Truthdig: Why Twitter’s Lawsuit Could Make or Break Transparency

Twitter’s recent battle to be able to release a more specific transparency report isn’t just a PR move, Cardozo contends. “I think the six tech companies that sued in the FISA court last year and then rolled over and agreed to the Justice Department’s guidance—I think that was PR. Those companies—Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple—declared victory when the DOJ issued the guidance. Twitter could have been a part of that, and it said very strongly at the time that it didn’t feel that was enough,” he said.

Shutterstock image

By Thor Benson  Truthdig.com  October 21, 2014

President Obama has called his administration the “most transparent in history,” but instead of allowing companies to be completely transparent regarding their involvement in government surveillance, Washington has muzzled them, spying on their customers or users and employing gag orders to prevent them from notifying the public. As we are well aware of by now, this kind of activity was not made transparent until people like Edward Snowden made it their business to expose such practices.


Subscribe or “Follow” us on RiseUpTimes.org. Rise Up Times is also on Facebook! Check the Rise Up Times page for posts from this blog and more! “Like” our page today. Rise Up Times is also on  PinterestGoogle+ and Tumblr. Find us on Twitter at Rise Up Times (@touchpeace).


Twitter announced Oct. 7 that it had filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government for not allowing it to release a transparency report that would reveal a significant level of insight on what kind of information the government has requested. Twitter approached Washington with a reporting protocol it believed would not hurt the government’s efforts to obtain national security information, but the idea was roundly rejected, the company’s blog postasserts. Twitter says, “It’s our belief that we are entitled under the First Amendment to respond to our users’ concerns and to the statements of U.S. government officials by providing information about the scope of U.S. government surveillance. …”

A previous lawsuit from Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, Yahoo and others provided a slight win, with the Department of Justice declaring the companies could issue broad transparency reports that reveal a range in the thousands of how many requests for information they receive from the NSA and FBI, but the companies are still not able to say the exact number or kind of requests there were. Twitter was not part of that deal andcame out against the DOJ decision at the time, claiming it was too restrictive.

“Twitter demanded permission from the DOJ to give more information, to give truthful and accurate information, without tipping off the targets of the investigations, and the DOJ said no,” Nate Cardozo, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Truthdig. “The DOJ said the guidance we issued in January is final and what we say goes. That’s kind of ridiculous. The DOJ guidance was just made up—no court issued it, Congress didn’t issue it, it didn’t come from in the law—it just came out of the mind of a DOJ lawyer.”

One of the most important revelations to come from Snowden’s leaks is the existence of a program called Prism. An NSA presentation slide shows companies that had started being monitored under the program. Twitter was not on that list. In its blog post, Twitter said it wanted to release “what types of legal process have not been received.” Not only does Twitter want to be able to provide a number for how many requests there were and what kind of requests there were, without hindering an investigation, but it wants to be able to say if there were no requests at all. “I think what Twitter probably wants to say is if they haven’t received any—either Section 215 orders or any Section 702 orders,” Cardozo said.

Section 215 orders are part of the Patriot Act, and they allow the FBI to request that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court force a company to turn over “tangible things,” which could be driver’s license records, credit card records, emails, phone metadata and much more if it could be relevant to a national security investigation. Section 702 orders are the part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that allows the NSA to request communication information of non-U.S. citizens, though communications from American citizens are often obtained with 702 orders due to “incidental collection” that results from how wide the scope of the surveillance has become. As it stands, Twitter cannot release information on whether it has received these orders.

 1   2   NEXT PAGE >>>

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: