaking details of signals intelligence programs should be a crime.

I think dealing in absolutes, anywhere, should be a crime.

by saying "anywhere", aren't you dealing in absolutes?

He absolutely is

3 surprises me. I don't think leaking should ever be a crime. Making leaking a crime is an invitation for the government to engage in more illegal activities.

Leaking should get you fired, of course. Realistically, it will and you'll be blackballed from working in security forever. I think that's more than enough incentive not to leak unless there is real abuse going on.

I like the theory, but you don't need to send an open letter for standing. The FISCOR already granted standing exists for providers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com