{"id":60033,"date":"2015-06-22T12:00:07","date_gmt":"2015-06-22T11:00:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=60033"},"modified":"2015-06-22T01:05:01","modified_gmt":"2015-06-22T00:05:01","slug":"revealed-how-the-us-dept-of-justice-gagged-google-over-surveillance-of-wikileaks-volunteer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2015\/06\/revealed-how-the-us-dept-of-justice-gagged-google-over-surveillance-of-wikileaks-volunteer\/","title":{"rendered":"Revealed: How the US Dept. of Justice Gagged Google over Surveillance of WikiLeaks Volunteer"},"content":{"rendered":"

20 Jun 2015 – <\/em>The Obama administration fought a legal battle against Google to secretly obtain the email records of a security researcher and journalist associated with WikiLeaks.<\/p>\n

\"Jacob<\/a>

Jacob Appelbaum
Photo: Axel Schmidt\/DAPD\/AP<\/p><\/div>\n

Newly unsealed court documents obtained by The Intercept<\/em><\/a> reveal the Justice Department won an order forcing Google to turn over more than one year\u2019s worth of data from the Gmail account of Jacob Appelbaum (pictured above), a developer for the Tor<\/a> online anonymity project who has worked with WikiLeaks as a volunteer. The order also gagged Google, preventing it from notifying Appelbaum that his records had been provided to the government.<\/p>\n

The surveillance of Appelbaum\u2019s Gmail account was tied to the Justice Department\u2019s long-running criminal investigation of WikiLeaks, which began in 2010 following the transparency group\u2019s publication of a large cache of U.S. government diplomatic cables.<\/p>\n

According to the unsealed documents, the Justice Department first sought details from Google about a Gmail account operated by Appelbaum in January 2011, triggering a three-month dispute between the government and the tech giant. Government investigators demanded metadata records from the account showing email addresses of those with whom Appelbaum had corresponded between the period of November 2009 and early 2011; they also wanted to obtain information showing the unique IP addresses of the computers he had used to log in to the account.<\/p>\n

The Justice Department argued in the case that Appelbaum had \u201cno reasonable expectation of privacy\u201d over his email records under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Rather than seeking\u00a0a search warrant that would require it\u00a0to\u00a0show probable cause that he had committed a crime, the government\u00a0instead sought\u00a0and received an order to obtain the data under a lesser standard<\/a>, requiring\u00a0only\u00a0\u201creasonable grounds\u201d to believe that the records were \u201crelevant and material\u201d to an ongoing criminal investigation.<\/p>\n

Google repeatedly attempted to challenge the demand, and wanted to immediately notify Appelbaum that his records were being sought so he could have an opportunity to launch his own legal defense. Attorneys for the tech giant argued in a series of court filings that the government\u2019s case raised \u201cserious First Amendment concerns.\u201d They noted that Appelbaum\u2019s records \u201cmay implicate journalistic and academic freedom\u201d because they could \u201creveal confidential sources or information about WikiLeaks\u2019 purported journalistic or academic activities.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, the Justice Department asserted that \u201cjournalists have no special privilege to resist compelled disclosure of their records, absent evidence that the government is acting in bad faith,\u201d and refused to concede Appelbaum was in fact a journalist. It claimed it had acted in \u201cgood faith throughout this criminal investigation, and there is no evidence that either the investigation or the order is intended to harass the \u2026 subscriber or anyone else.\u201d<\/p>\n

Google\u2019s attempts to fight the surveillance gag order angered the government, with the Justice Department stating that the company\u2019s \u201cresistance to providing the records\u201d had \u201cfrustrated the government\u2019s ability to efficiently conduct a lawful criminal investigation.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Justice Department wanted to keep the surveillance secret largely because of an earlier public backlash over its WikiLeaks investigation. In January 2011, Appelbaum and other WikiLeaks volunteers\u2019 \u2013 including Icelandic parlimentarian Birgitta Jonsdottir \u2013 were notified<\/a> by Twitter that the Justice Department had obtained data about their accounts. This disclosure generated widepread news coverage and controversy; the government says in the unsealed court records that it \u201cfailed to anticipate the degree of\u00a0 damage that would be caused\u201d by the Twitter disclosure and did not want to \u201cexacerbate this problem\u201d when it went after Appelbaum\u2019s Gmail data.<\/p>\n

The court documents show the Justice Department said the disclosure of its Twitter data grab \u201cseriously jeopardized the [WikiLeaks] investigation\u201d because it resulted in efforts to \u201cconceal evidence\u201d and put public pressure on other companies to resist similar surveillance orders. It also claimed that officials named in the subpoena ordering Twitter to turn over information were \u201charassed\u201d after a copy was published by Intercept<\/em> co-founder Glenn Greenwald at Salon<\/a> in 2011. (The only specific evidence of the alleged harassment cited by the government is an email that was sent to an employee of the U.S. Attorney\u2019s office that purportedly said: \u201cYou guys are fucking nazis trying to controll [sic] the whole fucking world. Well guess what. WE DO NOT FORGIVE. WE DO NOT FORGET. EXPECT US.\u201d)<\/p>\n

Google accused the government of hyperbole and argued that the backlash over the Twitter order did not justify secrecy related to the Gmail surveillance. \u201cRather than demonstrating how unsealing the order will harm its well-publicized investigation, the government lists a parade of horribles that have allegedly occurred since it unsealed the Twitter order, yet fails to establish how any of these developments could be further exacerbated by unsealing this order,\u201d wrote Google\u2019s attorneys. \u201cThe proverbial toothpaste is out of the tube, and continuing to seal a materially identical order will not change it.\u201d<\/p>\n

But Google\u2019s attempt to overturn the gag order was denied by magistrate judge Ivan D. Davis in February 2011. The company launched an appeal against that decision, but this too was rebuffed, in March 2011, by District Court judge Thomas Selby Ellis, III.<\/p>\n

The government agreed to unseal some of the court records on Apr. 1 this year, and they were apparently turned over to Appelbaum on May 14 through a notification sent to his Gmail account. The files were released on condition that they would contain some redactions, which are bizarre and inconsistent, in some cases censoring the name of \u201cWikiLeaks\u201d from cited public news reports.<\/p>\n

Not all of the documents in the case \u2013 such as the original surveillance orders contested by Google \u2013 were released as part of the latest disclosure. Some contain \u201cspecific and sensitive details of the investigation\u201d and \u201cremain properly sealed while the grand jury investigation continues,\u201d according to the court records from April this year.<\/p>\n

Appelbaum, an American citizen who is based in Berlin, called the case \u201ca travesty that continues at a slow pace\u201d and said he felt it was important to highlight \u201cthe absolute madness in these documents.\u201d<\/p>\n

He told The Intercept<\/em>: \u201cAfter five years, receiving such legal documents is neither a shock nor a needed confirmation. \u2026 Will we ever see the full documents about our respective cases? Will we even learn the names of those signing so-called legal orders against us in secret sealed documents? Certainly not in a timely manner and certainly not in a transparent, just manner.\u201d<\/p>\n

The 32-year-old, who has recently collaborated with Intercept<\/em> co-founder Laura Poitras to report revelations about National Security Agency surveillance for German news magazine Der Spiegel,<\/em> said he plans to remain in Germany \u201cin exile, rather than returning to the U.S. to experience more harassment of a less than legal kind.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cMy presence in Berlin ensures that the cost of physically harassing me or politically harassing me is much higher than when I last lived on U.S. soil,\u201d Appelbaum said. \u201cThis allows me to work as a journalist freely from daily U.S. government interference. It also ensures that any further attempts to continue this will be forced into the open through [a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty] and other international processes. The German goverment is less likely to allow the FBI to behave in Germany as they do on U.S. soil.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Justice Department\u2019s WikiLeaks investigaton is headed by prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia. Since 2010, the secretive probe has seen activists affiliated with WikiLeaks compelled<\/a> to appear before a grand jury and the FBI attempting to infiltrate the group<\/a> with an informant. Earlier this year, it was revealed<\/a> that the government had obtained the contents of three core WikiLeaks staffers\u2019 Gmail accounts as part of the investigation.<\/p>\n

Google, the Justice Department, and the U.S. Attorneys Office had not responded to requests for comment on this story at time of publication.<\/p>\n

_________________________________<\/p>\n

Email the author: ryan.gallagher@theintercept.com<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Go to Original \u2013 firstlook.org<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

20 Jun 2015 – The Obama administration fought a three-month legal battle against Google to secretly obtain the email records of Jacob Appelbaum, a security researcher and journalist associated with WikiLeaks.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[60],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60033","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-whistleblowing-surveillance"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60033","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=60033"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60033\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60033"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60033"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60033"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}