Risk
1/21/2014
08:16 AM
Mark Weinstein
Mark Weinstein
Commentary
Connect Directly
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

What Would Judge Leon Say About The 'Big 8'?

Why Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, and others' open letter against NSA spying practices rings of hypocrisy

Special to Dark Reading

Mark Weinstein is a privacy advocate, author of the "Habitually Great" book series, and founder and CEO of Sgrouples.com, a new type of social network built on a Privacy Bill of Rights for its members.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon stated in his Dec. 16 ruling against the National Security Agency (NSA) that Founding Father James Madison "would be aghast" at how our government encroaches on our personal liberties. While undoubtedly true, the reality is that Madison's shock and disappointment would extend far beyond our government.

Case in point: Just a week later, the "Big 8" major technology companies, including Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Twitter, joined forces in an open letter asking the U.S. government to enforce tighter controls on government surveillance. First off, I commend them for their efforts. Our power to achieve becomes unlimited when we unite in one voice against what we perceive as inequities or injustices.

But let's get to the heart of the matter here. The statement set forth by these companies, individually or together, represents the penultimate in hypocrisy. The very words they use against our government and in support of protection of our individual rights are the very practices they put into place within their own corporations.

Let's look at their statement:

"The balance in many countries has tipped too far in favor of the state and away from the rights of the individual -- rights that are enshrined in our Constitution. This undermines the freedoms we all cherish. It's time for a change."

That statement is absolutely true. At the same time, if you replace the word "state" with Facebook, Google, or the names of any of the Big 8, that statement is also true. You see, those companies all collect information about what you do on the Internet. They store your email messages. They track your search queries. They follow your payments and plenty more personal information. This is not conjecture, mind you, but fact.

In a July 31, 2013, article for The Wall Street Journal, Amir Efrati pointed out in detailed diagram form how Google compiles a portfolio of you based on where you go and what you do online. Facebook similarly gathers information on you through activity on its site as well as any activity on a Web site that has a Facebook "Like" box tagged onto it. In terms of the latter, in case you didn't know, that includes compiling a portfolio of non-Facebook users interacting with those partnered sites.

Make no mistake here. These companies are not the white hat or prince in shining armor here. They are the wolf in sheep's clothing. What they are doing is damage control, which under the circumstances makes total sense. Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, let the cat out of the bag when he said,"People won't use technology they don't trust." I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is these companies want to give the impression they are trustworthy through their press releases and public relations, which counter their data-spying practices and privacy infringements.

They say they want to limit the government's authority to collect user information. Amen to that. What they don't say anything about is limiting their own authority. It's the classic, "Do as I say, not as I do" defense, because when it comes down to it, everything they want the government to do should be practiced by all Internet companies.

Chris Soghoian, a senior analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union, correctly calls out how these companies should have been crying for reform before Ed Snowden's disclosures and the whole NSA mess. But they didn't, and that's indicative of where they stand on the issue. They will take a stand when the public cries for one, not because of any sense of moral justice or protection of inalienable rights.

Balancing individual rights with public safety is an important debate and one worth creating legislation for that protects individual rights. At the same time, those same laws should apply to Internet companies to protect our privacy and outlaw data scraping.

James Madison may have died close to 200 years ago, but the truths he set forth in the U.S. Constitution still stand as the laws of our land for citizens and companies alike. While the technology behemoths act as if they are on your side, they are truly acting on their own behalf. They don't want to change their egregious methods of operation, yet they don't want to appear greedy or untrustworthy toward the public. But change they must to dispel the unsavory practices they support, and attacking the U.S. government for its own faults merely ignores the real problem. Next time, they should direct the letter toward the government and cc: themselves.

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Add Your Comment" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message. Mark Weinstein is a founder and CEO of Sgrouples.com, a leading privacy advocate, the author of the Habitually Great book series, and the founder and CEO of Sgrouples.com, a new type of social networkbuilt upon a Privacy Bill of ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
dferguson_usa
50%
50%
dferguson_usa,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/24/2014 | 3:39:19 AM
re: What Would Judge Leon Say About The 'Big 8'?
ACM, you hit the nail on the head. It's about the potentially negative and unjust consequences on your life if the government decides to target you. The article misses the huge difference there.
Drew Conry-Murray
50%
50%
Drew Conry-Murray,
User Rank: Ninja
1/22/2014 | 2:22:12 PM
re: What Would Judge Leon Say About The 'Big 8'?
I agree that these companies are acting in their own self-interest, and that their stance is hypocritical. However, regardless of how much data Google, Facebook et. al., collect, they don't have the power to arrest me, seize my property or imprison me. They can't scream "National security! The terrorists will win!'" whenever someone questions their data collection practices or requests information. The government can do those things, so I'm willing to leverage Google's influence if it can help us push back against government surveillance.
twpsyn
50%
50%
twpsyn,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/21/2014 | 3:32:13 PM
re: What Would Judge Leon Say About The 'Big 8'?
I suppose these companies would hide behind EULAs and such like that nobody reads before agreeing to. I don't recall ever signing up to a EULA with any government.
Out of interest, if the statement of these companies represents the penultimate in hypocrisy, what's the ultimate?
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
Partner Perspectives
What's This?
In a digital world inundated with advanced security threats, Intel Security seeks to transform how we live and work to keep our information secure. Through hardware and software development, Intel Security delivers robust solutions that integrate security into every layer of every digital device. In combining the security expertise of McAfee with the innovation, performance, and trust of Intel, this vision becomes a reality.

As we rely on technology to enhance our everyday and business life, we must too consider the security of the intellectual property and confidential data that is housed on these devices. As we increase the number of devices we use, we increase the number of gateways and opportunity for security threats. Intel Security takes the “security connected” approach to ensure that every device is secure, and that all security solutions are seamlessly integrated.
Featured Writers
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading's October Tech Digest
Fast data analysis can stymie attacks and strengthen enterprise security. Does your team have the data smarts?
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2013-0334
Published: 2014-10-31
Bundler before 1.7, when multiple top-level source lines are used, allows remote attackers to install arbitrary gems by creating a gem with the same name as another gem in a different source.

CVE-2014-2334
Published: 2014-10-31
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Web User Interface in Fortinet FortiAnalyzer before 5.0.7 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-2336.

CVE-2014-2335
Published: 2014-10-31
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Web User Interface in Fortinet FortiManager before 5.0.7 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-2336.

CVE-2014-2336
Published: 2014-10-31
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Web User Interface in Fortinet FortiManager before 5.0.7 and FortiAnalyzer before 5.0.7 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-2334 and CVE-2014-2335.

CVE-2014-3366
Published: 2014-10-31
SQL injection vulnerability in the administrative web interface in Cisco Unified Communications Manager allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary SQL commands via a crafted response, aka Bug ID CSCup88089.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Follow Dark Reading editors into the field as they talk with noted experts from the security world.