The secrecy surrounding Prism and the tech world is hurting Google’s image, and the company is fighting back.

The tech giant is preparing to file a First Amendment challenge with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court in Washington, D.C. that will allow it to more specially disclose the kinds of data requests it gets from the government. Essentially, in Google’s view, disclosing this information is an extension of free speech.

“Google’s reputation and business has been harmed by the false or misleading reports in the media, and Google’s users are concerned by the allegations. Google must respond to such claims with more than generalities,” the company says in the filing.

The move comes days after Facebook and Microsoft released comprehensive reports on how many data requests they get from the U.S government under FISA. The problem, however, was that the disclosures didn’t go far enough — at least according to Google.  (For years Google has disclosed government data requests via its annual Transparency Report, though the reports haven’t included aggregate requests made under FISA.)

While it’s unknown how much light the disclosures will shed on Prism, the move is a significant one for Google, which is one of many tech companies that carefully denied initial reports that they give government bodies like the NSA “direct access” to their servers. Google, like Facebook, has struggled to dispel the popular notion that it’s willingly giving up its users’ information, which makes today’s news pretty important for  its overall image.

Facebook is reportedly in deep conversations with the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigations about letting Facebook release information about the number of data requests it receives associated with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and national security.

According to All Things D’s sources, the parties are discussing an agreement that would see Facebook release the amount of these government requests it gets, though likely it wouldn’t be able to reveal much more about the requests than that. The agreement, if reached, would also give other technology companies the permission to do the same.

Google has released these transparency reports for awhile now and has also put in a request. Google is not backing Facebook’s own discussions, according to the sources. Google wrote a letter to the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder earlier this week request not only permission to publish the number of requests it gets but also how many accounts those requests affect.

Usually these reports come with a gag order, or an element of the data request that says the receiving company cannot talk about the request. Some have gone to say that these national security letters and FISA court orders are unconstitutional because of these gag orders.

Facebook explained earlier this week that it does not currently publish transparency reports in the same way Google does because it does not have permission to reveal these FISA requests. The company believes that the transparency report would not provide a full overview of the data and takedown requests that it receives and would thus not be beneficial to the public.

Mark Zuckerberg image via Jolie O’Dell/VentureBeat

Google sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney General and FBI today asking for permission to include secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act orders in its transparency reports — something it could not do before because of the gag-order that often comes attached to these information requests.

Google, still reacting to news that recently broke out about a national data surveillance program called PRISM, made the request while reinforcing it’s earlier message that it has never given it has never given the U.S. government “unfettered access to our users’ data.” It went on to say that keeping these FISA orders secret is leading people to believe that Google participates in this kind of data sharing. Google’s transparency report lists all the different data and take-down requests it receives from governments around the world. FISA requests, however, are obviously missing.

If granted, Google would publish the number of FISA requests it receives and how many accounts the requests affect. It’s an effort to show that each request is limited and specified and that there is no firehose of data about all of its users leaving the company such as was required in a recently revealed secret court order sent to Verizon.

“Google has nothing to hide,” said David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer, in the letter. “Transparency here will likewise serve the public interest without harming national security.”

Drummond explained that no problems have resulted from the government’s previous approval of Google adding the quantity of received National Security Letters to the transparency report. Thus, adding FISA orders would likely not have much impact on their effectiveness either.

Google sign image via Devindra Hardawar/VentureBeat

The director of national intelligence James R. Clapper narrowly confirmed that documents released yesterday regarding a secret government data collection program are legitimate.

Clapper released a statement late yesterday after The Guardian and The Washington Post obtained and revealed two separate programs under which the government was potentially collecting information about U.S. citizens. He called this exposure “reprehensible,” saying that it puts the program, which is intended to protect American citizens from bad actors overseas, at risk.

“Information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable foreign intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats,” said Clapper in the statement. “The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans.”

On Wednesday, The Guardian released a court order given to Verizon by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The order commanded Verizon to supply “all call data” for any calls made in the United States to foreign recipients, any calls that originate and terminate within the United States, but not for calls that are made entirely outside the United States.

The Washington Post on Thursday revealed a slide deck reportedly intended for top advisors within the National Security Agency. It showed a number of top technology companies that the NSA also tapped for data that included photos, videos, and audio files. Companies mentioned were Google, Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, PalTalk, Facebook, and AOL. YouTube and Skype, subsidiaries of Google and Microsoft, were mentioned separately as well.

While the documents revealed the name of the program to be “PRISM,” Clapper did not refer to it by this name.

Clapper denounced the release, saying that there are inaccuracies in the new reports. He says the the program is legal, and that the section under which these programs are being executed, FISA Section 702, specifically states that “it cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States.” Because of the secrecy of these programs, and the gag-orders often given to companies under the programs, U.S. citizens do not know how their data is being used, or if the government actually takes steps to “minimize” this data, as is also required by Section 702.

In terms of the Verizon order, the secret courts also justified the collection program under the Patriot Act’s section 215, which pertains to collecting business records. The author of the Act, which has also been widely criticized for its privacy implications, said the NSA was going too far and asked it to “sunset” the order immediately.

“It speaks volumes to have that author of the Patriot Act says this is overbroad,” said Kurt Opsahl, the senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in an interview with VentureBeat. “He’s saying what everybody thought at the time about the Patriot Act.”

In March 2013, Senator Ron Wyden, who has been vocal about protecting American civil liberties, asked Director Clapper if the NSA collects “any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.” Clapper replied simply, “No sir.” When pressed, he elaborated, “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps collect, but not wittingly.”

You can see that conversation in full in the YouTube video below.

hat tip New York Times; Clapper photo via James R. Clapper

Most politicians only speak up about inadequate tech policy when there’s an overly complicated bill up for a vote. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), however, is not one of those politicians.

Wyden spoke at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas today, outlining the topics in tech policy that we need to discuss in 2013 and beyond. He focused on data usage and policy: two themes that have carried over from 2012, and will likely remain under scrutiny for years to come.

Wyden is known for his opposition to SOPA, a bill that attempted to protect copyright laws but could have impeded freedom of speech and led to the wholesale shutdown of websites accused if copyright infringement. He is also known for submitting an amendment to the FISA bill, which allows the government to listen in on Americans’ conversations with those overseas in the name of national security and foreign intelligence. In his amendment, Wyden suggested the government be more transparent and reveal how many people have been affected by the Bush-era bill.

The amendment was shot down.

Now in 2013, Wyden believes we need to get more serious about making sure Internet service providers — wireless and wired alike — are held responsible for making sure no specific types of data are discriminated again. That is, he believes that an Internet Service Provider, such as Comcast, must not slow down speeds if someone is attempting to access streaming content from competitors, while providing great data speeds for its own streaming services. This, of course, is just an example, but you can see the problem.

He also believes we need to look at patents. Last year showed us just how far companies are willing to go to prevent competitors from using their patented technology without paying up. Wyden explained that we need to think of software as “building blocks” and allow people to improve on it.

He also reached back to FISA and CISPA, saying we need rethink how much access to our data the government should have. He suggested we rework the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and put more protections in place that stop law enforcement from checking out Americans’ email communications.

via Ars Technica; Ron Wyden image via his website

President Barack Obama signed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill into law yesterday after the U.S. Senate voted for an extension of the President George W. Bush-era spy bill 73-23.

The FISA bill gives the government clearance to tap into American citizens’ communications with people outside of the U.S. without a warrant, so long as it is done in the name of collecting foreign intelligence. Obama has previously stated his approval of the bill, saying that the U.S. needs such measures when dealing with national security. More specifically, it means that government entities such as the National Security Agency are able to watch Americans without probable cause. They need only an order from the secret FISA court, and they don’t have to alert the targeted citizen prior to the wiretapping.

At the time the bill’s extension passed, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which protects people’s digital rights, called the decision a “blight on our nation.”

Perhaps more concerning is the fact that the surveillance can begin before an order is received and can continue through an appeals process should the court decide not to issue the order, as Wired notes.

Senators from both sides of the aisle proposed a number of amendments to FISA, including one that would require the government to reveal how many citizens have already been affected by this kind of surveillance. Thus far, we are unsure of the scale of the FISA bills’ effect. Another amendment would force the government to be more transparent about what exactly it is monitoring and what kind of data it is collecting.

The senate voted for the bill’s extension on Friday. It is now set to expire in 2017.

hat tip RT; Image of President Obama signing bills via The White House/Flickr

The “warrantless wiretapping” law has new life, as the United States Senate extended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, today by a significant margin.

The law, originally passed in 2008 under the Bush administration, was renewed this morning when the Senate passed the bill 73 to 23. FISA permits the federal government to obtain secret court orders that allow it to listen in on American communications if “foreign intelligence” data could be collected. For example, American communications can be tapped if they’re speaking with someone outside the country. Americans are not alerted to this surveillance, and a warrant is not required to perform it. The government says it is necessary for national security, though the bill can still be challenged in the Supreme Court.

The bill will next expire on Dec. 31, 2017, once the president has signed it into law today.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group based in San Francisco, tweeted, “After rejecting all privacy fixes, the Senate just reauthorized #FISA warrantless wiretapping. A shame on Congress, a blight on our nation.”

The EFF previously outlined all of the “privacy fixes” that were proposed, including an amendment from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) that asked the government to reveal how many Americans were under surveillance by FISA. It was shot down in a move the EFF called “disgraceful.”

Other amendments included one from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) called the “Fourth Amendment Protection Act,” which would force the government to get warrants for the wiretapping. Sen. Jeff Merkley’s (D-Ore.) amendment would make the government be transparent about how the FISA bill is being used against Americans specifically. And Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-Ver.) amendment would have the bill expire within three years, to be reassessed during President Barack Obama’s administration.

None of these passed.

Wired reports that FISA spying can begin at any point, before the secret court orders have been issued and through any resulting appeals process, should a request to use FISA is shot down. Wired further notes that FISA can be used on “any telephone that it believes will yield information from or about al Qaeda.”

We have reached out to the EFF and the Electronic Privacy Information Center and will update this post upon hearing back.

Listening-in image via Shuttestock

National Security Agency director General Keith Alexander promised a crowd of hackers Friday that the NSA does not keep a profile on every American. But one former employee is saying that’s not entirely an honest claim.

“His statement about not keeping track of every American is absolutely true. He missed a few,” said Bill Binney, former official in the NSA, at the Def Con conference in Las Vegas. In other words, the NSA does not keep a profile on every American.

“That’s the kind of word game they play,” Binney said. “There’s absolutely no excuse for him even implying that he’s not collecting all this data.”

Alexander, however, called the question of keeping profiles on every American “absolute nonsense,” during his talk at the same conference. He was the first NSA director to visit Def Con, a conference that has traditionally attracted hackers, feds, and press alike. During the speech, the director appeared in jeans and called a pre-teen hacker codenamed Sci-Fi to the stage to underscore the importance of passing hacking knowledge on to the country’s youth. Much of his talk centered around sharing between the private sector and the government, as well as the need for hackers to join the NSA’s team.

“We need great talent. We don’t pay as high as some of the others. We’re fun to be around,” said Alexander. “Sometimes you guys get a bad rap. From my perspective what you are doing to figure out the vulnerabilities in our systems is absolutely needed.”

His slides ended with a link to www.nsa.gov/careers/dc20, a recruiting site.

Don’t expect Binney to be visiting that site looking for another job with the agency. After leaving, he has since written a number of books about the NSA and the technology he created there, saying the agency built a number of facilities just to house the massive amounts of data it is said to collect on American citizens. On the same theme, James Bamford recently wrote an article for Wired Magazine about a new $2 billion Utah facility being erected so that it can serve a a repository for the NSA’s vast records.

“The reason I left the NSA is because they started spying on everybody in the country,” said Binney. “Unfortunately they took those programs that I built and turned them on you, and I’m sorry for that. I didn’t intend that. But they did that.”

Binney accused the NSA of always intending to spy on Americans, not just falling into the job after 9/11. Indeed, he says that “three-star generals” within the organization approached telecommunications companies to “supply customer data” in February of 2001, seven months before 9/11 occurred. He also said the systems the NSA uses to keep that data are able to identify parties within the communications and then build searchable profiles from there.

Alexander, on the other hand, says the NSA is watched by too many people for it to be able to get away with something like that. He mentions that all of the branches of government are privy to its activities and have access to the data it collects. Under the FISA, or Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the NSA must with “minimize” the amount of data it receives if a foreign target is speaking with an American citizen. He further defined that this means “nobody can see” that data “unless a crime has been committed.”

Indeed, Alexander says that those who accuse the NSA of keep dossier on the American people “should know better.”

“Think of that 260 million dossiers, or however many you’d come out [with],” he said. “Let’s see, if you’re trying to maintain those dossiers, I’m not a real good mathematician, but let’s say we have 20,000 people working that. How many files would each of us have to work? I’m not that kind of guy who’s going to work all those files.”