Apple joins Google, Microsoft, others in support of government surveillance reform
Apple and a consortium of other tech industry giants have signed their names to an open letter addressed to President Obama and members of Congress, calling for substantial reforms to the regulation and oversight of surveillance performed by agencies like the NSA.
The letter reaffirms the tech giants' opposition to the large-scale surveillance operations carried out by the NSA and foreign counterparts such as Britain's GCHQ, saying that such operations have tipped the balance of power "too far in favor of the state and away from the rights of the individual" and arguing that the unfettered surveillance "undermines the freedoms we all cherish." Joining Apple are AOL, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, and Yahoo.
Readers are directed to an accompanying website --?ReformGovernmentSurveillance.com --?which lays out five principles the group believes governments should consider during the drafting of legislation. The five policies are designed "with the goals of ensuring that government law enforcement and intelligence efforts are rule-bound, narrowly tailored, transparent, and subject to oversight," according to the website.
This most recent letter, which the Wall Street Journal reports will appear in the form of a full-page advertisement in the Monday editions of the Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, and The Hill, among others, is not the first public word from Apple on the issue.
Following the revelation of the NSA's PRISM data collection program in June, of which Apple was said to be a participant, the company issued a rare public statement entitled "Apple's Commitment to Customer Privacy" in which they reiterated that they "do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer content must get a court order."
Then, in July, the Cupertino, Calif.-based company joined with 62 other public companies, non-profits and trade groups --?including Microsoft, Google, and Facebook --?to demand that the government allow the companies to be more transparent about the number and scope of requests they receive for users' data. That request was followed in November by a new "Report on Government Information Requests" that shed more light on exactly how many requests it receives from intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
Monday's full letter is reproduced below:
The letter reaffirms the tech giants' opposition to the large-scale surveillance operations carried out by the NSA and foreign counterparts such as Britain's GCHQ, saying that such operations have tipped the balance of power "too far in favor of the state and away from the rights of the individual" and arguing that the unfettered surveillance "undermines the freedoms we all cherish." Joining Apple are AOL, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, and Yahoo.
Readers are directed to an accompanying website --?ReformGovernmentSurveillance.com --?which lays out five principles the group believes governments should consider during the drafting of legislation. The five policies are designed "with the goals of ensuring that government law enforcement and intelligence efforts are rule-bound, narrowly tailored, transparent, and subject to oversight," according to the website.
This most recent letter, which the Wall Street Journal reports will appear in the form of a full-page advertisement in the Monday editions of the Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, and The Hill, among others, is not the first public word from Apple on the issue.
Following the revelation of the NSA's PRISM data collection program in June, of which Apple was said to be a participant, the company issued a rare public statement entitled "Apple's Commitment to Customer Privacy" in which they reiterated that they "do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers, and any government agency requesting customer content must get a court order."
Then, in July, the Cupertino, Calif.-based company joined with 62 other public companies, non-profits and trade groups --?including Microsoft, Google, and Facebook --?to demand that the government allow the companies to be more transparent about the number and scope of requests they receive for users' data. That request was followed in November by a new "Report on Government Information Requests" that shed more light on exactly how many requests it receives from intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
Monday's full letter is reproduced below:
Dear Mr. President and Members of Congress,
We understand that governments have a duty to protect their citizens. But this summer's revelations highlighted the urgent need to reform government surveillance practices worldwide. The balance in many countries has tipped too far in favor of the state and away from the rights of the individual -- rights that are enshrined in our Constitution. This undermines the freedoms we all cherish. It's time for a change.
For our part, we are focused on keeping users' data secure -- deploying the latest encryption technology to prevent unauthorized surveillance on our networks and by pushing back on government requests to ensure that they are legal and reasonable in scope.
We urge the US to take the lead and make reforms that ensure that government surveillance efforts are clearly restricted by law, proportionate to the risks, transparent and subject to independent oversight. To see the full set of principles we support, visit ReformGovernmentSurveillance.com
Sincerely,
AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, Yahoo
Comments
IBM and Cisco have shown there is serious international blowback that hits the bottom line.
This has already cost US businesses dearly (witness Cisco and HP in their recent earnings conference calls). We'll never know the billions in contracts not signed from here on because of this stupid over-reach on the NSA's part. Markets like the EU, China, Russia, Brazil, India, and the Middle East will never look at providers of US IT infrastructure the same way again.
The NSA's snooping has also now risen to being a national security threat: many of our allies are going to be far more suspicious of what we do (as opposed to what we say we do). Not because they don't attempt similar shenanigans, but because none of them can match the US's reach and capabilities, and it does not play well in terms of their domestic politics.
Many people here (and elsewhere) think that the Fourth Amendment amounts to a hill of beans. And that privacy does not matter. However, without privacy rights protected, there are no First Amendment rights. Or, for that matter, Second Amendment rights -- although I am not a fan of the Second Amendment, I have to respect the fact that it is in the Constitution. Or, for that matter, Fifth Amendment rights. One could go on.
And, to think that we were getting all holier-then-thou about Huawei......
Really, since what the government’s doing is illegal, can’t these companies just, you know, ignore them? And refuse access? Or specifically build an encryption that requires a quantum computer to solve?
The people who think privacy doesn't matter are saying, whether they realize it or not, that they believe in conformity to a degree that they will do nothing interesting in their lives, they will not innovate, they will lead no one, and they will challenge no status quos — and that no one else should either, that every grass-roots idea should be intercepted and co-opted, and that the people who have power should keep it and have more.
The rise of electronic mail and messaging means that we need a new, more expanded legal definition of privacy. But the security apparatus holds more power than any elected government could. For example, how long did the first FBI chief executive stay on the job, and how many public figures did he mess with?
Yeah, that's it, the Bezos River is a tributary to the mighty Amazon, I believe. Comes in near the mouth. Lots of piranhas.
Really, since what the government’s doing is illegal, can’t these companies just, you know, ignore them? And refuse access?
Yahoo and Lavabit tried the first two. The NSA basically went to the courts and said "**** you, I'm national security" and won. Lavabit being a private enterprise however was allowed to play more extreme games of avoidance, whereas yahoo could only go so far without shareholders raising objections.
Screw the courts, then. I don’t get it: it’s illegal. I don’t care who says it’s legal, it’s illegal and wasn’t enacted legally. Don’t do it.
Screw the courts, then. I don’t get it: it’s illegal. I don’t care who says it’s legal, it’s illegal and wasn’t enacted legally. Don’t do it.
Trust me, I'm totally with you in that regard. This whole dilemna is the reason I switched my focus on studies from general programming and information handling to Cryptography and related fields as study for my later degrees.
The people who think privacy doesn't matter are saying, whether they realize it or not, that they believe in conformity to a degree that they will do nothing interesting in their lives, they will not innovate, they will lead no one, and they will challenge no status quos — and that no one else should either, that every grass-roots idea should be intercepted and co-opted, and that the people who have power should keep it and have more.
I don't disagree with the concerns over erosion of rights, but I don't think I follow your logic here. The ability to do interesting things (assuming that's not a euphemism for illegal things), innovate, lead and challenge the status quo do not, per se, require any particular level of privacy, unless the results of government intrusion into your privacy are used to prevent such things. So far I've not seen or heard of evidence of these data being used in such ways. From a personal privacy point of view, the observation that certain agencies have the same, or similar, capabilities to monitor domestic traffic that we have always assumed that they have for international traffic should not be surprising. That they may be exercising it without due process, even if it is not adversely affecting most of us for now, is certainly an issue that I'd like to see addressed in the near future.
On the other hand, the coercion of US companies to yield to illegal data requests (if that is happening) and the impact on US international trade as a result of potential customers' data security concerns seem to be more tangible and immediate worries.
Interestingly enough, something might be both "legal", as in there is a law that must be followed and enforced, yet at the same time be unconstitutional until addressed by the Supreme Court.
The upshot? We have far, far, far too many laws in this country. We need a hard reboot and a return to self-reliance and communities that come together to help each other voluntarily.
But… as fundamental, overarching law, legality within the Constitution overrides any “legality” elsewhere.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
True. And those powers not allowed government by the Constitution are left for the American people to decide.
"The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has released an opinion upholding the constitutionality of the phone data collection program by the National Security Agency...
Eagan also said the data collection is authorized under Section 215 of the Patriot Act that allows the FBI to issue orders to produce “tangible things” if there are reasonable grounds to believe the records are relevant to a terrorism investigation. “The government need not provide specific and articulable facts, demonstrate any connection to a particular suspect, nor show materiality when requesting business records under Section 215,” Eagan said.
A previous Justice Department white paper had also used the court's reasoning, but Eagan went a step further when she said the government could collect the information for probes of "unknown" as well as known terrorists, the Post says."
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/surveillance_court_releases_new_opinion_upholding_nsa_collection_of_phone_d/
"The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has released an opinion upholding the constitutionality of the phone data collection program by the National Security Agency...
Eagan also said the data collection is authorized under Section 215 of the Patriot Act that allows the FBI to issue orders to produce “tangible things” if there are reasonable grounds to believe the records are relevant to a terrorism investigation. “The government need not provide specific and articulable facts, demonstrate any connection to a particular suspect, nor show materiality when requesting business records under Section 215,” Eagan said.
A previous Justice Department white paper had also used the court's reasoning, but Eagan went a step further when she said the government could collect the information for probes of "unknown" as well as known terrorists, the Post says."
The Patriot Act needs to be completely reworked, in my opinion - it simply has too widespread, open-ended and vague provisions that are easy to interpret in ways that, I would hope, were not originally intended.
The Patriot Act should be completely eliminated. It's un-American and anti-American.