PRISM reports prompt tech giants to push for transparency
In the wake of reports that the National Security Agency collected data from companies including Facebook, Microsoft, and Google, tech giants ensnared in the debacle are pushing to publicly disclose information about what they have been asked to turn over.
Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, government agencies can demand that companies turn over data without companies being able to disclose that they received such requests. The secrecy binding the companies has helped stir up a storm of accusations that tech giants are indiscriminately handing over non-US citizens鈥� information to the government through a clandestine NSA program, PRISM.
Vehemently denying their willing participation in PRISM and trying to reel back a potential fallout among users, several tech giants published statements asking for permission to disclose more information about FISA requests. Each of the statements underlined one message: that the companies, far from giving the NSA 鈥渄irect access鈥� to their users鈥� photos, e-mails, and documents, strive to protect users鈥� privacy.
Google led the wave Tuesday morning, publishing a letter asking Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Robert Mueller to grant it permission to share how many national security requests it has received.
鈥淎ssertions in the press that our compliance with these requests gives the U.S. government unfettered access to our users鈥� data are simply untrue. However, government nondisclosure obligations regarding the number of FISA national security requests that Google receives, as well as the number of accounts covered by those requests, fuel that speculation,鈥� David Drummond, chief legal officer of Google, wrote in Google鈥檚 blog.
Soon after, Microsoft and Facebook followed suit. Microsoft said in a statement that 鈥減ermitting greater transparency on the aggregate volume and scope of national security requests, including FISA orders, would help the community understand and debate these important issues.鈥�
Whether the Department of Justice would grant companies鈥� disclosure requests remained unclear Wednesday. But the nine tech firms implicated in PRISM hope to cool the outrage of their users, some of whom took to Twitter 鈥斅爊otably absent from PRISM鈥檚 list of targets 鈥斅爐o slam the companies.
鈥淪o disgusting that there is so much money being made through the evisceration of our democracy,鈥� one user, 鈥淐armineMac,鈥� tweeted Monday.
Others created parody Twitter accounts, with 鈥淧RISM_NSA鈥� throwing a jab at companies implicated in the scandal by tweeting, 鈥淲ell, I guess at this point there鈥檚 no reason not to set up a Twitter account.鈥�
Elsewhere on the Web, computer users demanded an explanation from CEOs. They said there has been a major breach of trust among users, and that companies must show they are committed to being transparent about their exchanges with the NSA.
Noting the disparity between companies鈥� denials of voluntary participation in PRISM and the government鈥檚 confirmation of the program鈥檚 existence, the Electronic Frontier Foundation 鈥� an organization advocating privacy and civil liberties 鈥� said companies must 鈥渟et the record straight鈥� with their users.
鈥淵our public statement of denial is a good first step, but in order to win back the trust of your users worldwide, denials are not enough,鈥� the foundation said in an online petition. 鈥淚f your company wants to clear its name, you must call for a full public accounting of America鈥檚 secret spying programs.鈥�
Facebook has already issued a statement in that spirit, with CEO Mark Zuckerberg calling PRISM 鈥渙utrageous鈥� in a public Facebook post.
鈥淲e strongly encourage all governments to be much more transparent about all programs aimed at keeping the public safe,鈥� Mr. Zuckerberg wrote. 鈥淚t鈥檚 the only way to protect everyone鈥檚 civil liberties and create the safe and free society we all want over the long term.鈥�
While some people praised the CEO, others criticized his statement, saying that they had lost their faith in Facebook's commitment to protecting users' privacy.
The public backlash has perhaps lent momentum to companies' request for transparency: Google and its counterparts maintain that if they were allowed to publish the scope and the aggregate numbers of national security requests they received, they would be able to show the public that they can still be trusted.
鈥淕oogle has nothing to hide,鈥� Mr. Drummond said in his blog post.
