U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ Office of Information Policy)
FOIA APPEAL Re: AG/15-05682 (F) DAG/15-05683 (F) ASG/15-05684 (F) VRB:DRH:ND
published with links at www.cita.es/appeal-foia and www.miguelgallardo.es/appeal-foia.pdf
Dr. (PhD) Eng. Miguel Gallardo, Tel. +34 902998352 Fax: +34 902998379 E-mail: miguel@cita.es
“Freedom of Information Act Appeal” on behalf of APEDANICA and www.cita.es in Spain with legal assistance of the European lawyers Dr. José Manuel López Iglesias in Spain and avv. Achille Campagna in Italy as well as Ms. Yajaira Navas Morales, attorney at Law in Venezuela
We have “requested records pertaining to a criminal investigation of Google”. Our complete FOIA previous request is published by us in Internet at www.cita.es/attorney-general-chrome
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ Office of Information Policy) response, signed by Vanessa R. Brinkmann, Senior Counsel, is also published by us at https://goo.gl/pDyYTg
First of all, on behalf of APEDANICA Association and www.cita.es I sincerely want to express my solemn respect to US authorities and FOIA legal system since my own country, Spain, does not enjoy such an open and factual acknowledgement of the right to information. Certainly it is not our intention to pursue any abuse in claiming for rights in US that we do not enjoy in Spain. Through such framework, we sincerely believe that even from Spain and any other European country, we can avail of your paramount openness and undertake our best efforts to stop Google malpractices and massive espionage like the ones, e.g. pertaining to Google (YouTube) employee, Mirus Milner’s case (published as “Engineer in Google's Street View Is Identified - NYTimes.com“ and “Google WiFi 'snooping': Marius Milner profile - Telegraph“), or to Chrome browser software audio spying-enabling features. We are seriously afraid of microphone espionage using Google Chrome system as we mentioned in our FOIA request already. We suspect that organizations with the technical skills of the likes of “HackingTeam”’s, may enjoy the chance and actually use backdoors and Google Chrome microphone in any PC for massive audio and data mining espionage.
I – 5 U.S.C. § 552(c) – standard notification exclusion
We acknowledge that DOJ’s Vanessa R. Brinkmann rejected our request on grounds of FOIA Exemption 5, what we are challenging and forms the subject of our in depth discussion through this act of appeal, nevertheless, as a first claim, we are pointing out that DOJ’s response includes the following “standard notification”: “Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records from the requirements of the FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(c) (2012). This response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA. This is a standard notification that is given to all our requesters and should not be taken as an indication that excluded records do, or do not, exist”.
We are sure –as it is undoubtedly demonstrated hereunder[1]- that records about Google do exist within DOJ, while U.S. Department of Justice (Office of Information Policy) provided no information at all. This circumstances, once coupled, logically lead us to determine that existing records may be treated like records excluded from FOIA application (or covered by Exemption 5).
Thus, regarding a potential 5 U.S.C. § 552(c) exclusion, we strongly purport that this latter is baseless and we cannot accept that Google-related probes and investigations be treated just like e.g. CIA and NSA classified matters (see references hereunder attached). In case this happened, DOJ’s decision would resolve into Google’s matters enjoying the same protection as that of Central Intelligence Agency CIA (see DECLARATION LINK), or National Security Agency NSA matters
While the exclusion rule application to records of matter is referenced simply by way of hypothesis, as that is purportedly called a “standard notification”, we cannot accept this and we claim that at least DOJ specifies which kind of records must be excluded by each category.
Let us eventually point out that Connecticut, Mississipi and Texas General Attorneys did not claim any 5 U.S.C. § 552(c) exclusion over relevant records and information about Google related investigations, which were indeed duly released on the basis of FOIA.
II - 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) – Exemption 5
We claim that DOJ’s decision has been unresponsive in respect to APEDANICA’s FOIA request, judging by the grounds therein alleged. The ruling, indeed, refers to potential maintaining of records within law-enforcement components, on one side, and to Exemption 5 of the FOIA - 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) - on the other side. To the contrary, we must inform and hereby affirm that we are aware of the very existence of extensive records and information, within DOJ, concerning investigations on Google, as shown in exhibits “A” at https://goo.gl/bX2fN2 and “B” at https://goo.gl/dY2yOv ; furthermore some of these records and information in our possession do not match the exemption requirements claimed but the DOJ.
Please understand these exhibits represent only a very small subset of records and information we can infer are held within DOJ.
At this point, provided, as above, indisputable evidence of records and information existence within the DOJ, we claim that any such records and information, we may be aware of or outright ignore, at least be the subject of a proper assessment to ends of eligibility or exemption, with regard to our FOIA request.
In fact, your Exemption 5 claim is not admissible in such a general and sweeping manner as you provide for: the above mentioned OAG ruling (exhibit “A”) clearly recall a very narrow definition for what a “work-product and deliberative process” (as established by: rule 192.5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351, 360 (Tex. 2000); Tex. Att'y Gen. ORD-677 (2002) at 4-8as - OAG ruling references) should be deemed; all but in order to complement the exemption requirement.
As 04/20/2015 ruling (above mentioned and here-attached) establishes “A governmental body seeking to withhold information under this exception bears the burden of demonstrating the information was created or developed for trial or in anticipation of litigation by or for a party or a party's representative”, in case it claims exemptions on grounds of 5 U.S.C. § 552.111.
Clearly both work-products and deliberative processes represent a limited portion of available records and information concerning an investigation file, while, in DOJ’s view, all these latter, be they held within DOJ or States OAGs, would be affected by such description, which is utterly impossible.
As a supporting evidence of this ground of appeal, in particular, we claim that exhibit “B” clearly does not consist in any work-product or deliberative process - while being held within DOJ.
For the same reasons, we deem the last argument (categories of exemptions) of the decision inadmissible as well as useless, provided that, again, no evaluation has been pursued, on the wrong assumption that no records or information on Google investigations would be available within or throughout the DOJ.
III – Further evidences of qualifying records
Moreover, it has also been published that “Attorney General Announces $7 Million Multistate Settlement With Google Over Street View Collection of WiFi Data” at http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?Q=520518 The Assurance of Voluntary Compliance is published at http://www.ct.gov/ag/lib/ag/press_releases/2013/20130312_google_avc.pdf
Another relevant public Settlement Agreement that we are interested in is entered into by the Attorneys General of the States of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as the District of Columbia and Google Inc. published at
http://www.ct.gov/ag/lib/ag/press_releases/2013/20131118_googlesafari_avc_executed.pdf
***
Beyond our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) appeal, we repeat here that there is a real risk of massive audio espionage by Google Chrome Internet navigator control of PC microphones. We also send information in another FOIA request to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as publishe at www.cita.es/fcc with FCC Tracking Number: FCC-2016-000018 Date Submitted: 10/07/2015
In order to understand the risk of massive audio espionage by Google Chrome microphone control in any PC, that we expect FCC and U.S. Attorney General to investigate very seriously we recommend the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5D578JmHdU
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. We will expect a determination with respect to this appeal. Should you have any questions regarding this appeal, please feel free to contact me.
Dr. (PhD) Eng. Miguel Gallardo, Tel. +34 902998352 Fax: +34 902998379 E-mail: miguel@cita.es
Asociación APEDANICA address: C/ Fernando Poo, 16 Piso 6ºB E-28045 Madrid (Spain)
“Freedom of Information Act Appeal” on behalf of APEDANICA and www.cita.es in Spain with legal assistance of the European lawyers Dr. José Manuel López Iglesias in Spain and avv. Achille Campagna in Italy as well as Ms. Yajaira Navas Morales, attorney at Law in Venezuela published with links www.cita.es/appeal-foia and www.miguelgallardo.es/appeal-foia.pdf
***
Adding to references and exhibits accessible through links in the text above,
please refer also to the following background and useful references for this FOIA “Freedom of Information Act Appeal”
- DECLARATION OF VANESSA R. BRINKMANN
This request sought the Department’s copy of the 300-page executive summary of a 6,000-page report produced by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) as a result of its study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s former detention and interrogation program
- References about Google / NSA Relationship https://epic.org/foia/nsa/google/default.html
- We repeat the FOIA request already sent on September 8, 2015 at
www.cita.es/attorney-general-chrome
here again with links at www.cita.es/appeal-foia and www.miguelgallardo.es/appeal-foia.pdf
Dr. (PhD) Miguel Á. Gallardo, Tel. +34 902998352 Fax: +34 902998379 E-mail: miguel@cita.es
To the Attorney General criminal case at www.cita.es/attorney-general-chrome
I am a legal representative of Spanish association APEDANICA (Asociación para la Prevención y Estudio de Delitos, Abusos y Negligencias en Informática y Comunicaciones Avanzadas). You can read about us for instance at ”Google Sued in Spain Over Data Collecting” - The New York Times
MADRID 17 ago. 2010 - The Spanish association of Internet users, whose acronym is Apedanica, contends that Google violated an article in Spain’s criminal code that forbids the unauthorized interception and collection of such communications data. Breaching that law can lead to prison sentences of up to four years. A judge in Spain opened an investigation into whether Google unlawfully collected data from unsecured wireless networks while gathering photographs for Google’s photo-mapping service Street View.
NYT link is published at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/technology/18google.html?_r=0
In addition to the aforementioned indictment which Google is involved in since 2010, we are also working now on a new criminal procedure against Google, at another Spanish Criminal Court (JUZGADO DE INSTRUCCIÓN 5 MADRID), taking as well into consideration the facts and evidence found in the following published articles:
Google was downloading audio listeners onto computers without consent, say Chromium users
Google Chrome Listening In To Your Room Shows The Importance Of Privacy Defense In Depth
“Google eavesdropping tool installed on computers without permission. Privacy advocates claim always-listening component was involuntarily activated within Chromium, potentially exposing private conversations” http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/23/google-eavesdropping-tool-installed-computers-without-permission
“Here's How Easy It Is For Google Chrome To Eavesdrop On Your PC Microphone” by Marc Weber
“Got Chrome? Google Just Silently Downloaded This Onto Your Computer” by Alec Cope
http://wearechange.org/got-chrome-google-just-silently-downloaded-this-onto-your-computer
You can read our legal approach as published (in Spanish) at www.cita.es/chrome and our appeal at www.cita.es/recurso-chrome Please contact me regarding any questions and feel free to forward the document to whom you consider appropriate.
We request documented information about any Google criminal investigation in the past, present or near future, under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as soon as possible.
Dr. (PhD) Miguel Á. Gallardo, Tel. +34 902998352 Fax: +34 902998379 E-mail: miguel@cita.es
APEDANICA and WWW.CITA.ES C/ Fernando Poo 16-6ºB E-28045 Madrid, SPAIN (ESPAÑA)
This document is published at www.miguelgallardo.es/attorney-general-chrome.pdf
[1] for instance, we already got 352,7 Mbytes of very relevant scanned documents from the Attorney General of Texas with the same request, Please download all the very sensitive records we already got from the Attorney General of Texas at https://goo.gl/oNuo4u