Legislation Seeks To Block Lengthy Gag Orders on Tech Firms After Government Surveillance (thehill.com) 19
New submitter hawk writes: Government agencies would no longer be able to indefinitely conceal their secret seizure of email records under legislation introduced Tuesday that takes aim at gag orders. The Government Surveillance Transparency Act, sponsored by a bipartisan group of lawmakers from both chambers, puts limitations on gag orders that seek to block tech companies from altering users whose data has been seized. It targets a practice brought into the spotlight after journalists from CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post all had their records seized by the Department of Justice (DOJ). The bill requires law enforcement agencies to notify surveillance subjects that their email, location and web browsing data has been seized, aligning with current practices for phone records and bank data. While the legislation allows the government to continue getting secret warrants to obtain such data, it also places a six-month limit on gag orders that prevent companies from notifying their users of the seizure. "When the government obtains someone's emails or other digital information, users have a right to know," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in a release.
Can we stop saying "a bipartisan" (Score:2)
I don't care if there's blues and reds on both sides. It's easy to get behind a popular bill you know isn't going to pass. The question isn't if there's enough blues and reds to overcome the filibuster. If not, then reporting on this crap is pointless. If you want to run a story about the issue fine, but then your headline should be "government uses gag order to hide surveillance".
Journalists, do
Re: (Score:2)
Journalists, do your damn jobs or stop complaining that the public doesn't support journalism. If I hire a guy to fix my fence and he doesn't fix my fence I stop hiring that guy.
Do you think they're not making money? Ha.
Capitalism works great for some things, but it is dog shit for others. Journalism falls in the latter category.
Altering users? (Score:2)
Altering users? I sure hope that's a typo and was meant to say Alerting users.
Altering users (Score:2)
block tech companies from altering users whose data has been seized
How do they want to alter users?
Re: (Score:2)
Same way you alter your dog...
Re: (Score:2)
Gag orders should just be illegal. (Score:2)
If everything is on the up-and-up, there is no need for them. And if the government is engaging in shenanigans, its misdeeds need to be exposed to the world. Secret courts and star-chamber "justice" are plagues upon society. And sunshine, as they say, is the best disinfectant. The only exceptions I would allow are *NDAs; where you contractually agree, IN ADVANCE, to not disclose information in exchange for gaining access to it. But no one, but NO ONE, should ever be allowed to unilaterally and without
Re: (Score:2)
Okay... one more exception. If gags are part of your kink, and everything is safe, sane, and consensual; then gag away. I won't judge.
Re: (Score:2)
Well there absolutely is a national security interest in being able to run an investigation without tipping off the threat actors; immediately.
However the excuse about protecting methods and sources etc often used to keep things classified forever is indeed unacceptable.
I think we do need some rules like all FISA court proceedings should become public after a period of no longer than a decade. That should be more than long enough to protect methods and source and if it won't be than maybe the government *sh
Re: (Score:2)
> Well there absolutely is a national security interest in
> being able to run an investigation without tipping off
> the threat actors; immediately.
Yeah... no. Sorry, not sorry, but the government has used and abused that excuse so often and so speciously over these last 20+ years since 9/11, the PATRIOT act, and FISA; that they've used up any and every benefit of the doubt or good will that may ever have gone with it. If they want to keep things secret internally, that's one thing. If they want t
Re: (Score:2)
That is just not a practical position at all. The reality is most of the information investigators are going to need is in the position of third parties. Be it the mobile carrier, Google, Microsoft, etc. You can't effect meaningful surveillance without conscripting some of these third parties.
The alternatives like targeting the individuals clients are almost certainly worse. Doing so in secret (even if the government got a surveillance warrant "to hack" of some kind ) would only ratchet up pressure for gove
Re: (Score:2)
Name one terrorist action that has been halted because of a warrant with a gag order that wouldn't have been effective without the gag. I'll be over here not holding my breath.
For bonus points, name anything that has ever been stopped based on a warrant with a gag order that wouldn't have been just as stopped if the gag expired in 3 months.
Re: (Score:2)
10 years is way too long. If they aren't ready to take action after a year or two, they never will be. And if they can't come up with a damned good explanation of why there is a national security interest (and NOT just he looks a bit foreign to me or he goes to the same barber as a known drug dealer), they should be thoroughly penalized including jail time. Note that most crimes do not have a national security angle no matter how hard the feds try to cram the square peg into the round hole.
Time limiting gag orders is not enough (Score:2)
There needs to be a legal requirement for users to be informed of any records request, with a copy of data released, at the end of any gag period if imposed.
This would stop surveillance companies being able to hide what they are doing.
No surprise, when.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...they have been the targets of some pretty deep investigations, and their own email and social info has been subpoenaed. Suddenly, LEGISLATION NEEDED!
If politicians have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear, right? [rolls eyes]