Once you start looking at which countries are requesting data from US companies, the next obvious (and critical) question is: how do companies respond to those requests? This is largely a matter of company discretion because the Electronic Communications Privacy Act does not apply to requests for user data from foreign governments. Without laws governing this important issue, foreign users are reliant on due diligence and good will by individual companies. This ad hoc approach means that different companies can have quite different compliance rates for the same countries. Continue reading
One of the trends from the industry-wide transparency report that’s worth looking at more closely is which countries are making requests for user data, to which companies, and on what scale. This post will break down these statistics and suggest some of the trends behind the numbers. Continue reading
Cross-posted from https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2014/05/international-data-privacy-what-we-need-industry-transparency-report
Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft, Twitter, Apple, Dropbox, LinkedIn, and Pinterest all publish transparency reports. WordPress is the latest company to join the party, recently publishing their first transparency report. However, it’s difficult to see trends and anomalies when the information is scattered across multiple individual company reports. In order to get a comprehensive view of what is happening, we need to pull all of these fragments into a comprehensive picture. We need an internet industry-wide transparency report.
To create a kind of hacked industry transparency report, I have consolidated the July-December 2013 transparency data from the main internet companies. There is such a wealth of information to pore over and slice and dice in different ways that I will separate the analysis into a series of blog entries. My interest is the international aspect, so I will focus on requests from foreign law enforcement. This post will outline some of the key themes emerging from my comparison. Continue reading
Cross-posted from https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2014/04/ecpa-reform-not-just-us-issue
If US law enforcement officers want to access your private emails, they need to follow the requirements in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. ECPA is an old and imperfect piece of legislation. Industry and civil society have long been pushing to update ECPA so that it is “technology neutral”; just as government agencies require a warrant to compel disclosure of a person’s locally-stored documents, government should have to obtain a warrant to access private documents stored in the cloud. While this argument may seem self-evident, reform has been frustratingly slow. Today, blogs have fired up (such as here, here, and here) with arguments in favor of reform and criticising the Securities and Exchange Commission’s opposition to reform. However, what is missing in the current debate is that ECPA has implications beyond US borders. Technology neutrality is an important principle that should underpin the reform of ECPA. However, I believe that the ECPA discussion should also include the question of “location neutrality” ie. foreign law enforcement officers’ access to user data should be based on the same principles as access by US law enforcement.
How is foreign access to non-content regulated?
It doesn’t matter where in the world a police officer is, if he or she wants to access an individual’s Gmail or Facebook records (or many other US-based products), that access is governed by ECPA. ECPA providessome limits on US law enforcement access to non-content information by requiring at least an administrative subpoena. However, ECPA completely overlooks access by foreign governments because it defines “government entities” to mean only US government agencies. This means that when foreign law enforcement officers ask for a user’s subscriber details or email contacts, it is up to the companies to decide whether or not they hand over that information. Some companies refuse to provide any information voluntarily and insist on a request under a mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT), supported by a court order. Other companies will hand over information if they feel that it is appropriate in the circumstances. In practice, there is no consistency, transparency, or oversight into when non-content information is handed over to foreign law enforcement.
What about content?
Foreign law enforcement must go through the MLAT process in order to access user content held in the US. Before you get too excited in thinking that this provides good legal and procedural protections, you need to look a little more closely. The current MLAT-based system for content access is basically due to a legislative oversight, not because of a well-reasoned policy decision. ECPA doesn’t mention whether or not a foreign law enforcement officer should be able to obtain either a subpoena or court order directly from a US court. In order to overcome this, a foreign government can make an MLAT request, which effectively asks the US Government to obtain a warrant on behalf of the foreign government.
When it comes to the content of users’ emails, the current system might seem good on first glance because it only allows foreign governments to access user data through the MLAT system, which involves a US warrant process. However, the MLAT system is not designed to cope with the large volume of requests for online data that are now being made or the tight timeframes that cyber-investigations demand (the President’s Review Group found that MLAT requests for online records take an average of 10 months!). This means that either (1) legitimate criminal investigations and prosecutions are compromised because the evidence cannot be obtained quickly enough or (2) police find “creative” work-arounds and “informal” means to obtain the data, which undermines transparency, accountability and user protections. Neither of these is a good outcome.
Where to from here?
In the context of ECPA, technology neutrality means that a user should have the same protections for their personal data, regardless of whether it is stored in physical format, in a locally-based electronic format, or in the cloud. I suggest that another principle for ECPA should be location neutrality – ie a user’s personal data should have the same protections from all law enforcement agencies, regardless of whether that agency is based in the US or abroad.
The reform of ECPA is certainly not just a US issue; it impacts millions of users outside of the US. It would be a great step forward to protect users’ data from unwarranted US law enforcement snooping. However, this is only half the picture; we need to start talking about foreign law enforcement access to electronic communications as part of the ECPA reforms.
This weekend, as an ex-bureaucrat, I felt for the folk at the State Department. It must have been a ridiculously busy weekend for those preparing for this week’s Human Rights Committee Hearing in Geneva. On Friday, the New York Times leaked Harold Koh’s legal advice acknowledging that the US obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights do not stop at the border. The NYT article would have meant that the briefing folders that had been merrily making their way up the clearance chain in time to be packed into the delegation’s suitcases would have been discarded (or at least the sections on extraterritoriality would have been yanked out) and all the talking points would have needed to be rewritten.
This is not just an important moment for bureaucrats or international human rights law junkies; it is potentially powerful for digital rights activists pushing for reform of global surveillance practices. Digital rights advocates have been calling for the US government to end global mass suspicionless surveillance and to adhere to their international human rights law obligations. There may be a strong moral case to support them, but when it comes to the NSA’s overseas activities, the discourse has often lacked a strong legal underpinning. In order to push governmental policy on this issue, the dialogue needs to mature to the point where it is built on solid legal underpinnings. The next couple of months bring an unprecedented opportunity to do just that. Continue reading
[cross-posted from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog]
It seems like the world has been turned upside down when a US citizen flees to China seeking political asylum. And yet Edward Snowden is apparently hiding out in a secret location in Hong Kong after revealing that he is responsible for the leaked information on the US government’s PRISM program of surveillance. He explains his choice of refuge as being based on Hong Kong’s reputation for defending freedom of speech. He is also apparently considering Iceland as another potential refuge. But if the US chooses to prosecute him, will he be able to avoid being sent home to face charges? A key part of the answer lies in whether his leaking of official secrets qualifies as a ‘political offense’.
If it had happened on House of Cards, you’d have enjoyed the theater of it, but figured that the writers had taken some artistic license in the timing. I mean, it just doesn’t happen in real life that the UN releases a report on the dangers of government surveillance on the internet immediately before the news breaks that the US Government has been conducting internet surveillance of previously unimagined proportions. Critics could unkindly say this is because the UN is never ahead of the game, but in this case, you have to hand it to Frank La Rue – he has clearly authored an exceptionally timely report: Continue reading