Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:55 AM/EST

What the NSA Secret Surveillance Mess Means to Google

There's plenty of Google fallout from a bombshell lawsuit alleging telephone behemoth AT&T helped the National Security Agency illegally monitor millions of its customers.

To catch some people up, electronic privacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation sued phone behemoth AT&T in January. As part of its suit, it uncovered documents attributed to Mark Klein, a former AT&T employee.

The documents, like the one Wired Magazine's Web site published, describes a number of supposedly "secret rooms" at various AT&T offices like room 641A at 611 Folsom Street, San Francisco.

"High-speed fiber-optic circuits come in on the 8th floor and run down to the 7th floor where they connect to the 'Common Backbone,' " Klein wrote. "In order to snoop on these circuits, a special cabinet was installed and cabled to the 'secret room' on the 6th floor to monitor the information going through."

What do these rooms do? Again according to the Klein document: the rooms "give the government full access to millions of e-mail messages, Web browsing sessions and phone calls."

That's potentially a lot of Google Internet searches, Gmail e-mails, Gtalk instant messaging and phone calls the NSA could be capturing. In fact, that's a lot of capturing of any brand of Internet communcations, regardless of whether it's hosted by Google or others doing buisness on the Net.

Can anybody do anything about the allegedly illegal spying?

The whole operation could come to a halt should the EFF win a preliminary injunction requiring AT&T stop turning over the information. That won't likely happen until at least late June.

On May 17, there were two hours of lawyerly verbal jousting about what to do with the Klein documents, ranging from sealing the records to not sealing them or redacting portions.

In the end, EFF lawyers won the right to continue using the records, which in turn seemingly boosts the EFF's shot at an injunction.

Following a court hearing in San Francisco, Klein said, "I believe I have signficant information to bring to the table. I have struggled for months to bring it to the light of day."

For Google's part, it will have to launch a more proactive fight if the EFF legal effort fails to stop the NSA's operation.

Maybe Google, MSN, Yahoo et al. will object to any direct NSA request to turn over any search sessions, and then launch their own legal battles when the NSA subpoenas the records. In short, Google would channel its inner Google Boy.

But that might not work. In theory, the NSA could then just turn to AT&T, or any other telcos it works with, to find any of the red flag Google search terms of the day.

There are a lot of other options. It'll be interesting to see which one, if any, the likes of Google choose.

Comments (17)

or :

I know this is a blog about Google. But to be more objective, you could have pointed out that this affects all web companies, including Yahoo, MSN, ASK, AOL, Amazon, etc.

Posted by or | May 18, 2006 4:30 AM

Yoda :

By dragging only Google's name, are you trying to gain some cheap publicity for your shitty article. Ben you are such a bitch.

Posted by Yoda | May 18, 2006 5:24 AM

William Booher :

Let's face it Bush has thumbed his nose at all of us that believe in check and balance governing. If he is allowed to continue to use the fight on the Alq's then we will all be treated as such. It is my feeling that the info that's being gathered will be used by him and his cronies to better themselves at or about the time he leaves office. If not for that then to keep the 14 families that run this country in power

Posted by William Booher | May 18, 2006 12:38 PM

CN :

I'm not sure what people's problems are? This is the Google Watch, of course he's focusing on Google - the article title even specifically states that he's talking about what affect this will have on Google, not on all internet companies. He does state, "regardless of whether it hosted by Google or others doing buisness on the 'Net", but the article is supposed to be focused specifically on Google! Though, in concession to "or", it is a bit of a reach to make this focus on just Google, since how this affects Google isn't really different from how it affects just about every other online company (at least the ones that have anything from AT&T's backbone sitting between them and their end users). And, Yoda, why would you say he's "dragging" Google's name? The article doesn't make Google look good or bad - the only negativity in the article are about AT&T and the NSA. It says if the EFF's legal efforts fail, Google will need to consider what they want to do to protect their users (as, of course, would every web site). How is that negative towards Google? OK, to return to the actual subject at hand. I guess one big question would be, is this being used on a continuous basis? Or is it just a way to set things up like the phone companies, where if a wiretap is needed, they have ways of doing it when a court order is obtained? From all we've heard of the NSA lately, I wouldn't be surprised to hear it is used at all times. But, if it's just something in the infrastructure to allow "tapping" of internet use the way telephones can be tapped, then it might be tough to stop. I'm not saying I like it, just that there may be precedent for this sort of thing on the telephony side.

Posted by CN | May 18, 2006 1:11 PM

David Wilson :

Everyone knows NSA is digging for T'rists and lets face it they gotta look through SOME data to find them, unless Harry Potter works there. Some freak whenever the word "privacy" is ever mentioned and some actual think about the ocmplete picture more thoroughly. I would really like someone to answer this though: If the NSA can't look through phone call records or the internet or open our mail, what information CAN they use to find these people ? If your shocked when the next strike occurs, anywhere in the world, be proud It may just have been you that helped them get away with it. Freedom has always been something earned except we inherited it. maybe thats why so many of us do not seem to understand it. There IS a cost sometimes.

Posted by David Wilson | May 18, 2006 5:36 PM

gabe :

i think that it is good we need info too fight terrioests

Posted by gabe | May 18, 2006 7:39 PM

Heiko :

Gabe, if you seriously believe this has anything to do with terrorists, you're living in pixieland. This admin has spent trillions and it ain't caught a dime's worth of terrorists. This is about power and control of information, and as a result, your total loss of privacy.

Posted by Heiko | May 19, 2006 10:33 PM

Spaghetti Monster :

The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. Benjamin Franklin

Posted by Spaghetti Monster | May 20, 2006 12:13 AM

Jherad :

Given Yahoo/Microsoft/etcs apparent willingness to comply with foreign information orders (read: China) that certainly seem 'immoral' if not illegal, I have doubts that they'll fight too hard if they are pushed. Granted that these previous orders were for information on specific political dissidents using their services rather than blanket requests, but still - we weren't talking about 'terrorism' here. The mighty dollar comes first.

Posted by Jherad | May 22, 2006 8:50 AM

Booboo :

And everyone wonders how Google is turning such a large profit. Ever wonder if they are getting paid by the government to spy on us?

Posted by Booboo | May 22, 2006 7:14 PM

Price of Freedom==Constant Vigilance :

Used to be a wire tap required a court order. since the [anti] patriot act, most taps are secret and without any court approval. Like the sierra mist free ad where the security guards at the airport take whatever they want. All they have to say is "it's a security issue." But its easy to see its a self-serving, bald-faced lie by petty bureaucrats.

Posted by Price of Freedom==Constant Vigilance | May 23, 2006 1:45 AM

Google Watch :