This.

Shedding some light on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requests

Travis Koger

 

Loving your work +Brian Fitzpatrick and team.

Vlad Didenko

 

Thank you!

Steve Hawley

 

I'm curious if there's a way around the non-specificity a la Jessamyn West's library sign the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessamyn_West_(librarian).

Patrick Dugan

 

Thank you for always fighting for Google's users +Brian Fitzpatrick 

Catherine Fitzpatrick

 

How many user accounts does Google have? 10,000 FISA requests seems like a tiny number given the billions of accounts there must be. Also, can you give us a list of the cases when you don't comply with government requests, and why?

Brian Fitzpatrick

 

+Catherine Fitzpatrick
1. Many millions
2. The size of a number is relative.
3. No.  We're currently publishing everything that we're legally allowed to.

Catherine Fitzpatrick

 

+Brian Fitzpatrick Yes, the size of a number relative to another number is dramatic here – 10,000 versus "many millions". It dramatically illustrates that Snowden's claims of "massive surveillance" just aren't the case. There's a relatively few number of cases of legitimate surveillance, i.e. terrorists.

Re: 3 — I asked a different question. What is the number on the list of cases where Google doesn't comply because it doesn't believe the request is legitimate. In past Transparency Reports, you have indicated that some government requests (around the world) are not just so you don't comply.

Vlad Didenko

 

+Catherine Fitzpatrick You are kidding, right? What is your definition of massive surveillance? (if you are not kidding)

Catherine Fitzpatrick

 

+Vlad Didenko No I'm definitely not kidding. Massive surveillance is what they have in Russia, you know? SORM, capturing of every communication by law3 — and using it regularly and often to suppress dissent and criticism. The Snowdenistas have never come up with a single actual case to illustrate any COINPROTEL type of activity. No, not LOVEINT, as that isn't a policy but a work place infraction. No, the case of the Muslims doesn't appear to be a violation either but we don't know their names and can't assess whether they really are legitimate suspects. Massive surveillance means actual surveillance, the compling of active dossiers where government agents actually follow you, you know, like in Russia. Not merely a machine scanning metadata and matching it to cases of legitimate targeting, i.e. contacts with known terrorists, e.g. Muhtorov case in Denver.

Vlad Didenko

 

+Catherine Fitzpatrick Interesting. Have to note that for 26 years, formative ones,I lived in Russia, 19 of those in Soviet Union. I have also to mention that most of that time (sans 2 years draft) I lived in a very dissent-minded peripheral scientific community being very aware of the amount of authorities attention. It is safe to affirmatively answer your question if I do know. I do. But I do not think that you do judging by how you talk about it.

What I would like to know, is if you see a distinction between massive surveillance, mass surveillance, or an established police state? What is that distinction in your mind, if any?

Catherine Fitzpatrick

 

I'm more than twice your age (if you are 26) and have spent many years living or traveling in the former Soviet Union and studying Russia. BTW, I've translated Lenin, Stalin, many Russian journalists, and 5 Politburo members, including Yeltsin and Yakovlev and also Putin.  The scientific community is partly dissent-oriented, like Sakharov, but more Kremlin-oriented and nationalist-militarist or oligarchic these days (see what happened to Skolkovo). Of course I know what I'm talking about; I've seen SORM in action. Have you? Are you even aware of Russian law regarding the FSB's access to all ISP and telecom providers, laws that are only worsening? Russia is definitely an established police state with massive surveillance powers it can and does use. The US is not a police state but a liberal democracy under the most liberal government in its history, which yes, anarchists and leftists are taking advantage of to try to destroy (with Kremlin backing — see RT.com any day of the week). I've already explained that passive collection of meta-data that has no human using it to put under surveillance people for whom there is no probable cause to follow, i.e. suspects in criminal or terrorism cases.

If you're of the mind that the US is worse than Russia in terms of surveillance, you're proving my point about the fourth-wave emigres no longer critical of the Kremlin who wrongfully think their host country is the problem in the "unipolar world".

Vlad Didenko

 

+Catherine Fitzpatrick It gets more and more <sarcasm>curious</sarcasm>.

I have no idea about your point about fourth-wave emigres. I am well aware of SORM – but more so of FSB buildup scare which led to as it was starting in the days of FidoNet (hello 2:5000/15.1 🙂 ) and Sprint networks "echo" & email systems, as well as early (pre-1996) Internet in Russia. All other knowledge you list I have received as a part of university "humanities" studies – and as a fascinated observer and mindful participant of the country's amazing attempt to transform. Hope I answered your questioning.

Nowhere I claimed that either Russia or US are police states. You did, didn't you? Nowhere I compared the two countries – but you try to put words in my mouth.

What I can share, is the experience of living in a community on the receiving end of the surveillance. An inside experience, in addition to the theoretical knowledge and outside observation.

I thought it might have been interesting to hear your opinion on a couple definitions – but it is not interesting to hear all the chest-banging in response. Sorry, you are not interesting to talk to.