Photograph by Philippe Lopez/AFP via Getty Images

An edition of the South China Morning Post carrying the story of Edward Snowden on its front page in Hong Kong on June 13, 2013.

Edward Snowden has a lot of public support, it appears, for his leaking of once-secret information about government surveillance of domestic telephone records and international Internet traffic.

Yet not a lot of sympathy.

Fifty-four percent of those surveyed by Time magazine say Snowden, a former security contractor for the National Security Agency and ex-CIA technician, did a “good thing” in handing NSA documents to the Washington Post and the U.K.’s Guardian newspapers.

Still, 53 percent say he should be prosecuted for the leaks.

Public opinion also is divided on the question of the surveillance programs themselves: 48 percent of those surveyed by Time approve, and 44 percent disapprove, a statistical tie in a poll with a 4 percentage point margin of error.

Most doubt the revelations will force the government to curtail the program, while 76 percent say they expect additional disclosures that the spying programs are bigger and more widespread than now known.

General Keith Alexander, the NSA director, has told Congress this week that the revelations will compromise the program — alerting targets to methodology that can be evaded with the disclosures.

His predecessor, Michael Hayden, who also ran the CIA, suggests that media coverage of the surveillance leak has “conflated” the work of the telephone screening with that of the Internet watching.

The orders of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act demanding phone records — such as the one demanding Verizon records over a three-month period revealed by Snowden — have collected the full run of records of calls made and their duration, Hayden notes.

The “PRISM” program involving the Internet has been targeted, aimed at foreign communications, Hayden said in an appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” today. That means that the government has ordered up the email or chats of someone in Yemen communicating with someone in another foreign country. The only thing American about this traffic, he said, is that it passed through a server in Redmond, Washington.

Microsoft and other companies involved in the program have responded to specific and limited requests from the government, Hayden said — which corroborates what companies such as Google and Facebook have been saying, that the government does not have “direct” or “unfettered” access to their servers or their users email.

Finally, Hayden says, the program that President Barack Obama is running is basically former President George W. Bush’s program, with some expansions — Obama too has said publicly that while “scrubbing” the program he inherited, he also has broadened it.

All the significant reforms in the program, ensuring that secret FISA courts are monitoring the work, following revelations of Bush’s warrantless wiretapping in his Terrorism Surveillance Program were made in 2006, Hayden said, with restraints in telephone surveillance, and in 2008, with amendments to the FISA Act. Obama, he said, has widened the circle of members of Congress who are periodically briefed on it.

Which is interesting in light of the Time survey of 805 people conducted June 10-11, the two days following Snowden’s announcement that he was the source of the newspaper reports. Forty two percent of those surveyed said they see little difference between Obama’s care in respecting the privacy of Americans and Bush’s care — while 28 percent said Bush was more careful, and 25 percent said Obama has been.

Original post is NSA Leaks: Support, Little Sympathy for the Leaker by Political Capital.

Photograph by Noah Berger/Bloomberg

Attendees arrive at Google Inc.’s headquarters for the company’s annual shareholders meeting in Mountain View, California, on June 6, 2013.

Google says its lips are sealed, but complains its hands are tied.

Its obligation to secrecy about the number of requests for information it gets from the Federal Intelligence Surveillance court prevents it from fulfilling its obligation to transparency with its users.

The government does not have “unfettered” access to its users’ data, Google says, contrary to impressions that may have been created in news reports about “PRISM,”  the National Security Agency’s surveillance of international Internet traffic — with Google named among eight other companies involved in the NSA’s surveillance.

In an open letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Robert Mueller today, David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer, is asking for permission to publish the “aggregate numbers of national security requests” it gets, including orders from the FISA court. This would include both the number and scope of the requests.

“Google’s numbers would clearly show that our compliance with these requests falls far short of the claims being made,” Drummond writes.“Google has nothing to hide. .. Transparency here will likewise serve the public interest without harming national security.”

Original post is Google: ‘Nothing to Hide’ by Political Capital.

Photograph by Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

The National Security Agency (NSA) headquarters at Fort Meade, Maryland, as seen from the air, January 29, 2010.

For all the denials of American Internet powerhouses that the federal government has been rummaging through their drawers — in this case, servers — the key search word in this discussion is “direct” access.

As in Google CEO Larry Page’s statement issued Friday: “We have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers. Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers.”

Further reporting of the government’s program of Internet surveillance — which President Barack Obama has maintained is not directed at American citizens or residents — supports the notion that the National Security Agency is not necessarily trolling through all the email relayed by Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple and five other companies named in the NSA slides that the Washington Post published in its reporting on the “PRISM” program.

The email operators, it appears, have been cooperating with government requests for information authorized by secret courts operating under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They may not have given the NSA the direct keys to the servers — or opened any “back door” — but they have complied with orders for searches. And the government has done some more explaining of its own over the weekend.

In a rare move for anyone in the intelligence community, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, issued his second statement on the program, underscoring that it operates under the authority of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The DNI also released a fact sheet acknowledging the existence of  PRISM by name.

It is not, the report says, an indiscriminate program of “data mining.”

Yet it has reopened a national debate over privacy versus national security, as Bloomberg’s Julie Davis reports.

“The United States Government does not unilaterally obtain information from the servers of U.S. electronic communication service providers,” according to the declassified report released by the DNI on Saturday. “All such information is obtained with FISA Court approval and with the knowledge of the provider based upon a written directive from the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.”

It is targeted at foreign interests, the DNI said in the report, and it has interrupted terrorism.

“Over the last week we have seen reckless disclosures of intelligence community measures used to keep Americans safe. In a rush to publish, media outlets have not given the full context–including the extent to which these programs are overseen by all three branches of government–to these effective tools,” Clapper’s statement said. “In particular, the surveillance activities published in The Guardian and The Washington Post are lawful and conducted under authorities widely known and discussed, and fully debated and authorized by Congress. Their purpose is to obtain foreign intelligence information, including information necessary to thwart terrorist and cyber attacks against the United States and its allies.”

“Disclosing information about the specific methods the government uses to collect communications can obviously give our enemies a “playbook” of how to avoid detection. Nonetheless, Section 702 has proven vital to keeping the nation and our allies safe. It continues to be one of our most important tools for the protection of the nation’s security,” he said. “However, there are significant misimpressions that have resulted from the recent articles. Not all the inaccuracies can be corrected without further revealing classified information. ”

So Clapper has declassified this, in the report released at the DNI’s Web-site:

•   PRISM is not an undisclosed collection or data mining program. It is an internal government computer system used to facilitate the government’s statutorily authorized collection of foreign intelligence information from electronic communication service providers under court supervision, as authorized by Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) (50 U.S.C. § 1881a). This authority was created by the Congress and has been widely known and publicly discussed since its inception in 2008.
   
•   Under Section 702 of FISA, the United States Government does not unilaterally obtain information from the servers of U.S. electronic communication service providers. All such information is obtained with FISA Court approval and with the knowledge of the provider based upon a written directive from the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence. In short, Section 702 facilitates the targeted acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning foreign targets located outside the United States under court oversight. Service providers supply information to the Government when they are lawfully required to do so.
   
•   The Government cannot target anyone under the court-approved procedures for Section 702 collection unless there is an appropriate, and documented, foreign intelligence purpose for the acquisition (such as for the prevention of terrorism, hostile cyber activities, or nuclear proliferation) and the foreign target is reasonably believed to be outside the United States. We cannot target even foreign persons overseas without a valid foreign intelligence purpose.
   
•   In addition, Section 702 cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, or any other U.S. person, or to intentionally target any person known to be in the United States. Likewise, Section 702 cannot be used to target a person outside the United States if the purpose is to acquire information from a person inside the United States.
   
•   Finally, the notion that Section 702 activities are not subject to internal and external oversight is similarly incorrect. Collection of intelligence information under Section 702 is subject to an extensive oversight regime, incorporating reviews by the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches.

Original post is PRISM ‘Targeted,’ Not Data-Mining — Disrupts Terrorism, DNI Reports by Political Capital.

Photograph by David Paul Morris/Bloomberg

Vivek “Vic” Gundotra, senior vice president of engineering at Google Inc., speaks during the Google I/O Annual Developers Conference in San Francisco, California, on May 15, 2013.

Updated at 5:55 pm EDT

Google, one of the Internet powers named in government documents about the surveillance of email which President Barack Obama says is limited to foreign nationals, has issued a fairly blanket denial of involvement.

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has followed with a denial of his own: They have “never been part of any program to give the US or any other government direct access to our servers.”

In the National Security Agency’s slides explaining the so-called “PRISM” program, Google is one of nine companies — starting with Microsoft in September 2007 and running to Apple starting in October 2012 — listed as providers where data was collected. The NSA’s collection of Google material started in January 2009, the slides show.  Facebook’s surveillance start-up was June 2009, the slides show. The Washington Post reported on the slides, as part of its story about the email surveillance.

Google CEO Larry Page and David Drummond, chief legal officer, issued a statement today on Google’s official blog:

“You may be aware of press reports alleging that Internet companies have joined a secret U.S. government program called PRISM to give the National Security Agency direct access to our servers…

“First, we have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers. Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers. We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday.

“Second, we provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law. Our legal team reviews each and every request, and frequently pushes back when requests are overly broad or don’t follow the correct process. Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users’ data are false, period. Until this week’s reports, we had never heard of the broad type of order that Verizon received—an order that appears to have required them to hand over millions of users’ call records. We were very surprised to learn that such broad orders exist. Any suggestion that Google is disclosing information about our users’ Internet activity on such a scale is completely false.

“Finally, this episode confirms what we have long believed—there needs to be a more transparent approach. Google has worked hard, within the confines of the current laws, to be open about the data requests we receive. We post this information on our Transparency Report whenever possible. We were the first company to do this. And, of course, we understand that the U.S. and other governments need to take action to protect their citizens’ safety—including sometimes by using surveillance. But the level of secrecy around the current legal procedures undermines the freedoms we all cherish.”

At this initial writing, the posting had 37 Facebook likes. It’s passed 2,000 by dinner time.

And Zuckerberg made his statement about Facebook on, uh, Facebook:

“I want to respond personally to the outrageous press reports about PRISM:

“Facebook is not and has never been part of any program to give the US or any other government direct access to our servers. We have never received a blanket request or court order from any government agency asking for information or metadata in bulk, like the one Verizon reportedly received. And if we did, we would fight it aggressively. We hadn’t even heard of PRISM before yesterday.

“When governments ask Facebook for data, we review each request carefully to make sure they always follow the correct processes and all applicable laws, and then only provide the information if is required by law. We will continue fighting aggressively to keep your information safe and secure.

“We strongly encourage all governments to be much more transparent about all programs aimed at keeping the public safe. It’s the only way to protect everyone’s civil liberties and create the safe and free society we all want over the long term.”

He had 7,273 likes at this writing.

Original post is Google, Facebook: No ‘Direct’ Government Access to Servers by Political Capital.

Photograph by Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

The Google Inc. Chrome icon is reflected in water droplets.

Google Inc. is trying to be as ubiquitous in Washington as it is online.

The Internet search engine increased its lobbying budget last year more than any of the 30 largest U.S. publicly traded companies, a new report by Bloomberg Rankings shows.

Google, based in Mountain View, California, spent $18.2 million on federal lobbying last year, 88 percent more than it did a year earlier. New York-based tobacco maker Philip Morris International  also bumped up its lobbying, spending 81 percent more in 2012 than it did in 2011.

Ten other large companies increased their year-over-year lobby expenditures by about 15 percent or less, the rankings show. Eighteen companies decreased their Washington budgets, though many of them by just a few percentage points.

Bloomberg ranked lobbying expenditures for the 30 largest companies by market capitalization using  data from the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics.

Google stepped up its Washington presence as Congress considered — and ultimately rejected — a move by Hollywood studios to crack down on Internet usage of intellectual property. The search engine participated in an Internet blackout in January 2012 that helped doom the bill.

The company also added heft to its in-house lobby shop in February 2012 by hiring former U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari, a five-term Republican from New York.

Google shows no signs of slowing its D.C. activities. In the first three months of this year, the company spent $4.1 million as it presses for an immigration policy that includes more temporary work visas for foreign-born high-skilled employees such as programmers.

With assistance from Jennifer Prince.

Original post is Google Searches for More Washington Influence: 88% Investment Boost by Political Capital.

It’s easy. Just follow a simple checklist.

The latest entry is the Alliance for Competitive Taxation, a 42-company group that unveiled itself today — see how they did it here:

1) Pick a one-syllable acronym that is both a noun and a verb. ACT joins RATE (Reforming America’s Taxes Equitably), LIFT (Let’s Invest For Tomorrow) and BUILD (Businesses United for Interest and Loan Deductibility).

2) Choose a focus. ACT wants to reduce the corporate tax rate to 25 percent from 35 percent while ending tax breaks and simplifying the corporate tax system. RATE focuses on the corporate tax rate. LIFT emphasizes changes to the international tax system. BUILD wants to preserve the deductability of interest.

3) Sign up blue-chip companies. Among ACT’s members are Google Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

4) Go bipartisan. ACT’s economic advisers are Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was the top policy aide to Republican Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, and Laura Tyson, a former economist for President Bill Clinton.

These smaller groups let companies engage in the tax debate without their own names on every press release. They’re an addition to a corporate lobbying landscape that includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, larger groups whose membership can have conflicting approaches to the same issue.

“It is going to take a lot of boots on the ground to make tax reform a reality, so we’re thrilled to have more business leaders pushing hard for comprehensive tax reform.,” Matt Miller, a Business Roundtable vice president, said in a statement. “Modernizing our tax system is key to strengthening the U.S. economy and we look forward to working with ACT, as well as LIFT, RATE and other groups on tax reform.”

BRT was founded in 1972, otherwise known as the era before contrived acronyms.

Original post is ACT Now (How to Coalesce The Way Google and Wal-Mart Unite) by Political Capital.

Photograph by Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

Eric Schmidt

Senate Republicans’ campaign arm outraised its Democratic counterpart last month for this first time this year, aided by donors including Google Inc. chairman Eric Schmidt.

Schmidt gave $32,300 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee in April, helping it outraise the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, $3.56 million to $3.54 million, according to reports the campaign committees filed this week with the Senate public records office.

Schmidt gives to candidates and committees in both parties, a pattern consistent with some executives and companies nurturing political alliances in both parties.

Schmidt has a current estimated net worth of $8.6 billion, making him the 136^th-richest person in the world, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

Ivan Seidenberg, a former Verizon Communications Chief Executive Officer, and IntercontinentalExchange Inc. Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Sprecher each gave the maximum $32,400 to the NRSC. Chevron CEO John S. Watson donated $32,300.

The NRSC gave $45,400 to Gabriel Gomez, the Republican nominee for the Senate seat that Democrat John Kerry vacated in February to become secretary of state. That amount is the maximum that a national party committee can give directly to a Senate candidate, though it may spend unlimited sums on so-called independent expenditures.

Gomez faces Democratic Rep. Ed Markey in the June 25 election.

Republicans hold 45 Senate seats and need a net gain of six seats to win a majority.

Original post is Google’s Schmidt Helps NRSC Edge DSCC in April Fundraising by Political Capital.

Google Inc. focused some of its political donations last month on Democratic and Republican groups that are plotting campaign strategy for the 2014 midterm elections.

Google, owner of the world’s biggest search engine, made donations between Feb. 25 and Feb. 28 through its political action committee to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and to their counterpart committees, the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Google’s PAC donated $92,000 to federal candidates and committees last month and $143,000 in the first two months of this year.

Google’s bipartisan giving extends to upper management.

Alan Eustace, a Google senior vice president, gave $32,400 each to the DCCC and the NRCC on Feb. 22, according to Federal Election Commission reports the two groups released yesterday. That’s the maximum amount an individual can give to a national party committee in a calendar year.

With a Republican-led House and the Democratic-controlled Senate each influencing the legislative agenda, many companies with business before Congress have donated to both parties — sometimes on the same day — to build and nurture bipartisan alliances.

Original post is Google’s Bipartisan Political Giving by Political Capital.

Photograph by Marcio Jose Sanchez/AP Photo

The Google IO Developers Conference in San Francisco.

Common Sense Media, a San Francisco-based advocacy group that supports efforts to help kids with media and technology, says Google Inc. is one of 60 companies that have helped fund its annual awards program.

Mountain View, California-based Google contributed $25,000 to the group last year as it honored Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz. At the time, the FTC was investigating  whether Google unfairly disadvantaged competing websites by favoring its own services in search results.

By a 5-0 vote, the agency ended the 20-month probe Jan. 3 with no enforcement action. Google agreed to voluntary changes in some search practices and signed a consent decree.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group, said the timing of the contribution “really looks terrible.”

Colby Zintl, vice president of marketing and communications for Common Sense Media, said Google was a long-time supporter of the group.

“Google has also been a long-time collaborator with Common Sense Media’s digital literacy and citizenship efforts,” Zintl said. “In 2012, the awards raised more than $732,000 to support our mission of providing tools, information, and support for parents and educators who are raising kids in a digital world. We are and continue to be appreciative of Google’s generous support and partnership.”

Read the full story here.

Original post is Common Sense Media Praises Google Donations to Award Program by Political Capital.

Photograph by Alex Wong/Getty Images

Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz holds up an iPad as he speaks during a news conference regarding the agency’s 21-month-long investigation on Google on Jan. 3, 2013 at the FTC headquarters in Washington.

Google Inc. contributed $25,000 to honor the outgoing chairman of the Federal Trade Commission while under investigation by the agency for antitrust violations, Senate records show.

Filings show Google gave the money to Common Sense Media Inc., an advocacy group that holds an annual awards ceremony to recognize those who have helped children navigate media and technology, Bloomberg News reported. Google has supported the group for at least three years.

One of the award recipients in 2012 was FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. Google’s support came at the same time the FTC was investigating whether the company was unfairly disadvantaging competing websites by favoring its own services in search results. The agency ended the 20-month antitrust probe on Jan. 3 with no enforcement action. Google agreed to voluntary changes in some search practices and signed a consent decree regarding the use of certain patents.

“It’s a little bit odd that they’re donating to Common Sense Media at the exact same time they’re trying to influence Jon Leibowitz,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group. “It really looks terrible.”

Samantha Smith, a spokeswoman for Google, and Mitch Katz, an FTC spokesman, declined to comment for the article, as did Marisa Connolly, a spokeswoman for Common Sense Media.

Read the full Bloomberg story here.

Original post is Google Helped Honor FTC Chairman While Agency Probed Company by Political Capital.