Google handed over years of e-mails belonging to WikiLeaks chatroom admin

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/google-handed-over-years-of-e-mails-belonging-to-wikileaks-chatroom-admin/

by gcb0 • 13 years ago

179 81 13 years ago

ferdo• 13 years ago

I've never owned a gmail account but have sent to plenty. Gmail is like the 21st century party landline but only a relative few people can listen in.

Because I talked to Julian Assange, all information held by Google relating to my user account with them can be handed over to US prosecutors—not just the contents of my conversations with Julian.

There it is: If you have online contact with someone that's of interest, there's a chance all of your info will be of interest also.

superuser26• 13 years ago

Have you considered the possibility that we hear about surveillance of GMail accounts only because so many people happen to use GMail? Is there any particular property of Google that makes it more likely to cooperate with government than any other email provider?

Or, if you're in the "host your own email" crowd, what makes you think your ISP won't cooperate with the government just like Google does?

spc476• 13 years ago

It depends on what you mean by "host your own email." Sure, a server at, say, RackSpace, might be vulnerable to government intrusion without your knowledge, but if you have a physical server at your home, then the best that the government can do (without your knowledge) is to tap your upstream connection, which does little for past emails.

spindritf• 13 years ago

Or, if you're in the "host your own email" crowd, what makes you think your ISP won't cooperate with the government just like Google does?

They don't have the information Google does because it's on an e-mail server under your bed. And you enjoy certain legal protections as a citizen in your home country.

It's not a particularly enticing solution but it does have its upsides.

betterunix16• 13 years ago

Here is the difference between GMail and a self-hosted email system: when you delete messages over IMAP, they do not get deleted in GMail. "All Mail" keeps all your mail, forever, unless you log in via the web interface and delete it manually. You could always use the web interface, but now encrypting your messages is much harder.

These are the sort of design decisions that can have far-reaching implications. Google was not thinking about protecting its users from government surveillance when it designed GMail.

mtgx• 13 years ago

What's a "person of interest"? Can they obtain a (normal) warrant for that? What's the charge brought against Assange from the US government?

pradocchia• 13 years ago

If you have online contact with someone that's of interest, there's a chance all of your info will be of interest also.

Yes, I believe two degrees of separation is the rule of thumb here. McCarty is one degree, so to complete the graph, they need all his data.

William Binney mentioned this two-degree rule in his recent interview w/ USA Today (warning, autoplay):

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowd...

Note that two degrees was Binney's conservative proposal at the time to help preserve the privacy of the general population. The higher-ups weren't interested. But I assume there has been some research into how many degrees of separation are required to reach some threshold of confidence, and 2 degrees is pretty good.

betterunix16• 13 years ago

"There it is: If you have online contact with someone that's of interest, there's a chance all of your info will be of interest also."

Aside from the obvious chilling effect this has, how do you know if the people you speak to will become "persons of interest" later? Anyone you speak to now could be a high-profile activist in a year. That means that anyone could be the subject of this sort of surveillance.

mpyne2• 13 years ago

He was working in the same organization as Assange, let's not act like he was some random fan who sent a one-off email.

Jabbles• 13 years ago

What could Google have done better?

(Specifically in regards to this case. And assuming they pushed back on orders like this, like they claim to do.)

bobbydavid• 13 years ago

don't forget to mention that Google is also the entity reporting that the information was handed over.

breck4• 13 years ago

Push back more on the request?

The 4th amendment includes this part:

"particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

Describing what you want as " all e-mails " is exactly the type of description this part of the amendment is meant to prevent. It's way too broad.

thrownaway24244• 13 years ago

There is a 10-bullet list of the particular things to be seized. How would you have made it more specific?

jholman2• 13 years ago

Google has a legal team whose full-time job is pushing back on these requests. At some point, they have to either obey the law, or go to prison themselves. Get off your high horse.

It feels like some people won't be satisfied unless Google says "well, our existence has many benefits, but it also makes it slightly easier for the government to spy on people, so we're closing up shop".

rayiner5• 13 years ago

It's way too broad.

No way would that be considered an over-broad warrant. If, e.g., you suspected someone of financial fraud, it would be totally okay to get a warrant for the contents of all the filing cabinets in his office.

tjoff• 13 years ago

Well, it is an inherent flaw of "cloud" based services.

If they are surprised by this then they obviously shouldn't have been using google in the first place.

betterunix16• 13 years ago

The way I see it, Google set up a system that is easy to conduct surveillance on. Gigabytes of storage, no way to actually delete messages over IMAP or POP3, and in various subtle ways GMail discourages the use of encryption.

This is all probably inadvertent, but it indicates that protecting users from this sort of surveillance is not a priority.

thrownaway24244• 13 years ago

I believe you made this claim twice in this thread. Kindly visit your gmail settings, which offers these choices:

When a message is marked as deleted and expunged from the last visible IMAP folder:

* Archive the message (default)

* Move the message to the Trash

* Immediately delete the message forever

Ok then.

rasterizer2• 13 years ago

That's stupid. Particularly how you list 'plentiful storage' as a drawback, if that's the case then it's plainly an issue of law as it pits privacy against usability.

Also Gmail is the only webmail that offers server-to-server encryption: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57590389-38/how-web-mail-p...

And as mentioned in another comment you can delete messages over IMAP.

So in the future make sure you do some research as to avoid spreading false information.

mayanksinghal3• 13 years ago

I don't follow this stream of logic. If you have to build technical systems, the sole purpose of which is to sidestep laws, in order to be good then aren't the laws at fault here? I find the acceptance that governments will do whatever this wants, we will just use end to end encryption , TOR and Bitcoin defeats the purpose we have regulated currencies, governments and democracies. If there is an action item on the list, it should be to change unjust laws not to circumvent them. The latter is both defeatist and useless. Because if you are not keeping a check on the government they will keep bringing in more laws that hinder your sense of justice and your technical system keep moving its architecture like a fugitive.

senjmccarthy• 13 years ago

They could have done what they thought was right in the interests of the Internet as a free, unregulated medium and by extension their business which depends on the Internet, even if that course of action (or inaction) was not clearly legal. Then they could have used some of their billions in cash on hand and their team of lawyers to defend themselves against prosecution. They, instead of some random sysadmin, could be the ones bringing this issue of Internet spying to the fore.

Now, before you say "What, do you expect them to break the law?", consider that they routinely push the boundaries of US law (securities law, copyright law, tax law, etc.) and lo and behold they are usually successful.

Now, I expect you might say "What you're suggesting is still nonsensical because resisting orders related to national security is, among other things, far too controversial and not in the interests of shareholders." And I would not disgaree with you.

My point is simply that Google, with its vast resources, is in a much better position than Ed Snowden to take on this fight for the future of the Internet and privacy of communications.

You could even argue Google has more skin in the game than Mr. Snowden, or any of us individually (aside from those who exploit others' private information for profit, of course)... because if this controversy brings about knee-jerk changes in privacy law, it could materially affect their bottom line.

subsystem• 13 years ago

What they should have done, and what this might lead to, is have the data in a local jurisdiction under a local company.

ars• 13 years ago

The title makes it seem like they did it for fun, rather than as the result of a court order.

acgourley2• 13 years ago

Can someone clarify if Google had to reveal they had done this? The article implies that they did not, and thus the reveal was a "not evil" gesture of transparency. But I'm wondering if they may have known it would get out anyway and they are just getting in front of it. Anyone have more information?

packetslave• 13 years ago

From http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/le...

"We notify users about legal demands when appropriate, unless prohibited by law or court order."

tensafefrogs2• 13 years ago

Your wording implies that you think Google has something to hide or to be embarrassed about releasing the data, and that is not the case.

The government asks for people's data all the time, and Google is legally obligated to provide the requested data. They then go the extra step and tell the users as soon as they are allowed to.

There's nothing here to "get in front of."

acgourley2• 13 years ago

I could have chosen more fair words - that isn't what I meant to say.

Anyway sounds like it's generally a good guy move, just wanted to check what others thought.

rasterizer2• 13 years ago

Already thoroughly discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5920530 and here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5921005

marekmroz• 13 years ago

"Rouge" whistleblower group? Really Ars? As opposed to what, an NSA approved whistleblower group?

iSnow2• 13 years ago

Why for heaven's sake does anyone who does anything that might piss of a government use GMail or any hosted mail provider?

This is far beyond me.

d4nt• 13 years ago

The definition of "anyone who does anything that might piss off a government" includes a lot of people. What if I become a political activist in 20 years time, I might well piss of a future government, should I stop using gmail now in case that happens?

iSnow2• 13 years ago

Not now, but exactly at that point in time.

tensafefrogs2• 13 years ago

Because this is America, and it's supposed to be an amazing country where you have wonderful rights as outlined in the constitution.

wutbrodo• 13 years ago

That was my thought too, but to be fair:

" 'Thankfully, neither of us use our Google accounts for anything remotely sensitive,' McCarthy wrote on his blog on Friday."

wyck• 13 years ago

The online "territory" will shift away from America eventually, especially for non Americans who are still stuck under the USA's influence.

This is exactly the kind of thing, along with recent events, that will eventually deal a major blow to US based tech.

Google handed over years of e-mails belonging to WikiLeaks chatroom admin

Related Stories