home

Tech Companies Write Obama and Congress

The big 8 Tech Companies have sent a letter to President Obama and Congress urging them to scale back surveillance programs.

The 8 companies are: AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, and Yahoo.

You can read their letter on the website they have set up, Reform Government Surveillance.

"We understand that governments have a duty to protect their citizens. But this summer's revelations highlighted the urgent need to reform government surveillance practices worldwide... "The balance in many countries has tipped too far in favor of the state and away from the rights of the individual - rights that are enshrined in our Constitution. "This undermines the freedoms we all cherish. It's time for a change."

[More...]

As to their role:

For our part, we are focused on keeping users’ data secure — deploying the latest encryption technology to prevent unauthorized surveillance on our networks and by pushing back on government requests to ensure that they are legal and reasonable in scope.

The companies list 4 basic principles to which the Governments should adhere. You can read them here.

  • Limiting Governments’ Authority to Collect Users’ Information
  • Oversight and Accountability
  • Transparency About Government Demands
  • Respecting the Free Flow of Information
  • Avoiding Conflicts Among Governments

I may be in the minority on this, but I am more concerned about the information these companies collect on us than I am the Government's dragnet policies. Notice not one company makes a statement they will cease complying with lawful Government requests for information. All it takes is a subpoena for law enforcement to get vasts amount of specific data about you from phone companies and internet providers.

When the Government dragnets 5 million cell phone numbers and call data, it has limited resources and personnel to examine them all. In a perverted way, the more numbers they get, the less likely it is that any one person will be examined. By contrast, the excessive sharing policies of the social media companies results in all the connections of any individual the Government sets its sights on being handed to it on a silver platter, with just a subpoena, and in some cases, a warrant.

Instead of writing letters asking for legislative change, I'd like to see these companies challenge the requests for information on their customers and let a judge decide, rather than just handing over the requested data. Maybe the companies could disconnect their fax numbers so law enforcement can't just fax over the requests. They could give their employees new email addresses and specify they are not to be used as contacts for law enforcement requests. Let the cops do it the old way: by letter demand and mail. Except in the case of a true emergency, there's no reason this information has to be provided with a 24 hour turnaround. Slowing down the process might serve as a deterrent -- the cops have gotten too used to instant gratification when it comes to data requests.

So, from my point of view, good for the internet companies for writing a letter, but they could be doing so much more.

< NFL Sunday Open Thread | Human Rights Court Holds Hearing on CIA's Use of Poland >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I also would've like to see these companies... (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Dadler on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 08:16:14 AM EST
    ...have the courage to praise the young man who made those revelations possible, Edward Snowden, as a great American and champion of freedom and transparency in government, and that he be immediately welcomed home not with threats of arrest but with thanks from every free American who values NOT living in a de-facto police state that assumes they are guilty here.

    Great post, J. Thanks.

    Agree. However, expressing (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by KeysDan on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 11:05:40 AM EST
    kind words of any sort for Edward Snowden would be the farthest from their minds.  Their business plan is, essentially,  "courage is not us."   The administration's position is to get Snowden and make an example of him rather than to address systemic issues.   It would seem that the priority would be to determine how a 30-year old analyst in Hawaii who did not work (directly) for the government could have access to, and the ability to obtain,  such a vast array of sensitive secrets.

    When NSA chief, Keith Alexander, offered to resign over the Snowden matter, the White House refused to accept it--reportedly because then Snowden would "win."  Clearly, the buck stops with Snowden.

    Parent

    Agreed. And aceholes, all of them (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Dadler on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 01:19:04 PM EST
    Snowden is the hero here. The more we pound it home, the more people understand who this kid is -- how his actions mirror those of past heroes like Daniel Ellsberg during Vietnam, and what this kid risked -- the more we do than we can do. If that makes sense.

    Parent
    I thought (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by lentinel on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 12:29:34 PM EST
    the same thing when I read,

    ...this summer's revelations highlighted the urgent need to reform government surveillance practices worldwide.

    They didn't have the guts to name Snowden as the author of those revelations.

    So, that left me right away with the distinct impression that their statement was so much hørsesh-t.

    Parent

    While I Agree 100%... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 02:27:04 PM EST
    ...they can't exactly ask the government for 'favors' while praising the deeds of the governments most wanted 'outlaw'.

    There is no doubt in my mind that our government has turned into a petty and vindictive bunch who would not hesitate to quiet any company not towing the Snowden line.

    Just using their enormous power and visibility to ask the government to rethink it's policies this day and age is courageous in itself.  Maybe ?  Depends on all those secret 'requests' we never see that we know now, thanks to Snowden, the government is pulling in regards to what used to be considered private and sensitive information about their customers.

    Just one more conversation that is almost impossible to have because we don't have any idea what is really going on.  It's just too damn bad these companies as incapable of self-reflection in term of our privacy.

    But real courage would be for them to announce they are no longer collecting storing data that we don't want them to have.  They are the right hand of the government in this case, maybe not willing, but if they stopped collecting that data, the government couldn't require them to produce information they never had.

    My phone communicates with Google servers, not US Government servers, they are only copying what Google is collecting.

    Parent

    Just say his phuckng name... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Dadler on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 02:51:03 PM EST
    ...that's all I want those cowards to do. What, is Obama really going to start labeling Sergy Brin a subversive. Now is the time, speak loud and clear, praise the kid, put him in context. It's just g-damn Orwellian not to.

    But I'm crazy, I admit.

    Parent

    Yep. (none / 0) (#24)
    by lentinel on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 06:00:19 PM EST
    But real courage would be for them to announce they are no longer collecting storing data that we don't want them to have.  

    Couldn't agree more.

    No courage shown by them 8 biggies.

    Just playing both sides of the coin.

    It's a tell.
    They may as well be saying that they're in bed with the NSA and they're staying there - and they're making oodles of money and they like it that way thank you very much chumps.

    Parent

    Snowden (none / 0) (#29)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 11:11:06 PM EST
    is a political third rail right now. Nobody with plans for a future in politics is going to touch him one way or another concerned that some negative attack ad will show up from it. This is the era of safe politically correct speech only.

    Parent
    Talk About the Pot calling the... (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 10:29:04 AM EST
    ...the kettle black.  At least I know what the government is using the data for and they aren't selling it for profit.

    Linked In is one company I seriously dislike.  I never put any of my info online for them, but about once a month I get someone with a 'job opportunity'.  I can't logon because I don't have an account, and I fear that if I set on up, it will make their BS valid in that I have an account.  When I Google my name, all my work info is right there, including address.

    I have written them numerous times asking for my data to be removed, every time they say 'no problem' and not a thing happens.  I don't like someone having the ability to track me down by simply searching my name in Google.

    Speaking of, what about Google, you can fine tune your settings, but I don't believe for a minute they are tracking everything and using it to make money, even when I use Yahoo for searches.  I keep getting Google+ invitation even though I have shit that function off, so it's a real mystery to me whether it's actually off...

    I would pay serious cash for a web browser that would ensure no one is collecting my data in the private sector.  Firefox seems like the best option, but they collect data and even though I have a plug in that is suppose to block Google, I get Google ads for stuff I have looked at, so it's not working as advertized.

    I rarely use Twitter and none of the other services beyond the occasional Bing or Yahoo search.  And who in the hell is still using AOL ?

    You're smart. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 02:21:10 PM EST
    ScottW714: "Linked In is one company I seriously dislike.  I never put any of my info online for them, but about once a month I get someone with a 'job opportunity'.  I can't logon because I don't have an account, and I fear that if I set on up, it will make their BS valid in that I have an account.  When I Google my name, all my work info is right there, including address."

    I made the mistake of signing up with Linked-In years ago. I regret that decision almost every time I check my e-mail. They're the online equivalent of vermin, and we have no pest control.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    This should make you worry (none / 0) (#31)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 11:29:30 PM EST
    I agree with you, and have never signed up.

    Parent
    AOL (none / 0) (#7)
    by lentinel on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 12:24:43 PM EST
    now owns the Huffington Post.

    I wonder how many commenters on Huffpo with unflattering things to say about Mr. Obama and the way his government is functioning are being put on some kind of list...

    Parent

    Probably none (none / 0) (#10)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 12:35:56 PM EST
    You (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by lentinel on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    are more trusting than I am.

    All of the comments are "monitored" - by whom we don't know - but I'll wager if something rings a bell for these "monitors", off to the NSA we go.

    Parent

    They Collect All of It... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 02:48:04 PM EST
    ...from here to baseball blogs and rather than lists, I suspect they just type in your name and wholla, your entire online persona.

    I do find myself censoring myself.  I really want to buy an electric cooker of the pressurized kind, but I am not putting the two words together in Google after Boston and reading about that woman who had the FBI at her door after searching for the same item.

    Parent

    Type your name into Spokeo.com (none / 0) (#20)
    by vml68 on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 04:14:34 PM EST
    See what info they have about you.

    Parent
    Before (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by lentinel on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 04:53:59 PM EST
    I do that - could you say what that is - Spokeo.com?

    And - by submitting my name to see what info they have -- am I opening a can of worms like --- "what does this fool typing his/her name into Spokeo have to be afraid of? Why is this miscreant trying to find out what we have on him/her?"

    Parent

    Be afraid. Be very afraid. (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 05:37:54 PM EST
    Spokeo is a people search engine that organizes White Pages listings, Public Records and Social Network Information to help you safely find & learn about people.


    Parent
    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by lentinel on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 05:56:23 PM EST
    for the quote...

    I think I'll pass.

    Parent

    Here you go, Lentinel. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by vml68 on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 07:30:02 PM EST
    Wikipedia - Spokeo

    From abine.com...
    With a quick search of your name, a screen pops up showing the members of your family, the addresses where you used to live, a photo of your house, an estimate of your net worth, videos and photos of you, your hobbies, and your online profiles.  No, we're not describing an FBI background check--we're talking about Spokeo.com, a free website that collects and provides your personal information to anyone who looks for it.  The free "individual search can display: your full name, address, employer, last four digits of your telephone, parents names, siblings, marital status, and more...

    They collect your data from various sources and then anyone who does a search on you, can buy all the info from  them. It is very creepy.


    Parent

    Btw, I am glad to see you still posting. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by vml68 on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 07:49:30 PM EST
    I was afraid you had had enough, like Edger.

    Parent
    That capability (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 07:19:36 PM EST
    has existed and been used by private companies for a long, long time.

    Parent
    The difference now (none / 0) (#33)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 11:36:19 PM EST
    is lower cost by an order of magnitude or more. The sort of information you can get about someone for a buck, $5, #25 is close to spooky.

    I am very much a privacy advocate, but at the same time I think a clear line needs to exist on what can be hidden and what should be easy to know about someone. What requires the persons consent to find out, and what does not.

    Parent

    What has happened (none / 0) (#34)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 10, 2013 at 12:21:24 AM EST
    is that public information has become digitized.

    For example, decades ago the publicly recorded deeds showed who owned what house.  Now those records are more and more accessible without physically going down to each county's recorder's office. And so on.

    Parent

    Sound like LexisNexis to me (none / 0) (#28)
    by fishcamp on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 09:14:21 PM EST
    Yeah (none / 0) (#38)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Dec 10, 2013 at 10:34:28 AM EST
    The administration that used its IRS arm to hold up Tea Party apps for non-profit status would NEVER use government power for political purposes.

    (No fan of the Tea Party.  Less of a fan of this level of governmental corruption.  The Democrats won't always be in power....)

    Parent

    There is no evidence (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 10, 2013 at 01:57:55 PM EST
    to support that accusation.

    There is no evidence of White House involvement or knowledge.

    Parent

    Some might say... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 10, 2013 at 02:02:51 PM EST
    ignorance is no excuse.

    Not new in the last 5 years of course...I think there has been far too much autonomy at the NSA, CIA, IRS, you name it for several decades now....only the name and brand of the Commander-n-Chief changes.  

    Parent

    I think what the IRS (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 10, 2013 at 02:27:44 PM EST
    did with respect to the applications of Tea Partiers was correct.

    Parent
    Cracking down on... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 10, 2013 at 02:41:44 PM EST
    all bogus tax-exempt orgs is legit...cracking down on tax-exempt orgs from one side of the ideological aisle disproportionately not so much.  I'm sure the boys who cry wolf from the right made it out worse than it was, they always do, but where there is smoke there is fire.

    Parent
    Today, December 11, (none / 0) (#57)
    by lentinel on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 05:35:08 AM EST
    speaking of invasion of privacy:

    AOL, owner of Huffington Post, will no longer allow people to comment unless they are also on Facebook.

    Facebook, is one of those unsavory (imo) organizations that has been most accomodating to government spying on the personal data of its members.

    Nertz to Huffpo.

    Nertz to AOL.

    Who needs 'em?

    Parent

    Maintaining privacy (none / 0) (#59)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 01:04:51 PM EST
    will be an elusive goal.

    Governments can't do it, even with all their resources.

    Businesses will sell it because money is at stake.

    Trying to have and enforce information boundaries will be a challenge indeed.  

    Parent

    It's not (none / 0) (#60)
    by lentinel on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 04:53:59 PM EST
    that governments can't do it - protect our privacy - government is at present the largest invader of our privacy. Our government is not interested in protecting our personal information. It is interested in gathering it.

    Companies like AOL and ATT and the rest are the lackies. They go along willingly - but ultimately they also have no real choice since the government has a lot to say about whether they sink or swim.

    Businesses selling to one another is one thing.
    It's the sale or giving or surrendering of our personal information to the government that is most chilling.

    Those government guys can put you away.

    Parent

    I am not sure (none / 0) (#62)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 11:59:24 PM EST
    I agree that the government is the largest invader.....

    Private companies know a lot.   And they use it.

    If the government can't stop Snowden, it is unlikely to maintain others' privacy either.

    Because the capability exists, it will be used (and abused) unless someone stops them--the private companies and the government.   And how you do that is yet to be determined.

    Use cash and don't use computers or cell phones, and wear a mask in public to avoid the cameras....

    Parent

    All of them (none / 0) (#32)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 11:30:11 PM EST
    Maybe more than one list.

    Parent
    The (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by lentinel on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 12:22:34 PM EST
    way I read this is the big 8 tech companies are mounting a campaign to put themselves in a good light and to encourage people to continue to provide them with their personal information.

    All the while, they are promising nothing by way of insuring that the information they collect will be protected from unwarranted seizures from predatory agencies such as the NSA.

    To me, this is a p.r. campaign by these creepy companies to make us think that they are on our side without them actually having to do anything concrete to protect us.

    Talk about "it's time for a change"...
    Didn't we hear that some years ago from the current head of our government when he was running for office in 2008?

    Nertz.

    The Power of Truth (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Dadler on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 01:23:37 PM EST
    As sung in the century-plus old folk tune "Rilen Spencer" by James Rawely:

    You can chop down the flowers
    All around my grave
    But they'll rise and bloom again.

    Fight the power, my friends. (Public Enemy '89.)

    I agree with you 100%, Jeralyn. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Dec 09, 2013 at 02:15:52 PM EST
    Jeralyn: "I may be in the minority on this, but I am more concerned about the information these companies collect on us than I am the Government's dragnet policies. Notice not one company makes a statement they will cease complying with lawful Government requests for information. All it takes is a subpoena for law enforcement to get vasts amount of specific data about you from phone companies and internet providers."

    I've been saying that since this scandal first broke. We're all aflutter over government prying, yet correspondingly nonchalant about corporate intrusiveness into our lives. In fact, we all too often give our private information away to these companies without even thinking about what we're doing. For its part, the NSA is simply accessing vast databases which have already been assembled and compiled by the very corporations who are now crying, "Who -- me?"

    If we really want to solve the problem, then we need to limit and curtail both the type and the amount of personal information that corporations can gather on their clients, customers or potential customers. Because otherwise, as long as they keep doing so, the temptation for the NSA and other government surveillance to access those huge databases may simply be too great for them to resist. And even the law hasn't proved a sufficient deterrent.

    Aloha.

    Technically... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 10, 2013 at 09:36:34 AM EST
    we chose to give these spook coporations our personal info in exchange for services...email, internet searches, etc.  We did not choose to give it to the government.  Semantics perhaps, but still a subtle difference.

    And not for nothing, google doesn't have arrest powers...yet.  The state does, another difference.

    That being said, I agree...we the people need to do a better job at protecting our privacy, nobody is gonna do it for us...not the government, and certainly not google.  Nothing benevolent about either outfit.

    Parent

    Plus, the government is theoretically (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 10, 2013 at 10:22:01 AM EST
    bound by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    Parent
    Theoretically, Technically... (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 10, 2013 at 10:43:00 AM EST
    and then there is reality....you only have the rights you can defend.

    Defend your privacy from all threats, public and publically traded.

    Parent

    I Wonder Why... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 10, 2013 at 03:09:33 PM EST
    ...privacy wasn't mentioned in the Forth Amendment, it certainly runs right up to it, but not mentioned, if only they had added that one word...
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    But then again, it's not like Uncle Sam is concerning itself with the Constitution, so even if it was mentioned I doubt anything would be different.

    And that wouldn't address companies secretly following and collecting/stealing information we don't want them to have, for profit.  That is practically describes Google's business model.  Which I might add, taking something without ones consent that has value is stealing, no ?

    You would think politicians of all people would be very concerned about what is being collected without their permission and this issue would have been addressed a decade ago.  Are they being lobbied or it because they are mostly of a different generation and simply don't understand it.

    It freaks me out when I am looking at something on a webpage, like a particular jacket, and two days later on a completely different site, there is the jacket in the commercial area.

    And while we are addressing this issue, one of my pet peeves is a commercial video playing without my consent or ability to stop them.  How is that legal, they send 1's and 0's to my computer that essentially block my control of my own computer.

    Parent

    Freaks me out too.... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 10, 2013 at 03:32:01 PM EST
    but damned if I know what to do about it except give up the internet and go find that cave to live in.  Actually reading disclaimers and user agreements in legalese is just another form of torture.

    I have so little faith in the law and legislative process to "fix it", they'd only make a bad situation worse...like carving out loopholes for the google's and locking people like us up for posting a phone number on facebook or something.

    Parent

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#51)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Dec 10, 2013 at 04:05:53 PM EST
    ...you mean those user agreements they routinely update and 'ask' you to sign knowing damn well most people would not have agreed to it when they originally signed up.  But now that they are tied in tight, they have no choice, either agree or lose their email and most of the functionality of their phone.

    Google pushed the free crack like no one business, no we are all junkies and they got the stuff we need, and they know it.

    Parent

    Firefox with the Flashblock plugin... (none / 0) (#61)
    by unitron on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 07:22:53 PM EST
    "...one of my pet peeves is a commercial video playing without my consent or ability to stop them."

    ...can be your friend.

    It doesn't play unless or until you click the stylized "F" in a circle in the middle of the "screen" where it's going to play.

    Parent

    Absolutely. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 10, 2013 at 02:13:33 PM EST
    We all need to far more aware of, and take greater responsibility for, the personal information we freely divulge to private sector businesses.

    I think most of here are pretty smart, and I'm sure we all saw and remember how businesses behaved during the early years of the public internet in the late 1990s, as they discovered that they could make a few bucks by selling other people's personal data for marketing purposes, thus reducing our personhood to that of tradable or disposable commodity. Haven't we the people learned anything collectively from that initial experience, when our e-mail inboxes were deluged with unwanted spam from companies wanting to sell us stuff?

    Regardless of whether its private property or personal information, the longer someone else holds what's otherwise rightfully yours, even with your acquiescence, the more it's theirs and the less it's yours. You need to guard your own personal information like a jealous lover, and not treat it like some trollop to be passed around and used at will by others.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    As mentioned in previous threads (none / 0) (#58)
    by Farmboy on Wed Dec 11, 2013 at 10:20:43 AM EST
    putting any unencrypted information on the Internet is the same as making it publicly available.

    Our government (that would be We, the People) created, designed, built, and paid for the Internet. When we as individuals add content to the Internet, we shouldn't be surprised that our government has the ability to read what we placed there.

    Parent

    These things are not mutually exclusive (4.00 / 3) (#37)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Dec 10, 2013 at 10:32:45 AM EST
    Google, etc collecting information for nefarious purposes is wrong.

    Government doing the same is wrong/unconstitutional.

    Both are wrong, wrong, wrong.  And in reality, the government should be held to a higher standard than a creepy, unethical business.  Because when privacy via the government goes away, where do we go for relief?