Google sounds alarm; strongly opposing increasing FBI powers to search and seize digital data

[bigtree]

Revolution News ?@NewsRevo 46m46 minutes ago
Google warns of US government 'hacking any facility' in the world http://gu.com/p/46v8y/stw

Google is boldly opposing an attempt by the US Justice Department to expand federal powers to search and seize digital data, warning that the changes would open the door to US “government hacking of any facility” in the world.

In a strongly worded submission to the Washington committee that is considering the proposed changes, Google says that increasing the FBI’s powers set out in search warrants would raise “monumental and highly complex constitutional, legal and geopolitical concerns that should be left to Congress to decide”.

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. ... The 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.”


read more: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/18/google-warns-government-hacking-committee-hearing?CMP=share_btn_tw

related:

Google Comment to Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules (board of judges governing FBI actions) on the United States Courts (USC) Proposed Rule: Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?objectId=0900006481a0477d&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf

In its submission, the American Civil Liberties Union said that the proposed changes could violate the fourth amendment of the US constitution, which bans unreasonable searches and seizures
https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclu_comment_on_remote_access_proposal.pdf

[closeupready]

1. LOL - Google, how renegade; how rebel.

Uh-huh.

[bigtree]

2. as 'rebel' as your post even

ACLU isn't good enough for you.?

Curious, why did you brush past the information on the FBI's bid for expanded powers to snipe at the search provider opposing them?

[closeupready]

5. Google is as establishment as Microsoft or Facebook. They all pretend

to be Apple (as here), when it's apparent to anyone who reads the news that they are actually colluding with intelligence gathering agencies.

I guess you're buying this nonsense at face value?

[bigtree]

9. I'm not buying anything at face value

...not even the suspicions that there's collusion between the two over private data.

I do believe Google and others are trying to establish truly encrypted networks and the government is just as determined to have a way to break the encryption down at will.

[closeupready]

10. Well then we'll agree to disagree.

Here's a summary from wiki:

On December 2009, after privacy concerns were raised, Google's CEO, Eric Schmidt, declared: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines—including Google—do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."[55]

Privacy International has raised concerns regarding the dangers and privacy implications of having a centrally located, widely popular data warehouse of millions of Internet users' searches, and how under controversial existing U.S. law, Google can be forced to hand over all such information to the U.S. government.[56] In its 2007 Consultation Report, Privacy International ranked Google as "Hostile to Privacy", its lowest rating on their report, making Google the only company in the list to receive that ranking.[56][57][58]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google#Privacy

So no, I do not like or trust Google.

[bigtree]

11. I don't think we disagree as much

...as we're drawing different conclusions about the motive of Google in raising these concerns, perhaps.

I'd ask why the ACLU is making much the same complaint (view both documents linked in the op) and I'd reference the recent reports over the encryption battles. Is there really no intention of search providers to develop true encryption of data for customers? Is that all just a ruse, or is there a genuine effort being made to develop encrypted networks free from government and other hacking? That looks to be at the heart of Google's objections.

Also, I think we've read the same reports about 'future-casting' software and such. I know that Russia is a great believer that Google is just a CIA front. I think the evidence is compelling, but mostly unsubstantiated, except from a handful of sources, at best. I read some very genuine concerns in these objections from Google, ACLU, and others. I'm just able to go on what I read, though, like most folks out here.

I'm as willing as the next person to be cynical of what the government wants, and I'm even willing to accept that Google-derived technology has been appropriated for the spymasters in areas from the worst of wiretapping to other abuses that we all rail about. What I'm not convinced of is whether Google was directly complicit in those approbations, or if they were coerced, threatened, or their technology exploited in some way that's been drawn out beyond their control. I tend to believe the latter, seeing objections made like this one throughout the years and knowing how the government uses their power to intimidate media outlets and others to do their bidding.

[closeupready]

12. Good arguments, and food for thought, bigtree.

Cheers.

[TheKentuckian]

6. Why should protection of our basic rights be revolutionary or on the bleeding edge?

Not so long ago it was a common, right down main street point of view.

[closeupready]

8. I probably should have worded my original post better.

I am objecting to the portrayal here of Google ("There is no such thing as privacy, and we refuse to respect such an idea", Inc.) as an entity that is prepared or even willing to spearhead a campaign in defense of a right to e-privacy. They are posturing here, nothing more.

I agree with the argument itself, but Google is no friend to civil libertarians.

[Rex]

3. The FBI better watch out, traditionally international covert raids are done by Googles owners

the central intelligence agency. I thought the FBI already has the power to go overseas to 'investigate' whatever they want to? How is doing it remotely any different? Sounds like the want all the information gathered so far by 'Google'.

Basically, this is the CIA telling the FBI to go build their own huge data matrix.

[bigtree]

7. there's definitely overlapping of capabilities using similar or the same technology

...with the NSA, as well. I'm not convinced, though, the motivations of Google and the government are the same. I have no way of knowing, of course, but it definitely looks to me like more tension between them than propriety over their technology.

[Rex]

13. I'm not convinced the CIA and the governments motivations are the same.

We like to pretend someone in charge has a handle on the CIA, but nobody does obviously. I can only imagine the NSA/CIA Big Brother lovefest that goes on when they share wiretaps. The FBI is Holders domain, an outsider to the CIA/NSA round robin leadership.

I bet Google, the actual owners of the corporation are telling the truth and are worried, but it is like they forget who really really owns Google and it ain't them.

[jwirr]

4. Don't understand this stuff but I am glad that google is doing this.

[Cryptoad]

14. The Age of Privacy,,,

died with the birth of the Digital Age.