Once Upon a Time the PRISM Companies Fought Retroactive Immunity

Screen shot 2013-06-09 at 8.30.08 AMSince the disclosure of the PRISM program, I have thought about a letter the industry group for some of the biggest and earliest PRISM participants — Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo — wrote to then House Judiciary Chair John Conyers during the 2008 debate on FISA Amendments Act. (The screen capture reflects a partial list of members from 2009.)

Remarkably, the letter strongly condemned the effort to grant companies that had broke the law under Bush’s illegal wiretap program immunity.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) strongly opposes S. 2248, the “FISA Amendments Act of 2007,” as passed by the Senate on February 12, 2008. CCIA believes that this bill should not provide retroactive immunity to corporations that may have participated in violations of federal law. CCIA represents an industry that is called upon for cooperation and assistance in law enforcement. To act with speed in times of crisis, our industry needs clear rules, not vague promises that the U.S. Government can be relied upon to paper over Constitutional transgressions after the fact.

CCIA dismisses with contempt the manufactured hysteria that industry will not aid the United States Government when the law is clear. As a representative of industry, I find that suggestion insulting. To imply that our industry would refuse assistance under established law is an affront to the civic integrity of businesses that have consistently cooperated unquestioningly with legal requests for information. This also conflates the separate questions of blanket retroactive immunity for violations of law, and prospective immunity, the latter of which we strongly support.

Therefore, CCIA urges you to reject S. 2248. America will be safer if the lines are bright. The perpetual promise of bestowing amnesty for any and all misdeeds committed in the name of security will condemn us to the uncertainty and dubious legalities of the past. Let that not be our future as well. [my emphasis]

Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google all joined PRISM within a year of the date of the February 29, 2008 letter (Microsoft had joined almost six months before, Google would join in January 2009).

Screen shot 2013-06-07 at 11.08.29 AMClearly, the demand that the companies that broke the law not receive retroactive immunity suggests none of the members had done so. It further suggests that those companies that did break the law — the telecoms, at a minimum — had done something the email providers wanted them held accountable for. This suggests, though doesn’t prove, that before PRISM, the government may have accessed emails from these providers by taking packets from telecom switches, rather than obtaining the data from the providers themselves.

Google had also fought a DOJ subpoena in 2006 for a million URLs and search terms, purportedly in the name of hunting child pornographers.

And those of us who follow this subject have always speculated (with some support from sources) that the plaintiff in a 2007 FISA Court challenge to a Protect America Act (the precursor to FISA Amendments Act) was an email provider.

All of those details suggest, at the very least, that email providers (unlike telecoms, which we know were voluntarily giving over data shortly after 9/11) fought government efforts to access their data.

But it also suggests that the email providers may have treated PRISM as a less worse alternative than the government accessing their data via other means (which is a threat the government used to get banks to turn over SWIFT data, too).

It seems likely the way the government “negotiates” getting data companies to willingly turn over their data is to steal it first.

Tweet about this on Twitter62Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook26Google+2Email to someone

12 Responses to Once Upon a Time the PRISM Companies Fought Retroactive Immunity

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12

Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel @carwinb Priest said he wsa put on JSOC list shortly thereafter. @charlie_savage was unable to get that confirmed.
57mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @carwinb Whether when JSOC missed Awlaki on 12/24/09 he was targeted. @charlie_savage
58mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz U.S. military gives Arizona alfalfa inspection agents M-16s under §1033 program because why not http://t.co/QtRNm0TFMk
4hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @dpleasant 81. That might be counted as my 5th computer.
9hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @dpleasant Right--the first computer I USED (very different question, no?) was an Apple II, I think.
9hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @dpleasant Well, I was suckled on them so don't actually know, but I also drew pretty pictures on them. No. Not that old.
9hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel I was suckled on punch cards. #firstcomputer
10hreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @AdamWeinstein: Fuck this guy. Fuck Florida. Fuck everything. http://t.co/hT31XD27I6
10hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @isamuel @copiesofcopies @OrinKerr I agree. Theres significant nuance here. Frankly, I think WAY too much. 4th+5th Amendments mean something
10hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @billmon1 After first implicating the woman who accepted the video fr cops and then killing hotel security in process.
10hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @billmon1 A cover up of cover up! But yes. It is rather remarkable they still haven't solved 2rd worst terror attack since 9/11, in't it?
10hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @LOLGOP Cleaned out uncle's basement last year, who did comms for space program. Really hit home that Apollo didn't even have an iPhone.
10hreplyretweetfavorite
June 2013
S M T W T F S
« May   Jul »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30