Apple,
Google and Microsoft among companies to call for reforms to restore the
public's trust in the internet
theguardian.com,
Dan Roberts in Washington and Jemima Kiss in London, Monday 9 December 2013
 |
| AOL, Twitter, Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Apple and LinkedIn say: 'The balance in many countries has tipped too far in favour of the state and away from the rights of the individual' |
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.”
Related Articles:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.