{"id":1871,"date":"2013-09-05T13:53:03","date_gmt":"2013-09-05T13:53:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=1871"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:54:00","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:54:00","slug":"fisa-transparency-microsoft-google-fight-to-disclose-surveillance-data-to-users","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/fisa-transparency-microsoft-google-fight-to-disclose-surveillance-data-to-users\/","title":{"rendered":"FISA Transparency: Microsoft &amp; Google Fight to Disclose Surveillance Data to Users"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Thursday, September 5, 2013, by Brittany Croom<br \/>\nAs transparency initiatives continue to infiltrate the nation following recent revelations of surveillance by US intelligence, some tech companies are already taking a stand.\u00a0 Only a few days after social media giant, Facebook, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2013\/08\/27\/tech\/social-media\/facebook-transparency-report\/index.html\">revealed<\/a> the US government has already made information requests for 20,000 users under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (\u201cFISA\u201d)this year alone, \u00a0two other tech companies announced they would soon be heading to court.\u00a0\u00a0 After failed negotiations with the US Justice Department that spanned three months, Microsoft and Google will continue with a <a href=\"http:\/\/rt.com\/usa\/microsoft-google-lawsuit-surveillance-241\/\">lawsuit<\/a> to allow public disclosure of FISA orders, despite the statute\u2019s gag order. \u00a0Not surprisingly, both companies routinely field high volumes of surveillance requests pertaining to email, Skype, cloud services, and several other technology platforms. Google, for example, handled more than <a href=\"http:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2013\/08\/27\/tech\/social-media\/facebook-transparency-report\/index.html\">31,000 requests<\/a> in 2012.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>According to Smith, both companies \u201cremain concerned with the Government\u2019s continued unwillingness to permit . . . publish[ing] sufficient data relating to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) orders.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The <a href=\"https:\/\/www.fas.org\/irp\/agency\/doj\/fisa\/\">Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act<\/a>, established in 1978, requires the government obtain search warrants and wiretap orders from the FISA court by proving the surveillance is to gather information about foreign intelligence. \u00a0The Act was established as a mechanism to protect the nation from foreign threats, including, but not limited to, foreign spies and terrorists.\u00a0 The statute does not require the government tell the individual that he or she was ever under surveillance and companies that receive such warrants, such as Microsoft and Google, are subject to gag orders that prohibit them from sharing this information.<br \/>\nThis decision to sue closely follows the recent <a href=\"http:\/\/rt.com\/usa\/microsoft-nsa-snowden-leak-971\/\">reveal<\/a> of Microsoft\u2019s special relationship with the US government\u2014one that allowed the government access to user\u2019s information by avoiding encryption mechanisms. Users of the technology platforms have become concerned following these allegations, and tech companies are now pushing for disclosure.\u00a0\u00a0 Google and Microsoft will continue with the lawsuit to further their transparency initiatives. \u00a0Despite the government\u2019s agreement to publish surveillance requests in the future, this fails to provide the transparency Google and Microsoft hope to achieve.\u00a0 General Counsel of Microsoft, Brad Smith, recently <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.technet.com\/b\/microsoft_on_the_issues\/archive\/2013\/08\/30\/standing-together-for-greater-transparency.aspx?Redirected=true\">commented<\/a> on the issue:<br \/>\n&#8220;[W]e believe it is vital to publish information that clearly shows the number of national security demands for user content, such as the text of an email.\u00a0 These figures should be published in a form that is distinct from the number of demands that capture only metadata such as the subscriber information associated with a particular email address.\u00a0 We believe it\u2019s possible to publish these figures in a manner that avoids putting security at risk.\u00a0 And unless this type of information is made public, any discussion of government practices and service provider obligations will remain incomplete.&#8221;<br \/>\nGoogle and Microsoft are certainly not alone.\u00a0 Others agree that the government\u2019s proposed publications plans are not enough.\u00a0 The two enterprises will now move forward with a lawsuit that will allow them to notify the public of the information they provide to the government pursuit the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.\u00a0 <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.technet.com\/b\/microsoft_on_the_issues\/archive\/2013\/08\/30\/standing-together-for-greater-transparency.aspx?Redirected=true\">According to Smith<\/a>, both companies \u201cremain concerned with the Government\u2019s continued unwillingness to permit . . . publish[ing] sufficient data relating to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) orders.\u201d<br \/>\n&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Thursday, September 5, 2013, by Brittany Croom As transparency initiatives continue to infiltrate the nation following recent revelations of surveillance by US intelligence, some tech companies are already taking a stand.\u00a0 Only a few days after social media giant, Facebook, revealed the US government has already made information requests for 20,000 users under the Foreign <a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/fisa-transparency-microsoft-google-fight-to-disclose-surveillance-data-to-users\/\" class=\"more-link\">&#8230;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1871"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1871"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1871\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7590,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1871\/revisions\/7590"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1871"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1871"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1871"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}