Yahoo Adapted Email-Scanning Spam Filter to Satisfy 'Secret Court Order' Related to Terrorist Hunt

[sully54]

I can't say news like this surprises me anymore. Anyone who seriously thinks they have a modicum of privacy online is naive. Even now, I am willing to bet Apple is, in one way or another, involved with some sort of government surveillance. In fact, I would be surprised if they factually weren't.

This is the world we live in.

 

[linuxcooldude]

I have a hard time believing that the government hasn't approached Google, or Microsoft with such questions. I could see them not asking Apple, simply due to their overall lack of marketshare.

Apple does not have any email servers to search. Apple uses third party email servers provided by the user for downloading mail to Apples device.

 

[pdaholic]

I presume this is what Hillary meant when she said she would attack terrorism through the interwebs...

 

[32828870]

As a Brit/American living in Berlin, it's interesting to note the recent lone-wolf attackers haven't been using mobile devices, email, etc but analog systems of communication. Radio's and faraday cages have been found in some of their discovered "hideouts". There was never a phone app or any such form of digital communication as misreported my Stateside media.

This has actually made it tougher to fight. We've equipped ourselves for cyber offenses while they have reverted to systems that are near impossible to manage. Additionally, many aren't working for ISIL. They're homegrown and something triggered them, such as "Jihad Joe" the beheader.

"Jihad Joe's" family was from Kuwait and moved to London where he was born. I believe they weren't even practicing Muslims. He was well liked while in university and wasn't socially awkward, anti anything, even had gay best friends. It wasn't until 2010 when he tried to visit family in Kuwait that things changed. He was detained at Heathrow for ~10 days because he looked Muslim. Under Britains version of the "Patriot Act", he was strip searched, interrogated, locked up, and broken down. This became a well discussed issue among many, especially psychologists, task forces, etc. Essentially, they primed him for terrorists and he snapped, feeling isolated and angry. As with many, he wasn't interested in religious issues, he wanted personal retribution.

Many aren't fanatics, they use fanaticism as retribution and/or indoctrinated into radical Islamism. From numerous accounts by civil servants in Paris and Brüssels, the terrorists didn't speak Farsi well and didn't say the common phrase when committing the acts. ISIL will claim responsibility for someone taking a huge dump in the loo. That's the most frightening aspect, how do you kill an idea?

 

[IPPlanMan]

"The Intercept" had the best take on the Yahoo story: https://theintercept.com/2016/10/05/yahoo-offers-non-denial-denial-of-bombshell-spy-report/

After Tuesday’s revelatory story by Reuters’ Joseph Menn that exposed an apparent vast, secret, government-ordered email surveillance program at Yahoo, the company has issued a brief statement through Joele Frank, a public relations firm.

From Jacob Silber of Joele Frank, via email:

Good morning –

We are reaching out on behalf of Yahoo regarding yesterday’s Reutersarticle. Yahoo said in a statement:

“The article is misleading. We narrowly interpret every government request for user data to minimize disclosure. The mail scanning described in the article does not exist on our systems.”

Best,

The Joele Frank Team​

This is an extremely carefully worded statement, arriving roughly 20 hours after the Reuters story first broke. That’s a long time to craft 29 words. It’s unclear as well why Yahoo wouldn’t have put this statement out on Tuesday, rather than responding, cryptically, that they are “a law abiding company, [that] complies with the laws of the United States.”

But this day-after denial isn’t even really a denial: The statement says only that the article is misleading, not false. It denies only that such an email scanning program “does not” exist—perhaps it did exist at some point between its reported inception in 2015 and today. It also pins quite a bit on the word “described”—perhaps the Reuters report was overall accurate, but missed a few details. And it would mean a lot more for this denial to come straight from the keyboard of a named executive at Yahoo—perhaps Ron Bell, the company’s general counsel—rather than a “strategic communications firm.”

That PR firm would have been better off staying silent than releasing this BS.

 

[69Mustang]

Installed versus used?

I doubt that the quantity of people using Apples services come close to being a rival for the big 3. I have no definitive metrics to give, so I will Yield to whatever metrics people care to look up. I agree that the Apple email client is used widely, however most people ( in my experience in it / marketing / personal life) retain their pre-existing email, being Yahoo!, Microsoft, aol, or google, and link mail to those.

Edit:::

I maybe understand it incorrectly, but the topic is email data which despite .me, .icloud, .mac, etc, I would imagine apple is much smaller than the others.

I think it's used instead of installed. At least the metrics I was quoting references use. They can be found here. It seems one company dominates the reporting on this; Litmus.com. Almost every article links back to their info. If it's simply a sheer amount of data the government is looking for, Apple and Google would seem to be the most ideal targets. Yahoo may have been the easiest to get due to their precarious hold on viability. <-- complete supposition on my behalf.

 

[Swift]

Not sure secret court orders are the best idea unless they have a fixed term limiting how long they are secret for.

You open an investigation into a person based on a tip. Turns out, he's okay. Do you tell the world, "We thought this guy was a terrorist, but turns out he was a barber, and we're pretty sure he's not a terrorist"? Police get a lawsuit. If it's secret that you investigated, and you found nothing, who's hurt? The tree that falls in the forest? Every time there's a terrorist event, people want to catch them BEFORE. "Why did the FBI--? They had the guy and they let him go!"

 

[840quadra]

I think it's used instead of installed. At least the metrics I was quoting references use. They can be found here. It seems one company dominates the reporting on this; Litmus.com. Almost every article links back to their info. If it's simply a sheer amount of data the government is looking for, Apple and Google would seem to be the most ideal targets. Yahoo may have been the easiest to get due to their precarious hold on viability. <-- complete supposition on my behalf.

Ah, I think we are on the same page. Thanks for the link and clarification!

 

[thisisnotmyname]

I guess I must be an enemy of freedom. The secrecy isn't great, but look. What was the greatest risk involved with Yahoo Mail? You were going to a very low-rent neighborhood of the Internet. The equivalent of a truck stop. Crummy design, intrusive ads eating up your bandwidth, crazy people trying to convince you of nonsense. Think of it as a neighborhood. How would you feel if some militants are being organized for violence in that neighborhood? If they develop evidence that they MIGHT be hiding child porn, cash for weapons, directions for bombs, and yes, child porn, such that a judge would grant a warrant. When did the Internet get to be outside of the real world? Not talking intrusive, but if the guy next door was torturing kids, what are his privacy rights worth in the scheme of things? How about a native ISIS cell? Neo-Nazis? Our police, in a democracy, do have a real job. I'm not saying I've worked out all these questions, but the Internet giveth and the Internet taketh away. If you're on the web you can see the world. And the world sees you.

I for one care about law enforcement having a real and specific warrant to enter someone's house as well. If the NYPD obtained a warrant to enter EVERYONE's residence to look for a specific piece of paper with writing on it I'd have a huge problem with that too. So no, your analogy doesn't hold up for me.

And no, I don't discount everyone's forth amendment rights if they happen to live in a less expensive neighborhood either.
[doublepost=1475777175][/doublepost]

You open an investigation into a person based on a tip. Turns out, he's okay. Do you tell the world, "We thought this guy was a terrorist, but turns out he was a barber, and we're pretty sure he's not a terrorist"? Police get a lawsuit. If it's secret that you investigated, and you found nothing, who's hurt? The tree that falls in the forest? Every time there's a terrorist event, people want to catch them BEFORE. "Why did the FBI--? They had the guy and they let him go!"

We live in an (relatively) open society that believes transparency of government actions (within reasonable limitations) is important to accountability and reducing the possibility of abuse. I feel there should be a VERY high bar to keep warrants secret to begin with as I believe all individuals should have the right to contest the legality of a warrant and are denied that right if it is not disclosed to them. For the small percentage that truly would represent a great harm if it were known the government was investigating there is a finite amount of time that the great harm could occur and after that period of time again it should be public knowledge what the government has done.

I tend to believe the United States generally acts in the best interests of its citizenry and that law enforcement is generally doing a very difficult job in an ethical manner - I am grateful for the existence of both - but I also believe these groups (government and law enforcement), with unique and great power over us, need to be open and need to provide visibility of their actions to the general public.
[doublepost=1475777418][/doublepost]

Apple does not have any email servers to search. Apple uses third party email servers provided by the user for downloading mail to Apples device.

myusername@icloud.com

 

[macs4nw]

surely google, fb etc are doing the same then... since they cant 'discuss' it?

We may never find out the truth about that distinctly logical possibility. Prudence dictates we should all conduct ourselves from the assumption that nothing on the internet is 100% secure.

An unfortunate, but realistic aspect of modern life.

 

[AppleMark]

In response to a request for comment, an Apple spokesperson told BuzzFeed News, “We have never received a request of this type. If we were to receive one, we would oppose it in court.”

Yes, I believe Apple when they say that, given recent history.

A Microsoft spokesperson said, “We have never engaged in the secret scanning of email traffic like what has been reported today about Yahoo.”

hmmm, then what type have you been doing then MS....?

A Google spokesperson told BuzzFeed News, “We’ve never received such a request, but if we did, our response would be simple: no way.”

What they meant to say was... "but if we did, our response would be simple: no way, that information is ours to use to spam and suggest services and crap from Amazon and other Google owned companies"

 

[macduke]

If the supposed filter works as well as Yahoo's spam filter then the terrorists have nothing to worry about.

Contender for comment of the year right here, lol.

--

Ladies and gentlemen, we are currently witnessing the death of a tech giant. Finally our parents and grandparents will stop using the "Yahoos" for email and getting phished and scammed due to their poor spam filter. This is a beautiful thing.

 

[Doomtomb]

I can't take the word of a spokesman of such large corporations as being definitive yes/no. Who knows if this sort of request went unreported?

Yahoo being the sheep they are obeyed.

 

[canadianreader]

Many aren't fanatics, they use fanaticism as retribution and/or indoctrinated into radical Islamism. From numerous accounts by civil servants in Paris and Brüssels, the terrorists didn't speak Farsi well and didn't say the common phrase when committing the acts. ISIL will claim responsibility for someone taking a huge dump in the loo. That's the most frightening aspect, how do you kill an idea?

The only way a bad idea/ideology can die is when those who hold that idea dearly become disgusted by it, criticize it and even reject it and this is what is happening with this idea/religion you mentioned so it's not all grim and hopeless in fact there is hope. But our governments are taking advantages of our fear of that Idea to control us for the benefit of the very few if we were in real democracy for example we would be having 4 to 5 presidential nominees in the American election and this is not happening because people are not given choices even if they think otherwise.

 

[scoobydoo99]

it's disingenuous for Google, or any company, to say that they would say "no way" to such an order. that's not how FISA works! Compliance is mandatory. It's the government's cover for doing anything illegal and unconstitutional that they please.

 

[32828870]

The only way a bad idea/ideology can die is when those who hold that idea dearly become disgusted by it, criticize it and even reject it and this is what is happening with this idea/religion you mentioned so it's not all grim and hopeless in fact there is hope. But our governments are taking advantages of our fear of that Idea to control us for the benefit of the very few if we were in real democracy for example we would be having 4 to 5 presidential nominees in the American election and this is not happening because people are not given choices even if they think otherwise.

Spot on. Eisenhower warned about the "Military Industrial Complex" in his 1961 farewell address and JFK intended to dismantle it until his assassination in Nov '63 allowed LBJ to veto his measures before taking effect in Jan '64. The world learned how profitable war is after WWII and peace is never an option. It's been reported the U.S. has been at war 222 years since its independence as of 2015. After the "Cold War" era ended when the Berlin Wall came down, Communism was no longer the "big bad". A new enemy was needed to justify military action, instilling fear into the public while suppressing millions. Operatives trained and stationed to fight Soviet forces in various locations such as Afghanistan were retrained to fight the very people Britain and the U.S. brought to power when destabilizing the rise of Democracy in the Middle East during the mid-20th century in order to place Princes who helped maintain western oil interests. It's a game of chess and we are all pawns.

 

[skids929]

I have absolutely nothing to hide and don't care if they search my email if it helps get an edge on these scumbags AND save lives in the process. Search away.

 

[sir1963nz]

I have absolutely nothing to hide and don't care if they search my email if it helps get an edge on these scumbags AND save lives in the process. Search away.

Here is the thing.
Over the last 20 years, you have been more likely to killed by a coke machine falling on you than be killed by a terrorist
Over the last 20 years, you have been much more likely to killed by law enforcement officer than be killed by a terrorist
Over the last 20 years, you have been way way more likely to killed by relative or friend than be killed by a terrorist

And even more so you would avoid the health system, they are the 3rd largest cause for death in the USA.


Stop wetting your panties about terrorist their main use is by politicians to keep you scared of your own shadow because stupid scared people are easily lead into doing stupid things, ge giving up the rights to privacy

 

[thisisnotmyname]

Spot on. Eisenhower warned about the "Military Industrial Complex" in his 1961 farewell address and JFK intended to dismantle it until his assassination in Nov '63 allowed LBJ to veto his measures before taking effect in Jan '64. The world learned how profitable war is after WWII and peace is never an option. It's been reported the U.S. has been at war 222 years since its independence as of 2015. After the "Cold War" era ended when the Berlin Wall came down, Communism was no longer the "big bad". A new enemy was needed to justify military action, instilling fear into the public while suppressing millions. Operatives trained and stationed to fight Soviet forces in various locations such as Afghanistan were retrained to fight the very people Britain and the U.S. brought to power when destabilizing the rise of Democracy in the Middle East during the mid-20th century in order to place Princes who helped maintain western oil interests. It's a game of chess and we are all pawns.

hang on a moment please, I'm running out of tinfoil.

 

[Tech198]

This reminds me of why Lavabit got shut down over kinda the same sorta thing...

If companies can say they can fight for users privacy, and say they have never received such requests (like Apple or Google won't hand anything over) they are also saying they are above the law, which is not true either..

Of course the one fact that we all know is any company who does stuff like this will hide it until their squeezed.

Seems Justice Department wanted the emails, not the accounts.

Certein people care about privacy, BUT what would u say when u do a home loan ? would u lie on that as well ?

 

[thisisnotmyname]

I have absolutely nothing to hide and don't care if they search my email if it helps get an edge on these scumbags AND save lives in the process. Search away.

I'll bet you $1000 you broke at least one law today.

In any case, what other constitutional rights would you like to relinquish? You trust our government so you don't need that first amendment; just look at what some of those terrorists are doing with their right to free speech anyway. Law enforcement has your back with these scumbags, saving lives and all; you don't need that second amendment to protect yourself (just think of what the scumbags may do with those weapons anyway). Have to help our boys out in this war on terrorism, may as well house a few should they ask - bye bye third. You've already done away with the fourth. You haven't done anything wrong so no reason not to answer any question asked of you, too-da-loo fifth. All of this unwarranted searching and compelled testimony is never going to result in charges since you've "nothing to hide" so who needs speedy trials - if they ever lock you up you'll wait (gitmo was getting to be a problem anyway). When you do get to trial the judge is obviously fair and impartial, no need for a jury. During that long wait for trial a comfy cell will do just fine, why keep bail reasonable. We're already tossing out specific enumerated rights so who cares about natural rights, out with the ninth. Given how difficult basic concepts of being secure in one's person and possessions are I imagine the idea of federalism is well beyond your grasp so there's no need for the tenth.

I personally have nothing to hide either but I value our rights and am not so quick to voluntarily give them away. You want to talk about lives, think of the lives that were given to secure those rights initially and defend them over this country's history. Respect those lives.

 

[Apple_Robert]

I am glad that I ditched Yahoo mail after the recent hack news.

 

[32828870]

hang on a moment please, I'm running out of tinfoil.

Nice try but nothing in my comment is conspiracy theorist related.

On January 17, 1961, in this farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower warned against the establishment of a "military-industrial complex."

In a speech of less than 10 minutes, on January 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower delivered his political farewell to the American people on national television from the Oval Office of the White House. Those who expected the military leader and hero of World War II to depart his Presidency with a nostalgic, "old soldier" speech like Gen. Douglas MacArthur's, were surprised at his strong warnings about the dangers of the "military-industrial complex." As President of the United States for two terms, Eisenhower had slowed the push for increased defense spending despite pressure to build more military equipment during the Cold War’s arms race. Nonetheless, the American military services and the defense industry had expanded a great deal in the 1950s. Eisenhower thought this growth was needed to counter the Soviet Union, but it confounded him. Through he did not say so explicitly, his standing as a military leader helped give him the credibility to stand up to the pressures of this new, powerful interest group. He eventually described it as a necessary evil.

JFK's final speech revisited - Beware the rise of the Military Industrial Complex

President Kennedy's Final Address to the United Nations General Assembly

George Galloway Was Right: Destabilizing The Middle East Created More Terrorism

None of this is from any conspiracy, it's history. Learn it, understand it, don't be afraid of it. It took only one man to induce fear that resulted in the largest mass genocide in history, killing millions of people for being Jewish, gay, etc and their sympathizers. It's not a conspiracy when it's true.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

Nice try but nothing in my comment is conspiracy theorist related.

Spot on. Eisenhower warned about the "Military Industrial Complex" in his 1961 farewell address and JFK intended to dismantle it until his assassination in Nov '63 allowed LBJ to veto his measures before taking effect in Jan '64. The world learned how profitable war is after WWII and peace is never an option. It's been reported the U.S. has been at war 222 years since its independence as of 2015. After the "Cold War" era ended when the Berlin Wall came down, Communism was no longer the "big bad". A new enemy was needed to justify military action, instilling fear into the public while suppressing millions. Operatives trained and stationed to fight Soviet forces in various locations such as Afghanistan were retrained to fight the very people Britain and the U.S. brought to power when destabilizing the rise of Democracy in the Middle East during the mid-20th century in order to place Princes who helped maintain western oil interests. It's a game of chess and we are all pawns.

uh huh.

But I'm probably part of "they." I am a bit mysterious.

 

[Tech198]

I'll bet you $1000 you broke at least one law today.

In any case, what other constitutional rights would you like to relinquish? You trust our government so you don't need that first amendment; just look at what some of those terrorists are doing with their right to free speech anyway. Law enforcement has your back with these scumbags, saving lives and all; you don't need that second amendment to protect yourself (just think of what the scumbags may do with those weapons anyway). Have to help our boys out in this war on terrorism, may as well house a few should they ask - bye bye third. You've already done away with the fourth. You haven't done anything wrong so no reason not to answer any question asked of you, too-da-loo fifth. All of this unwarranted searching and compelled testimony is never going to result in charges since you've "nothing to hide" so who needs speedy trials - if they ever lock you up you'll wait (gitmo was getting to be a problem anyway). When you do get to trial the judge is obviously fair and impartial, no need for a jury. During that long wait for trial a comfy cell will do just fine, why keep bail reasonable. We're already tossing out specific enumerated rights so who cares about natural rights, out with the ninth. Given how difficult basic concepts of being secure in one's person and possessions are I imagine the idea of federalism is well beyond your grasp so there's no need for the tenth.

I personally have nothing to hide either but I value our rights and am not so quick to voluntarily give them away. You want to talk about lives, think of the lives that were given to secure those rights initially and defend them over this country's history. Respect those lives.

True,,, If they want u, there are always other ways to get your info,,, Its just more direct "you tell them"..

And this is the best reason they can come up with with "why should have noting to hide" ? Even i could come up with some better reason, like maybe "I don't wanna tell u because its non of your business","I don't think it's valid for the matter at hand etc..."