To better understand issues that are not always easily answerable, sometimes we should be forced to examine the alternative opposing viewpoint no matter how benign or absurd. While it would seem hard to defend the NSA’s practice of mass collecting call detail records of non-suspect Americans as not violating the 4th Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, does the “open letter” signed today by Google, et al, to President Obama and the U.S. Congress seem to come across as being a bit disingenuous? Consider the following case before looking upon that comment as being incredulous:
Our law enforcement officials have a delicate dance between protecting the safety and welfare of all citizens, and yet still maintain the integrity of the civil liberties we hold dear. The premise of the open letter was to make a plea to regulate online spying programs and to push for changes in order to better protect user privacy. The suggested course of conduct by the Big 8 tech firms was (1) to limit the government’s ability to collect users’ information; (2) set up a legal system of oversight and accountability for that authority; (3) allow the companies to publish the number and nature of the demands for data; (4) ensure that users’ online data can be stored in different countries; and (5) establish a framework to govern data requests between countries. Brad Smith, General Counsel of Microsoft, stated “People won’t use technology they don’t trust[.]”
However, those same companies, when taking into context their business model, practice the very same methods of data collection that the NSA and other executive agencies seek when making a court ordered request for production. The business and economic interest is based on the data analytics derived from the email messages, search engine queries, payment details, and other personal information that they collect from their customers – all in an effort to provide a more targeted online experience. These are the same businesses whose ULA’s (user license agreements) state that the customer retains all rights and title in the data transmitted, and yet their servers are constantly under attack by rogue agents and botnets. Everyone of those companies has at one point in time experienced a breach in data security, and not one would state that their IT network is impenetrable. A very prominent founder and CEO of one the firms has declared in the past that “Privacy is dead.”
Point being, are these firms in any more of a position to make the demands they made today than that of a legal request granted from some non-descript court of law? The answer we all seek, and demand, is of course greater transparency, both from the government and the service providers in which we place our mission-critical data. To date, there have been over 621 million records breached, and that is only what has been reported. Many businesses simply refuse to adequately report on data loss, because of the collateral damage it may cause to its business reputation. The government’s position may simply be that they are doing legally, via a court order, that which is already being done illegally for lack of internal and external controls. A paradigm shift in our legal framework AND in the way we conduct business “in the Clouds” is truly the bipartisan answer we should demand.