© Google
'Court is not to conduct detailed inquiry to decide whether it agrees with agency'A federal judge has ordered that whether Google is spying for National Security Agency or not, you have no right to know.
"The NSA need not disclose 'the organization or any function of the National Security Agency, [or] any information with respect to the activities thereof,'" U.S. District Judged Richard Leon has ordered.
"Once the agency, through affidavits, has created 'as complete a public record as is possible' and explained 'in as much detail as is possible the basis for its claim,' ... 'the court is not to conduct a detailed inquiry to decide whether it agrees with the agency's opinions,'" he said.
The demand for information had been raised by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which said the ruling would be appealed.
"EPIC had sought documents under the FOIA because such an agreement [between Google and NSA] could reveal that the NSA is developing technical standards that would enable greater surveillance of Internet users," the organization explained.
"The [response] to neither confirm nor deny is a controversial legal doctrine that allows agencies to conceal the existence of records that might otherwise be subject to public disclosure," the group said. "EPIC plans to appeal this decision."
The
court opinion came as a result of a situation in which a Chinese hacking incident in January 2010 raised questions.
The group had wanted information about "arrangements with Google on cybersecurity, as well as records regarding the agency's role in setting security standards for Gmail and other web-based applications."
© NSA
The organization explained that it was on Jan. 12, 2010, when Google said hackers from China had attacked Google's corporate infrastructure. The company had said evidence suggested "that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists."
The press then reported Google and the NSA "had entered into a 'partnership' to help analyze the attack by permitting them to 'share critical information,'" EPIC reported. Those reports came from the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and others.
EPIC was seeking records on any agreement between NSA and Google, communications between the groups and others. NSA denied the request even though Pamela Phillips of the NSA admitted the organization was working "with a broad range of commercial partners and research associates."
But the agency refused to release further information, "explaining that any response would improperly reveal information about NSA's functions and activities," the judge said.
The agency said, "To confirm or deny the existence of any such records would be to reveal whether the NSA ... determined that vulnerabilities or cybersecurity issues pertaining to Google or certain of its commercial technologies could make U.S. government information systems susceptible to exploitation or attack.'
According to the judge, the agency said "even an acknowledgment of a relationship between the NSA and a commercial entity could potentially alert 'adversaries to NSA priorities, threat assessment, or countermeasures."
According to
Courthouse News, the Washington federal judge's decision was to grant the NSA's request for a summary judgment dismissing the case.
"The Puzzle Palace" by James Bamford was published nearly three decades ago and to this day remains an excellent read; seen on Amazon at this [Link] .
Quoting from one of many positive reviews:
[ . . . ]
None of the following is classified information. I was an enlisted man in the Army Security Agency, stationed in the Philippines, from 1955 to 1957. I had been trained as a French Linguist at the Army Language School. It wasn't until I got to the Philippines that I even knew that there was an organization known as the National Security Agency (NSA). Even more amazing is the fact that, until I read Bamford's book, I had no idea how what I was doing fit into the scheme of things. Thanks, James Bamford, for clearing that up for me some forty five years later. Better late than never, they say.
What I think that Bamford has done so well is to tell the true story of the creation of a modern "Frankenstein's Monster." He presents a cogent case for the very real need for communication interception and code breaking in the early days of NSA's existence. He proceeds to take us through, step by step, the process whereby a protector of our freedoms seems to have evolved into a threat to those very freedoms.
According to Bamford, the communications security community seems almost paranoid in their fears that "unless we absolutely control it, it's dangerous." They are devious enough to get around any and every safeguard to the privacy of the individual that might be established. To wit: Jimmy Carter, when he was President, put a few safeguards in place. With time on their side, the NSA waited until Ronald Reagan was President and got him to remove those safeguards. (See page 374 of the 1982 hardback edition.)
It makes one wonder: In today's world of e-mail, high speed faxes, cell' phones, etc., all using the air waves, is anything sacred or has Orwell's prediction come true. As I mentioned above, I'd really like Bamford to bring us up to date.
A few reviewers have complained about problems keeping up with all the initials used in PUZZLE PALACE. One has to understand that no discussion of the magnitude of the situation can be held without mentioning all of the organizations and committees involved.
It is true that a bit of hard work on the part of the reader is necessary to get all, or most, of the impact of the information contained in PUZZLE PALACE, but I think that the knowledge gained is definitely worth the effort.