When it comes to national security and the Internet, it seems, there's classified information -- and then there are secret arguments about the information.

In a potentially landmark dispute, Google (GOOG), Facebook and other tech giants are crying foul over the Justice Department's response to a lawsuit in which the companies seek to reveal more details about official requests for Internet users' data. After submitting its written arguments directly to a judge, the companies say the government has given them a censored version, while refusing to let even company lawyers who have security clearances review the full brief.

Courtesy U.S. F.I.S.C. -- Tech companies are crying foul over the government&#8217;s response to their lawsuits asking permission to say more about
Courtesy U.S. F.I.S.C. -- Tech companies are crying foul over the government's response to their lawsuits asking permission to say more about national security information requests. The companies complain that the government won't even let them see the full text of the argument the government filed in court, as this heavily redacted page from a multi-page report seems to demonstrate.


While government officials may believe their arguments involve national security, they haven't made a clear case for concealing them, according to the tech companies, which urged the court to reject the government's filing unless they can see it, too.

The dispute began this summer after a former National Security Agency contractor revealed the existence of an intelligence program known as Prism, which authorities have used to gather information about certain customers of major U.S. Internet companies. Facing a global uproar, and potential loss of their customers' trust, the companies have insisted they surrender data to the government only when they are legally required to do so.


After negotiations failed to convince the government to allow more disclosure, five companies -- Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo (YHOO) and LinkedIn -- filed legal motions arguing that the secrecy rules infringe on their First Amendment rights of free speech.



That's a common frustration among attorneys who argue such cases. The government uses secrecy classifications "as a litigation tool," complained Mark Rumold, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has sparred with the government on other cases but isn't involved in this one.

"A lot of times you can guess what the government has said, but the courts don't respond well to speculation," he added. "Any time you don't have access to all the facts, it's going to make litigation a pretty one-sided endeavor."

Government attorneys weren't immediately available for comment.


Incomplete reports about the government's surveillance efforts "undermine confidence in Internet services" that rely on "user trust," said Google's Richard Salgado in prepared testimony, who warned that those concerns may have financial consequences for U.S. tech companies and the global Internet economy.
