[moultano]

Which Google repeatedly vehemently denied.

>I’m not sure I can say this more clearly: we’re not in cahoots with the NSA and there’s is no government program that Google participates in that allows the kind of access that the media originally reported. Note that I say "originally" because you'll see that many of those original sources corrected their articles after it became clear that the PRISM slides were not accurate. Now, what does happen is that we get specific requests from the government for user data. We review each of those requests and push back when the request is overly broad or doesn't follow the correct process. There is no free-for-all, no direct access, no indirect access, no back door, no drop box.

We’re not in the business of lying and we’re absolutely telling the truth about all of this. Our business depends on the trust of our users. And I’m an executive officer of a large publicly traded company, so lying to the public wouldn’t be the greatest career move.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2013/jun/19/googl... http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/what.html

[workhere-io]

Which Google repeatedly vehemently denied.

Probably because they're forced to do so by the authorities, like Lavebit was. So it becomes a question of who you are going to trust: Snowden (who has nothing to gain by lying) or Google (who is required by law to lie about it and risks losing a lot of money if their customers lose faith in them). I know who I trust in this case.

[DannyBee]

Can you please state what law you believe would force them to lie about it?

As i've pointed out in a few discussions, the law does not (and generally cannot constitutionally) require you to actively lie about something (IE compelled inaccurate speech). It can require you to not speak about something, compel you to speak truthful things (as a disclosure or otherwise), and require you to not tell someone something, but cannot require you to tell them something that is a lie.

AFAIK, Lavabit was forced to not disclose something to their customers, which fits in with what I said.

There are actually fairly important distinctions, legally, between different types of speech, and important legal distinctions between compelled speech and lack of disclosure. So you can't really paint all of these things with the same brush.

(note: The above is about the US, someone asked me privately, and I have no idea, about other countries)

[michaelt]

According to 18 USC § 2709 (C)(1) it is illegal to "disclose to any person" [1] you have received a National Security Letter. Likewise, the FISA court order used to gather all Verizon call data bars Verizon from disclosing its existence [2].

I don't have the legal expertise to say whether one would be forced to lie about it, and the legislation doesn't explicitly use the word lie. However, according to someone who received one and received legal advice: "Under the threat of criminal prosecution, I must hide all aspects of my involvement in the case -- including the mere fact that I received an NSL [...] When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to look them in the eye and lie." [3]

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2709 [2] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-recor... [3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03...

[DannyBee]

1. As I mentioned, non-disclosure is very different from compelled speech. Compelled accurate speech is even held to a different standard than compelled lies. I have the legal expertise to tell you they are different. :)

2. This person seems to have missed choice b: "Do not comment". They are not compelled to lie, by the very law you cite. They are only required not to disclose. No court has ever held this to mean "lie when asked", rather than "say nothing when asked". If the government went after someone for not saying anything, that would be ... a tough case.

3. I am happy to admit the distinction between compelled lying and non-disclosure is, for some people, no distinction at all, but the law does make such a distinction.

[michaelt]

What you say may be traditionally held by non-secret courts, but the revelations so far indicate the secret courts produce some astonishing rulings.

If the chap quoted in the Washington Post article was actively challenging the constitutionality of National Security Letters with the help of the ACLU, that makes me think he would probably have received reasonably reliable legal advice? Don't you think?

[DannyBee]

First, it is not secret courts who have produced any precedential rulings on the reach of NSL's (at least in the sense of binding any large group of people). It has been normal federal courts. Those that have ruled, have ruled the gag portion unconstitutional.

Here in fact, it says they verified he's the person through publicly available court documents, which must mean it's likely docketed in a normal federal court somewhere (the article pre-dates the FISC publishing their docket)

Second, there are two issues I do not expect he necessarily received reasonably reliable legal advice. The people who participate in these cases are often not specialists, and often not highly knowledgable about the area (especially at this stage of the game, when things get to SCOTUS or something they generally are willing to engage more competent people). They are just passionate.

Past that, he was not quoted, he wrote the piece. You assume the piece is, for example, not using hyperbole. It does not say the government, or anyone else, has actually made these threats. It does not say what legal viewpoint they take that makes them believe this (and again, given the only gag orders to be challenged have all been struck down, it seems a bit out there ...). There are no details or anything else to support or verify the legal reasoning or implications for what he says.

This is an opinion piece, meant to support his case. Reading it as an accurate view of the state of the law is, well, probably not a great idea (I certainly agree that reading it for the chilling effects part, fine. But to take everything he says as if his lawyer said that was the way it had to be, is a bit far)