SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Google Joins Civil Liberties Groups To Oppose Expansion of FBI Spy Powers
'Government is seeking a troubling expansion of its power to surreptitiously hack into computers.'
Feb 19, 2015
Internet giant Google and the American Civil Liberties Union are among the various groups who have objected to a rule change by the U.S. Department of Justice that would give the FBI and other agencies sweeping new powers to perform search and seize private data from online users across the nation and the globe.
According to a brief submitted by Richard Salgado, Google's director for law enforcement, against a pending DOJ proposal, the changes to law enforcement's ability to search remote servers could lead to "government hacking of any facility" in the world and raises "monumental and highly complex constitutional, legal and geopolitical concerns that should be left to Congress to decide."
As the Guardian reports:
The search giant warns that under updated proposals, FBI agents would be able to carry out covert raids on servers no matter where they were situated, giving the US government unfettered global access to vast amounts of private information.
In particular, Google sounds the alarm over the FBI's desire to "remotely" search computers that have concealed their location - either through encryption or by obscuring their IP addresses using anonymity services such as Tor. Those government searches, Google says, "may take place anywhere in the world. This concern is not theoretical. ... [T]he nature of today's technology is such that warrants issued under the proposed amendment will in many cases end up authorizing the government to conduct searches outside the United States."
Google raised its objections as part of a public consultation that ended on Tuesday. Its submission, and 37 others made by interested parties, will be considered by the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules, an obscure but powerful Washington body consisting mainly of judges that has responsibility over federal rules including those governing the actions of the FBI.
According to the National Journal, the DOJ has characterized the rule change over digital searches as amounting to only "a small-scale tweak of protocol, one that is necessary to align search-warrant procedures with the realities of modern technology."
Civil liberties groups strongly disagree.
Stating the ACLU's opposition to the DOJ's plan, the group's principal technologist Christopher Soghoian, said: "The government is seeking a troubling expansion of its power to surreptitiously hack into computers, including using malware. Although this proposal is cloaked in the garb of a minor procedural update, in reality it would be a major and substantive change that would be better addressed by Congress."
And digital freedom advocacy group Access, represented by their senior counsel Amie Stepanovich, joined the ACLU, Google, and others by saying that such a profound change, even if difficult to obtain, must come through Congress.
"When you have us resorting to Congress to get increased privacy protections," Stepanovich told the federal panel considering the rule, "we would also like to see the government turn to Congress to get increased surveillance authority."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Internet giant Google and the American Civil Liberties Union are among the various groups who have objected to a rule change by the U.S. Department of Justice that would give the FBI and other agencies sweeping new powers to perform search and seize private data from online users across the nation and the globe.
According to a brief submitted by Richard Salgado, Google's director for law enforcement, against a pending DOJ proposal, the changes to law enforcement's ability to search remote servers could lead to "government hacking of any facility" in the world and raises "monumental and highly complex constitutional, legal and geopolitical concerns that should be left to Congress to decide."
As the Guardian reports:
The search giant warns that under updated proposals, FBI agents would be able to carry out covert raids on servers no matter where they were situated, giving the US government unfettered global access to vast amounts of private information.
In particular, Google sounds the alarm over the FBI's desire to "remotely" search computers that have concealed their location - either through encryption or by obscuring their IP addresses using anonymity services such as Tor. Those government searches, Google says, "may take place anywhere in the world. This concern is not theoretical. ... [T]he nature of today's technology is such that warrants issued under the proposed amendment will in many cases end up authorizing the government to conduct searches outside the United States."
Google raised its objections as part of a public consultation that ended on Tuesday. Its submission, and 37 others made by interested parties, will be considered by the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules, an obscure but powerful Washington body consisting mainly of judges that has responsibility over federal rules including those governing the actions of the FBI.
According to the National Journal, the DOJ has characterized the rule change over digital searches as amounting to only "a small-scale tweak of protocol, one that is necessary to align search-warrant procedures with the realities of modern technology."
Civil liberties groups strongly disagree.
Stating the ACLU's opposition to the DOJ's plan, the group's principal technologist Christopher Soghoian, said: "The government is seeking a troubling expansion of its power to surreptitiously hack into computers, including using malware. Although this proposal is cloaked in the garb of a minor procedural update, in reality it would be a major and substantive change that would be better addressed by Congress."
And digital freedom advocacy group Access, represented by their senior counsel Amie Stepanovich, joined the ACLU, Google, and others by saying that such a profound change, even if difficult to obtain, must come through Congress.
"When you have us resorting to Congress to get increased privacy protections," Stepanovich told the federal panel considering the rule, "we would also like to see the government turn to Congress to get increased surveillance authority."
Internet giant Google and the American Civil Liberties Union are among the various groups who have objected to a rule change by the U.S. Department of Justice that would give the FBI and other agencies sweeping new powers to perform search and seize private data from online users across the nation and the globe.
According to a brief submitted by Richard Salgado, Google's director for law enforcement, against a pending DOJ proposal, the changes to law enforcement's ability to search remote servers could lead to "government hacking of any facility" in the world and raises "monumental and highly complex constitutional, legal and geopolitical concerns that should be left to Congress to decide."
As the Guardian reports:
The search giant warns that under updated proposals, FBI agents would be able to carry out covert raids on servers no matter where they were situated, giving the US government unfettered global access to vast amounts of private information.
In particular, Google sounds the alarm over the FBI's desire to "remotely" search computers that have concealed their location - either through encryption or by obscuring their IP addresses using anonymity services such as Tor. Those government searches, Google says, "may take place anywhere in the world. This concern is not theoretical. ... [T]he nature of today's technology is such that warrants issued under the proposed amendment will in many cases end up authorizing the government to conduct searches outside the United States."
Google raised its objections as part of a public consultation that ended on Tuesday. Its submission, and 37 others made by interested parties, will be considered by the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules, an obscure but powerful Washington body consisting mainly of judges that has responsibility over federal rules including those governing the actions of the FBI.
According to the National Journal, the DOJ has characterized the rule change over digital searches as amounting to only "a small-scale tweak of protocol, one that is necessary to align search-warrant procedures with the realities of modern technology."
Civil liberties groups strongly disagree.
Stating the ACLU's opposition to the DOJ's plan, the group's principal technologist Christopher Soghoian, said: "The government is seeking a troubling expansion of its power to surreptitiously hack into computers, including using malware. Although this proposal is cloaked in the garb of a minor procedural update, in reality it would be a major and substantive change that would be better addressed by Congress."
And digital freedom advocacy group Access, represented by their senior counsel Amie Stepanovich, joined the ACLU, Google, and others by saying that such a profound change, even if difficult to obtain, must come through Congress.
"When you have us resorting to Congress to get increased privacy protections," Stepanovich told the federal panel considering the rule, "we would also like to see the government turn to Congress to get increased surveillance authority."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.