Google Transparency Report Shows 49% Increase in US Requests

Alphabet Inc.’s (NASDAQ: GOOGL) Google search operation reported a 49% increase in government requests made about individuals as part of criminal investigations. It was part of an overall rise in most government requests. Whether government investigations are valuable when kept secret are a matter Google has not entirely addressed.

In its Transparency Report, which includes data from the first half of 2015, Richard Salgado, Legal Director, Law Enforcement and Information Security, and David Lieber, Senior Privacy Policy Counsel, wrote:

In the US, we have seen a 20% increase in requests in criminal investigations and a 49% increase in the number of individual accounts specified in those requests since the last reporting period. Compared to the same period last year, we saw a 4% decrease in requests, but a 45% increase in the number of individual accounts specified.

The ability to report the results are part of a long-term effort by Google to report these results:

Later that year, in an effort the expand the right to report on other types of national security demands, Google filed a lawsuit before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court asserting a First Amendment right to publish aggregate information about national security demands that we receive. At the time, Google could not even acknowledge receipt of any FISA demands, which meant we could not provide any transparency around the volume and scope of national security demands we receive. As a result of the litigation, in 2014, Google and other companies earned the right to report the volume of national security demands in ranges of 1,000 (e.g. 0-999). The large ranges, however, limited public visibility into the scope of government surveillance, with no appreciable benefit to national security.

[nativounit]
Google management said it approved of some activity from the government to make such disclosures easier:

The current framework under the USA Freedom Act is far from perfect. As we underscored in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, we continue to believe there are important First Amendment and transparency equities in making more granular disclosures. There should be little doubt that companies can make such disclosures without compromising national security. Indeed, transparency is necessary to bring legitimacy to laws that otherwise operate concealed from the public. As we take stock of the progress made toward providing greater transparency, we should also recognize that further reforms are necessary to promote better oversight over, and insight into, the implementation of government surveillance laws.

Depending on what the government is asking for, and why, national security may not be served by transparency that discloses too many details.