Google started the wave, writing the government and asking for transparency. | AP Photos Tech titans go on NSA offensive

After days of fielding criticism about the government’s surveillance programs, tech titans went on the offensive Tuesday.

Google started the wave, writing the government and asking to make federal requests for national security information more transparent. That call was quickly followed by statements from Facebook, Microsoft and Twitter. On its face, the missive allows Google and other big tech names to lobby Washington for more transparency — something they’ve long done — but it also kicks things up a notch in the public relations game, where consumer confidence will be crucial for Internet companies going forward.


Last week’s media reports on the National Security Agency’s PRISM program raised significant questions about how easily the government is getting its hands on users’ data. Google and other Silicon Valley heavyweights — Apple, Facebook, Yahoo — swiftly and vigorously pushed back on the allegations that it gave the government direct access to its servers.

( Also on POLITICO: 10 things to know about Snowden)

But Silicon Valley hit a new gear Tuesday when the Mountain View, Calif.-based search giant — which sends out its own transparency report twice a year — fired off its letter to the office of the attorney general and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The company asked the government to allow it to include more information in reports about how frequently it is asked to give up user data under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

“Assertions in the press that our compliance with these requests gives the U.S. government unfettered access to our users’ data are simply untrue,” Chief legal officer David Drummond wrote.

In Silicon Valley offices and tech circles, initial shockwaves about the NSA program have turned into a discussion about what companies can do to disclose more about the data requests they receive.

( PHOTOS: 10 famous/infamous whistleblowers)

“The Valley is absolutely absorbed by this story,” said Paul Saffo, a longtime Silicon Valley technology forecaster. “It’s the perfect confluence of tech geeks, privacy hawks and Libertarians. The discussion is to put it bluntly, ‘Is Google evil?’ The consensus so far is that no they aren’t, and Google and Facebook and the others will not get swept up in this.”

Drummond’s letter on Tuesday follows a Friday message to Google users from CEO Larry Page that said the government doesn’t have a back door into the company’s servers.

The top lawyer at Twitter, a company often talked about as the privacy shining star in Silicon Valley, quickly backed the push for more transparency — tweeting the company’s support.

Soon after, Microsoft also made its own call for more transparency.

“Permitting greater transparency on the aggregate volume and scope of national security requests, including FISA orders, would help the community understand and debate these important issues,” a Microsoft spokesman said in a statement.

( See full Edward Snowden coverage)

Facebook went as far to say that government gag orders have given them pause in the past when it comes to publishing a transparency report of its own, lest they not be able to paint the full picture.

“In the past, we have questioned the value of releasing a transparency report that, because of exactly these types of government restrictions on disclosure, is necessarily incomplete and therefore potentially misleading to our users,” Facebook general counsel Ted Ullyot said in a statement. “We would welcome the opportunity to provide a transparency report that allows us to share with those who use Facebook around the world a complete picture of the government requests we receive, and how we respond.”

From the Valley’s perspective, the lack of clarity is dangerous. The government’s nondisclosure rules for FISA requests “fuel that speculation” that Google lets the NSA freely pursue its data, Drummond wrote in Tuesday’s letter.

There’s no indication that the government would be willing to let some sunlight in on the terms Google is suggesting. The Justice Department didn’t respond to Google’s letter Thursday. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has defended surveillance under FISA’s Section 702 as among the government’s most vital activity, reiterating that it can only be used to target foreign individuals and comes with plenty of oversight.

If the data became publishable, Mountain View would wrap it into its semi-annual transparency report. That feature, in which Google outlines how and how often governments try to get ahold of its user data, currently includes information about the use of subpoenas, search warrants and, as of this year, National Security Letters. The frequency of requests has steadily increased since Google first published the report in 2009.

The problem facing companies trying to convince the public that they play by the rules is the same one lawmakers in Washington are facing this week: So much of the surveillance activities are shrouded in secrecy. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and a gaggle of other lawmakers introduced a bill Tuesday that would improve transparency — and Google’s desire to disclose the level of Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court orders it receives is an attempt to do the same.

While the majority of Americans, according to recent polls, are split on the privacy vs. security debate, tech workers have made their voices heard. Google chief architect Yonaton Zunger said in a posting Friday he was “disgusted” with the conduct of the NSA.

Alex Fowler, Global Privacy & Public Policy Leader at Mozilla, said that he has talked with a number of people in the entrepreneurial community who are worried about the issue. Mozilla, among with civil liberties groups and others, launched StopWatching.us, which they describe as a campaign to call on citizens to demand a “full accounting of the extent to which our online data, communications and interactions are monitored.”

The tech industry’s need to stay on Internet users’ good side when it comes to privacy mirrors the fight that telecom companies face – especially given that it was a disclosed order for millions of Verizon phone records that got the surveillance debate rolling. But in some ways, consumer confidence is even more crucial for Internet companies.

“One of the primary threat models we’ve always talked about for why we care about commercial privacy is the potential for illegitimate government access,” Center for Democracy and Technology director of consumer privacy Justin Brookman said. “Even if you fix government access laws, you can never prevent government abuse of the law, so people really should be worried about what companies have and for how long.