The world's leading technology companies have united to demand sweeping
changes to US surveillance laws, urging an international ban on bulk
collection of data to help preserve the public's “trust in the
internet”.
In their most concerted response yet to disclosures
by the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden, Apple,
Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, LinkedIn, Twitter and AOL will
publish an open letter to Barack Obama and Congress on Monday, throwing
their weight behind radical reforms already proposed by Washington
politicians.
“The balance in many countries has tipped too far
in favour of the state and away from the rights of the individual –
rights that are enshrined in our constitution,” urges the letter signed
by the eight US-based internet giants. “This undermines the freedoms we
all cherish. It’s time for change.”
Several of the companies
claim the revelations have shaken public faith in the internet and
blamed spy agencies for the resulting threat to their business
interests. “People won’t use technology they don’t trust,” said Brad
Smith, Microsoft's general counsel. “Governments have put this trust at
risk, and governments need to help restore it.”
The chief
executive of Yahoo, Marissa Mayer, said: “Recent revelations about
government surveillance activities have shaken the trust of our users,
and it is time for the United States government to act to restore the
confidence of citizens around the world."
Silicon Valley was
initially sceptical of some allegations about NSA practices made by
Snowden but as more documentary evidence has emerged in the Guardian and
other newspapers detailing the extent of western surveillance
capabilities, its eight leading players – collectively valued at $1.4tn –
have been stung into action amid fears of commercial damage.
“We understand that governments have a duty to protect their citizens,”
they say in the letter. “But this summer’s revelations highlighted the
urgent need to reform government surveillance practices worldwide.”
A separate list of five “reform principles” signed by the normally
fiercely competitive group echoes measures to rein in the NSA contained
in bipartisan legislation proposed by the Democratic chair of the Senate
judiciary committee, Patrick Leahy, and the Republican author of the
Patriot Act, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner.
Crucially,
Silicon Valley and these key reformers in Congress now agree the NSA
should no longer be allowed to indiscriminately gather vast quantities
of data from individuals it does not have cause to suspect of terrorism
in order to detect patterns or in case it is needed in future.
“Governments should limit surveillance to specific, known users for
lawful purposes, and should not undertake bulk data collection of
internet communications,” says the companies' new list of principles.
They also argue that requests for companies to hand over individual
data should be limited by new rules that balance the “need for the data
in limited circumstances, users’ reasonable privacy interests, and the
impact on trust in the internet”.
This places them in direct
conflict with Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic chair of the Senate
Intelligence Committee, who is sponsoring a rival bill that would
enshrine the right of security agencies to collect bulk data.
Feinstein, who represents California, has been accused by critics of
being a cheerleader for Washington's intelligence committee but now
faces opposition from her state's largest industry.
The
companies also repeat a previous demand that they should be allowed to
disclose how often surveillance requests are made but this is the first
time they have come together with such wide-ranging criticism of the
underlying policy.
The industry's lobbying power has been
growing in Washington and could prove a tipping point in the
congressional reform process, which has been delayed by the autumn
budget deadlock but is likely to return as a central issue in the new
year.
The Feinstein and Leahy/Sensenbrenner bills agree with
technology companies that there should be greater transparency of court
rulings regulating surveillance and more opportunity for privacy
advocates to argue against intelligence agency requests.
The
eight technology companies also hint at new fears, particularly that
competing national responses to the Snowden revelations will not only
damage their commercial interests but also lead to a balkanisation of
the web as governments try to prevent internet companies from escaping
overseas.
“The ability of data to flow or be accessed across
borders is essential to a robust, 21st century, global economy,” the
companies argue in the list of reform principles. “Governments should
permit the transfer of data and should not inhibit access by companies
or individuals to lawfully available information that is stored outside
of the country. Governments should not require service providers to
locate infrastructure within a country’s borders or operate locally.”
And they argue foreign governments need to come together to agree new
international standards regulating surveillance, hinting at legal
disputes and damage to international trade otherwise.
“In order
to avoid conflicting laws, there should be a robust, principled, and
transparent framework to govern lawful requests for data across
jurisdictions, such as improved mutual legal assistance treaty – or
“MLAT” – processes,” say the companies. “Where the laws of one
jurisdiction conflict with the laws of another, it is incumbent upon
governments to work together to resolve the conflict.”
Official
responses to the Snowden revelations have been angriest in countries
subject to US surveillance such as Germany and Brazil, but more muted in
countries such as Britain and Australia, whose governments are close
partners of the NSA.
Martha Lane Fox, who recently resigned as
the British government's digital champion, responded to the new letter
by expressing concern at the lack of understanding of both the scale and
complexity of the surveillance story within Britain's government.
"We do have an issue in this country among the corporate world, the
political establishment and the general population where we have a
shortage of skills and understanding for the digital age," she told the
Guardian. "There is an absence of a clear, coherent debate around this
subject in this country and it's a very big issue that will only become
more frequent the more technologically dependent we become."
She pointed to comments made by the former Conservative home office
minister Lord Blencathra and the Labour peer Lord Soley, who both
expressed concern at the scope of surveillance by the security services.
"[The government] needs to listen to people, to examine whether their
policies are fit for the digital age. It's not that people aren't used
to their data being collected, but what it is being collected for, and
there needs to be a distinction between the average person and a
security threat."
The eight internet companies behind the new letter also acknowledge that business also has a responsibility to protect privacy.
“For our part, we are focused on keeping users’ data secure, deploying
the latest encryption technology to prevent unauthorised surveillance on
our networks, and by pushing back on government requests to ensure that
they are legal and reasonable in scope,” they conclude.
“We
urge the US to take the lead and make reforms that ensure that
government surveillance efforts are clearly restricted by law,
proportionate to the risks, transparent and subject to independent
oversight.”
Google, Twitter, Yahoo and last week Microsoft have
all responded to public concerns over surveillance by increasing the
security of their products, introducing “perfect forward secrecy”
encryption to protect information travelling on their internal systems.
"The security of users' data is critical, which is why we've invested
so much in encryption and fight for transparency around government
requests for information,” said Google's chief executive, Larry Page.
“This is undermined by the apparent wholesale collection of data, in
secret and without independent oversight, by many governments around the
world. It's time for reform and we urge the US government to lead the
way.”
The world's leading technology companies have united to
demand sweeping changes to US surveillance laws, urging an international
ban on bulk collection of data to help preserve the public's “trust in
the internet”.
In their most concerted response yet to
disclosures by the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward
Snowden, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, LinkedIn, Twitter
and AOL will publish an open letter to Barack Obama and Congress on
Monday, throwing their weight behind radical reforms already proposed by
Washington politicians.
“The balance in many countries has
tipped too far in favour of the state and away from the rights of the
individual – rights that are enshrined in our constitution,” urges the
letter signed by the eight US-based internet giants. “This undermines
the freedoms we all cherish. It’s time for change.”
Several of
the companies claim the revelations have shaken public faith in the
internet and blamed spy agencies for the resulting threat to their
business interests. “People won’t use technology they don’t trust,” said
Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel. “Governments have put this
trust at risk, and governments need to help restore it.”
The
chief executive of Yahoo, Marissa Mayer, said: “Recent revelations about
government surveillance activities have shaken the trust of our users,
and it is time for the United States government to act to restore the
confidence of citizens around the world."
Silicon Valley was
initially sceptical of some allegations about NSA practices made by
Snowden but as more documentary evidence has emerged in the Guardian and
other newspapers detailing the extent of western surveillance
capabilities, its eight leading players – collectively valued at $1.4tn –
have been stung into action amid fears of commercial damage.
“We understand that governments have a duty to protect their citizens,”
they say in the letter. “But this summer’s revelations highlighted the
urgent need to reform government surveillance practices worldwide.”
A separate list of five “reform principles” signed by the normally
fiercely competitive group echoes measures to rein in the NSA contained
in bipartisan legislation proposed by the Democratic chair of the Senate
judiciary committee, Patrick Leahy, and the Republican author of the
Patriot Act, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner.
Crucially,
Silicon Valley and these key reformers in Congress now agree the NSA
should no longer be allowed to indiscriminately gather vast quantities
of data from individuals it does not have cause to suspect of terrorism
in order to detect patterns or in case it is needed in future.
“Governments should limit surveillance to specific, known users for
lawful purposes, and should not undertake bulk data collection of
internet communications,” says the companies' new list of principles.
They also argue that requests for companies to hand over individual
data should be limited by new rules that balance the “need for the data
in limited circumstances, users’ reasonable privacy interests, and the
impact on trust in the internet”.
This places them in direct
conflict with Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic chair of the Senate
Intelligence Committee, who is sponsoring a rival bill that would
enshrine the right of security agencies to collect bulk data.
Feinstein, who represents California, has been accused by critics of
being a cheerleader for Washington's intelligence committee but now
faces opposition from her state's largest industry.
The
companies also repeat a previous demand that they should be allowed to
disclose how often surveillance requests are made but this is the first
time they have come together with such wide-ranging criticism of the
underlying policy.
The industry's lobbying power has been
growing in Washington and could prove a tipping point in the
congressional reform process, which has been delayed by the autumn
budget deadlock but is likely to return as a central issue in the new
year.
The Feinstein and Leahy/Sensenbrenner bills agree with
technology companies that there should be greater transparency of court
rulings regulating surveillance and more opportunity for privacy
advocates to argue against intelligence agency requests.
The
eight technology companies also hint at new fears, particularly that
competing national responses to the Snowden revelations will not only
damage their commercial interests but also lead to a balkanisation of
the web as governments try to prevent internet companies from escaping
overseas.
“The ability of data to flow or be accessed across
borders is essential to a robust, 21st century, global economy,” the
companies argue in the list of reform principles. “Governments should
permit the transfer of data and should not inhibit access by companies
or individuals to lawfully available information that is stored outside
of the country. Governments should not require service providers to
locate infrastructure within a country’s borders or operate locally.”
And they argue foreign governments need to come together to agree new
international standards regulating surveillance, hinting at legal
disputes and damage to international trade otherwise.
“In order
to avoid conflicting laws, there should be a robust, principled, and
transparent framework to govern lawful requests for data across
jurisdictions, such as improved mutual legal assistance treaty – or
“MLAT” – processes,” say the companies. “Where the laws of one
jurisdiction conflict with the laws of another, it is incumbent upon
governments to work together to resolve the conflict.”
Official
responses to the Snowden revelations have been angriest in countries
subject to US surveillance such as Germany and Brazil, but more muted in
countries such as Britain and Australia, whose governments are close
partners of the NSA.
Martha Lane Fox, who recently resigned as
the British government's digital champion, responded to the new letter
by expressing concern at the lack of understanding of both the scale and
complexity of the surveillance story within Britain's government.
"We do have an issue in this country among the corporate world, the
political establishment and the general population where we have a
shortage of skills and understanding for the digital age," she told the
Guardian. "There is an absence of a clear, coherent debate around this
subject in this country and it's a very big issue that will only become
more frequent the more technologically dependent we become."
She pointed to comments made by the former Conservative home office
minister Lord Blencathra and the Labour peer Lord Soley, who both
expressed concern at the scope of surveillance by the security services.
"[The government] needs to listen to people, to examine whether their
policies are fit for the digital age. It's not that people aren't used
to their data being collected, but what it is being collected for, and
there needs to be a distinction between the average person and a
security threat."
The eight internet companies behind the new letter also acknowledge that business also has a responsibility to protect privacy.
“For our part, we are focused on keeping users’ data secure, deploying
the latest encryption technology to prevent unauthorised surveillance on
our networks, and by pushing back on government requests to ensure that
they are legal and reasonable in scope,” they conclude.
“We
urge the US to take the lead and make reforms that ensure that
government surveillance efforts are clearly restricted by law,
proportionate to the risks, transparent and subject to independent
oversight.”
Google, Twitter, Yahoo and last week Microsoft have
all responded to public concerns over surveillance by increasing the
security of their products, introducing “perfect forward secrecy”
encryption to protect information travelling on their internal systems.
"The security of users' data is critical, which is why we've invested
so much in encryption and fight for transparency around government
requests for information,” said Google's chief executive, Larry Page.
“This is undermined by the apparent wholesale collection of data, in
secret and without independent oversight, by many governments around the
world. It's time for reform and we urge the US government to lead the
way.”
Comments