Government law agencies place gag orders on technology companies in general and social media companies in particular.
Facebook is fighting a gag order right now over search warrants on Facebook users.
Reuters reports Facebook fights U.S. Gag Order that it says Chills Free Speech.
Facebook Inc is challenging a gag order from a U.S. court that is preventing the company from talking about three government search warrants that it said pose a threat to freedom of speech, according to court documents.
Facebook said it wants to notify three users about the search warrants seeking their communications and information and also give those users an opportunity to object to the warrants, according to a filing in a Washington, D.C., appeals court seen by Reuters.
“We believe there are important First Amendment concerns with this case, including the government’s refusal to let us notify three people of broad requests for their account information in connection with public events,” Facebook said in a statement on Monday.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees certain rights including freedom of speech.
William Miller, a spokesman for U.S. prosecutors, declined to comment.
Facebook decided to challenge the gag order around the three warrants because free speech was at stake and because the events underlying the government’s investigation were generally known to the public already, Facebook said in the undated court document.
The precise nature of the government’s investigation is not known. One document in the case said the timing of proceedings coincides with charges against people who protested President Donald Trump’s inauguration in January.
Freedom of Speech vs Gag Orders
The NSA also places gag orders over when it demands backdoor entries into routers and phones. Companies are not allowed to even mention the demands.
I side with Facebook, Apple, Google, and Microsoft, so much so that I wish one of these companies would simply defy these incessant gag orders and speak up rather than challenge the orders in court.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
FB on the right side this time, they should publicize this battle.
FB is for freedom…THEIR freedom to decide who THEY want to censor, and once they have created their own internet delivery network, they will be FREE to do what they want.
We know the government is in this shit eyeball deep and I find it odd that these companies are so selective about their outrages.
This is a war for domination, not freedom. All of the players are part of the same league simply fighting it out for THEIR dominance, THEIR control….over US.
I cannot do the “like” thing so I’m liking you here, lowell. I completely agree.
Touche!
This is So RICH coming from Facist-Book that has been opening removing users’ accounts, when those users practiced decent worded free speech – from all reports……..
Pakistan asks Facebook to help fight blasphemy
BBC, 17 Mar 2017:
Facebook has agreed to send a team to Pakistan to address reservations about content on the social media site, according to the interior ministry.
“We disclose information about accounts solely in accordance with our terms of service and applicable law. A Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty or other formal request may be required for international requests, and we include these in our Government Requests Report.”
But Facebook has not yet made any public comment about a delegation being sent to Pakistan.
——-
Pakistan sentences man to death for blasphemy on Facebook
Reuters, 14 Jun 2017:
A Pakistani counter-terrorism court has sentenced to death a man who allegedly committed blasphemy on Facebook, a government prosecutor said on Sunday, the first time someone has been handed the death penalty for blaspheming on social media.
The conviction of Taimoor Raza, 30, follows a high-profile crackdown against blasphemy on social media by the government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.
——-
Facebook Is Trying Everything to Re-Enter China—and It’s Not Working
Since regulators blocked the service in 2009, CEO Mark Zuckerberg has hired well-connected executives, developed censorship tools and taken a ‘smog jog’ in Beijing—but the company has made no visible headway
WSJ, 30 Jan 2017
——-
Business Insider
8 Dec 2014:
A Chinese government news portal released a photo Monday of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg with a copy of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s book on governance at his desk while hosting an Internet official from the country.
Zuckerberg, who has long sought access to the market in China, where Facebook is blocked, is quoted by the portal as saying he purchased several copies of Xi’s book so that he and colleagues could learn about “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” The California-based company did not immediately respond to inquiries regarding the visit to Facebook offices by Lu Wei, China’s top Internet regulator.
http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/548593f1dd08951a5b8b456f-480/mark-zuckerberg-lu-wei.jpg
Business success many times is dependent upon a vision of what people want. Zuckerberg obviously had a vision, and no one would say he is not intelligent. He is likely less of an ideologue than someone who will use ANY ideology if it promotes his ability to dominate, to WIN. If becoming a Marxist advances his agenda of power and dominance, then so be it….as it is for MANY Marxists.
They should just notify the 3 people and be fdone with it.
Seems a little like grandstanding.
What Facebook and the other social media sites should do is to issue a daily “warrant canary” to each user. Every day there is no warrant for your data FB should issue a short note that says this is the case.
They could even put a dial on your Facebook page that is labeled “Days since last Warrant Canary”, and have it turn red if it is more than one day.
Then when there is a warrant, they stop issuing the canary, the dial turns red, and you know you have been fingered….
If it’s illegal to do something directly it’s equally illegal to do it indirectly.
From the EFF:
“There is no law that prohibits a service provider from reporting all the legal processes that it has not received. The gag order only attaches after the ISP has been served with the gagged legal process. Nor is publishing a warrant canary an obstruction of justice, since this intent is not to harm the judicial process, but rather to engage in a public conversation about the extent of government investigatory powers.”
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/warrant-canary-faq
So faceplant conducts mass surveillance as a business model, but then they get upset when the government does the same thing?
There are no good guys in this story — one surveillance system whining about another surveillance system.
Smart people avoid faceplant
Somehow I run my own business and have survived (thus far) without FB or twitter or much more than a basic website (which apparently no one ever visits). Of course I haven’t been offered a billion dollar buyout either. Silly me, still trying to MAKE things for a living!
FB will dominate the world once they figure out a way for us to post the smell of our farts. We know what to value, what is IMPORTANT.
“have survived (thus far) without FB or twitter”
Same here and I won’t bother to qualify it with “thus far”.
After 40 years of self employment, I still don’t take it for granted I will still be here tomorrow.
While I find the net useful for clothing and shoe purchases (I wear large sizes), as well as bill payment and most business connections, I have never been on FB, twitter, or any of the other social websites. I was on linked in when it first started but it was a waste of time. I don’t have that much faith in the government to put personal stuff on the net. I do pity those who do. This stuff can follow you your entire life and, if you just happen to be a Republican, it will be deeply researched and spread far and wide!
I have found all the internet “social” media???? sites are great favorites of criminals and the criminal minded…………..
Sorry but that is non-sense.
whether or not to be a Facebook user and accepting whatever that entails has nothing to do with the fact that if one enters a relationship with Company that should mean it is a relationship between two parties and not automatically open to others (in particular Government.
There are plenty of things I don’t think are great about Facebook so I use them accordingly(and sparingly) in the knowledge they use my data. (they don’t keep it a secret that they use data!)
HOWEVER we should APPLAUD tech companies when they do stand up so resistance to incessant meddling increases.
The decision whether to use Facebook is unrelated to the serious issue of Government snooping.
This should be publicised more.
Smart people do not use faceplant. period.
Why you praise them for standing up to the US government sometimes, but not always — while always capitulating to the Chinese government… again, smart people don’t use faceplant.
There are no good guys in this story.
Agree that FB is selective. They’ve been quick to kowtow to dictators. They’ve been quick to censor conservatives, Christians and other violators of Dem Party orthodoxies.
Don’t take the head fake.
I wouldn’t trust FB or any of the others any farther than I could throw them.
How soon most of us forget.
It is still important (for some reason) that Corporations think they care about us.They spend billions trying to convince us with their outreach programs and public services, when really all they would need to do is provide us quality goods and services at a fair price. But, like government, they believe their job is to extract wealth from us to be used for these “good works” that just coincidentally enhance their own images. Giving away free products and services that WE paid for.
I look at musicians who promote these charity events, putting on gala performances while begging their fans for millions of dollars….money that they could have easily just written the check for. Instead they promote themselves pretending it’s all about charity while expecting their fans….the ones who made them incredibly rich, to pay for their privilege.
Entertainment.we NEVER get tired of being lied to…..as long as it makes us feel better about ourselves.
I remember back in the 60’s when all the great musicians (both domestic and from across the pond) were protesting war and violence and government corruption.
When’s the last time you heard a good protest song from one of the top 40 artists?
Hell, when’s the last time you heard this classic played on the oldies stations?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40JmEj0_aVM
It’s a brand new day. Even the musicians and broadcasters are owned and toe the line.
The circle is closed.
Damn glad I’m as old as I am.
I was trying to think of a modern one…. none came to mind so I searched up…
https://www.villagevoice.com/2016/12/21/the-50-best-protest-songs-of-2016/
and almost all the themes are social rights, race, etc. .
Incredible really, seems like the rest have been neutered.
John Fogerty’s still going though 🙂
https://youtu.be/eQ-kSUJ3l58
After the 2003 Iraq invasion I waited for a good anti-war protest song. Nothing.
After 2008 I waited for a good anti-Wall Street protest song following the meltdown. Zip. The only one I could find was “Jump You F#*kers” by Gene Burnett, a very creative yet largely unknown folk singer.
After Ed Snowden dropped the dime on NSA (et.al.) domestic eavesdropping in 2013 I waited for a good anti-government protest song. Nada.
I find it hard to believe there wasn’t a market for it.
Perhaps all the old revolutionaries got bought off.
Either that or everybody’s running scared of Uncle Sugar these days.
People are confused, as madash says, for example…
Its not the US but a coalition
Its not a war but conflict resolution or self defence
It isn’t the western citizen paying the price, just foreigners who you have to help when they flee towards you.
It isn’t religion but politics here, over there it is religion not politics.
Etc. etc. etc.
‘They’ have learned to be evasive, to dissapear into the shadows, to mix into internationalism, to present the population with difficulties of their own to ponder on… social themes, progress, destruction of community, money.
There isn’t the appetite to challenge because people cannot focus on anything clearly anymore beyond their own more isolated existences.
Charity is a funny topic. For example my attitude is to always give when asked in person by those in need, but rarely to those ‘representing’ others in need. Rich or poor asks me sincerely for a hand and I will try to help. It is not charity though, it is example, common nature to survival, you don’t know when you might ask the help of someone, there is no direct personal motive but more some kind of ethical duty beyond argument. Community fundraising isn’t really charity either. When it comes to larger organized charity though, you almost always find politics and corruption present, sometimes business interests, people looking for social standing, and so on. I give that a miss unless I have a very clear idea that it is sensible, and even then . Not to put anyone off, have a party and feed people at the same time, or whatever, but it is not right to expect others to see it the same way. Apart that, to me a kindness has to be felt, and it is always a reward in itself, not something to be achieved, or to boast about…or maybe people are just startled that they are able to forget themselves for a moment and then have to make up for it, but that sort of defeats good sense.
Just speaking my thoughts as it is something I often turn over, and sure others will have their own ideas and definitions.
I was at the supermarket and I noticed a sign by the checkout that they wanted to hire baggers. I told the cashier “there is a guy at the corner right in front of the store that has a sign: “”Will work for food, God Bless””. I said why don’t you hire that guy? She said: “He won’t take the cut in pay”. It’s true, panhandlers are well paid.
True, but it makes me smile to see someone has initiative to go about something by themselves, as long as they don’t pester or force… like government does.
Everything we do is about how it makes us feel about ourselves. Those that prey upon us know that very well. They tell us how we SHOULD feel and then provide the opportunity to reinforce that with direct actions. We didn’t get here by accident and our values do not come to us by nature. We are indoctrinated into them. Not to say they are all bad, but it would be good to acknowledge that they are not naturally OURS.
our natural state is one of untrusting cynicism that they both use and try to convince us that only THEY can be trusted.
If only we were as smart as they tell us we are……right before proving to us the very opposite.
We are each special, we are all the same
We do not judge, but we reject evil
We seek peace, through endless wars
Our vote is precious, unless we choose poorly
We are all racists, unless we are non-white.
We are confused for a reason
Seems like they want to turn the whole population into a ‘psychiatric liability’, plenty of justification there for any kind of legislation.
I came across a phrase in an older immigration act from around 1900, i.e. the official wording as passed by a parliament. Under the definition of people who are impaired, its meaning in the glossary was : ” Pregnant women, lunatics and idiots ” and nothing else.
This arbitrary application of definitions and the leverage behind them has been going on a long long time, with different people or organisations at the helm, and for different reasons.
When they run out of ideas, they have to create new ones – anything to demonstrate a concensus of some kind, and almost always ignoring the common mundane reality of how society actually does shake itself out, as in person to person. They always have to add a slant to anything, usually while being careless towards the existing structure.
All the better to “con” us with it…. RE: “It is still important (for some reason) that Corporations think they care about us.”
What a canard. It’s not about free speech, it never was. It is about legal procedure. A warrant is obtained because one is suspected of illegal activity, The legal system is under no obligation to inform you that you are under investigation. The reason for a gag order is to prevent the destruction of possible evidence by the person or agents of that person under investigation. A gag order is not a denial of free speech, it is a denial against the disclosure of information that would be prejudicial against an investigation or court proceeding. Facebook is a third party to these procedures and it is against them in this case upon which the gag order has been placed. Unfortunately for them, acting as the canary or lookout so as to inform their own clients of any investigations is not free speech. Nor is it in the public interest to inform any and all of legal investigations of its subscribers when such information maybe detrimental to those investigations.
Looking at the evidence of Facebook’s previous behavior, what I see is the willingness to pick and choose legal positions that are solely to their benefit and not necessarily of benefit to their clients. Either one respects rule of law, regardless of country, or one doesn’t. And if one is going to defend the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press (or social media) then one has a duty not to offer one’s services in those countries where such freedoms do not exist. Sorry Zuckenberg, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You may take your case to court and it is possible you may win, but if you don’t then you have no complaint.
In this particular case I disagree with Mish and Facebook and support the FBI. For the FBI to have search warrant for communications they have shown probable cause, a fairly high level of evidence, to an independent judge or judges that a crime is likely occurring. And that crime is likely to be fairly serious.
To inform Facebook usesers that their communications are subject to court supported search warrants completely undermines the investigation and potentiallly puts the public at risk. That trumps Facebook’s first amendment right to inform the users of the warrants.
This is not a matter of randomly intercepting general communications. And while the FBI may have probable cause for a warrant they are in the process of building a case to support a conviction, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Sorry folks, but this is a Constitutionally supported on-going investigation of a crime with serious implications. It’s not a matter of “blasphemy.”
So in that case facbok is on the “wrong side” again, it filters information when it is not obliged, then challenges when it is obliged?
The problem with rule of law is that the law is seldom binary, that is, 100% right versus 100% wrong. Blame it partly on the inexactness of language. Words never mean exactly what we wish them to mean. If you wish, you can blame the existence of lawyers on language.
The same problem applies to these things we call freedoms. Courts have tried to give reason to the exactitude of freedom but usually fall somewhat short of an exact meaning. then we go and complicate freedom of speech with some extremely stupid idea called hate speech and a wish to not only eliminate it but punish it. the idea that somehow the venting of emotion through a form of common communication must be illegal because it is “hateful” emotion tends to put all emotions under the question of rule of law. where shall we draw the line?
So we come to the problem of censorship. Shall we depend of self censorship or shall we allow an agent of the community at large (law enforcement) to censor for us according to the dictates of that legal establishment? Then too, we must try to follow our unique philosophy of law. We are one of the few countries where human activity that is not proscribed or prohibited is legal. Most of the other countries on this planet take the opposite view, what is not specifically allowed is proscribed or prohibited.
In the case of Facebook, we might first ask in this dispute between a legal gag order issued by a court, who benefits from the gag order? Who benefits if the gag order is contravened or disregarded? Who is harmed by the gag order or its disregard? I do not see Mr Zucherberg answering that question while the presumption of the court is that the public and the legal status of the investigation is likely to be harmed. That is the given of any gag order, that there will be harm. Tie goes to law enforcement. So again, Mr Zuckerberg, what harm will come if the gag order is enforced? We must yield to the particular court venue for the arguments and answers since we, the public are on a court of opinion and not law.
Is there a compelling security issue? What is it?
Facebook said much of the info is known by the public anyway.
If we were talking about matters of national security or something like child molestation I would expect Facebook would not need a gag order, it would simply do the right thing.
Facebook may say what it likes about the various gag orders except disobey them. that is called trying the case in the court of public opinion, hardly a valid forum for rule of law. Facebook may appear before the court that issued the gag order and argue that such an order is unnecessary or has been effectively breached by general public knowledge. It may appeal that gag order in an appeals court. That is the procedure that one follows. You may not personally believe that the gag order is relevant or legal from your political perspective. That is your right as well as commenting on the order and general procedures of the court system.
But you raise a further point when you assume that Facebook, if the investigation involved the crime of child molestation or security would “do the right thing”. A gag order makes no such assumption, it enforces compliance with a court order.
As to the speculation as to what may or may not be public knowledge (I have no Facebook account so I may not have any “public” knowledge of the case or cases involved) the mere fact of a known investigation can be prejudicial to the investigators. There are many aspects to these investigations to consider, hence I am not so automatically disposed to championing Facebook’s cause celebri against the court system. Again, Rule of Law is not a perfect system and will have problems of injustice inherent in a man made and run system. But trying a case in the court of public opinion is never about justice.
“Happy independence” if that is how it is said.
Meanwhile
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/04/furious-jean-claude-juncker-lashes-ridiculous-european-parliament/
I am against stopping free speech. Whether it is hate speech or not, everyone has a right to express their opinion. If you block someone you disagree with today, tomorrow you will be censored. Unfortunately free speech is slowly being phased out of existence based on our PC culture. There is free speech in Vietnam, China and Russia too as long as you agree with the people in charge. We are fast approaching such a society ourselves.
How can we avoid it? We could all begin to stay off Facecrook tomorrow and it may not make much difference.
If everyone stays off faceplant, it won’t make any money and will go the way of myspace and AOL.
Smart people don’t use faceplant. Period.
Mish when my comments aren’t posted should I be thankful, offended, flattered, or sad?
When you post as anonymous you should be happy they do not immediately get thrown in the bit bucket.
As for delay I had a 6 hour drive and just got home