Meet the WikiLeaks Guy Who Got His Gmail Seized by the Feds

“I presume pretty much everyone with both a Google account and a WikiLeaks connection will be getting one of those notices eventually.”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Last week, Herbert Snorrason received a “spammy” looking email from Google informing him that the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia had requested the contents of his inbox and other data in 2011. The tech company had complied, handing over a vast amount of his personal information. 

Snorrason is a 27-year-old, blue-eyed, bearded Icelandic guy, a self-described anarchist who is finishing up a postgraduate degree at the University of Iceland in international relations. For two months in 2010, he was also a volunteer chat moderator for WikiLeaks, an informal position where he answered user questions and directed people to more knowledgeable staff. The court that requested Snorrason’s info reportedly convened a federal grand jury probe into WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange after the site published sensitive information allegedly provided by Army Pvt. Bradley Manning.

Gag orders for a subpoena and search warrant issued for Snorrason’s Google account were lifted on May 2, so the company was finally able to tell Snorrason that his information had been forked over to US authorities. The company acknowledged providing the feds with the content of his Gmail account, calendar data, contact lists, photos, the email addresses that Snorrason corresponded with, and draft and deleted emails. 

“I presume pretty much everyone with both a Google account and a WikiLeaks connection will be getting one of those notices eventually,” Snorrason tells Mother Jones. “It simply seems unlikely that the US government would be requesting information on an Icelandic university student, even if he is a self-declared anarchist.”

Snorrason says that he hasn’t had any contact with Assange since he left the organization in 2010. The ex-volunteer, who first got in touch with WikiLeaks over minor technical issues with documents relating to an Icelandic bank in the summer of 2009, was basically a fly on the wall of the WikiLeaks chat room answering questions because he was familiar with the content, until the Afghan War Diary—a collection of over 91,000 reports authored by US soldiers and intelligence officers describing the war in Afghanistan—was published in July 2010. At that point, he temporarily took a more active role in separating questions and off-topic chatter. But he left after only two months because he was unhappy with the way Assange was shaping the site: “My last conversation with Julian started with him asking me to vet regulars of the chat room, to ‘prove they’re not FBI.’ I refused.”

A subpoena seeking Snorrason’s so-called metadata was issued August 12, 2011, and it requested information including all email, physical addresses associated with his account, the dates of his Gmail sessions, their duration, and the IP addresses from which they originated. The order covered between November 1, 2009, and December 31, 2010. Snorrason says that this request didn’t really surprise him—he figured he was just “caught up in the dragnet around Assange.” Last week, Google notified Smári McCarthy, who worked for WikiLeaks until 2010, of a similar order by the same court. McCarthy’s request asks for metadata between November 1, 2009, and July 14, 2011.

A search warrant (which unlike a subpoena must be issued by a judge based on a demonstration of probable cause) issued on October 14, 2011, demanded Google relinquish Snorrason’s emails, contact lists, pictures, and files, “including any deleted information.” Google only provided him with the first page of the search warrant request, and there is no information about why the search warrant was issued. (Google did not respond to request for comment.) Snorrason says he wasn’t explicitly told that it’s related to the federal investigation into WikiLeaks and Manning, but he wrote in a joint statement with McCarthy, “This investigation, which appears to be winding down as Justice Liam O’Grady felt it safe to unseal the orders, appears to have been conducted not for the purpose of attributing criminal behavior to those guilty of conducting said war crimes and violations of fundamental human rights, but to punish those who performed the public service of making the world aware of them.”

Hanni Fakhoury, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says the search warrant issued for Snorrason’s Google account seems overly broad. “People keep tons of email in their inboxes for years and it seems like the government should have to narrow its requests for emails to its investigation or specific to relevant time frames.” But he adds that Google acted appropriately: “Google didn’t do anything wrong. As soon as it received permission allowing it to notify its customer about the orders, it did so promptly. [Snorrason and McCarthy] have a pretty tangential relationship to WikiLeaks. But we’ve already seen the government has been going hard after [WikiLeaks], with subpoenas to supporters and other volunteers.”

The number of data demands directed to Google has been increasing since 2010, when the company reported receiving less than 9,000 requests from federal, state, and local authorities. In 2012, Google received more than 16,400 requests for user information covering 31,000-plus accounts from. Not included in that number are national security letters and demands approved by the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. (Google is pushing to make requests from this panel public.)

Snorrason says he mostly expects the feds to find that he is “rather a boring person.” But he says he feels that without any kind of explanation of why the order was issued, his privacy has been violated: “The fact that there’s nothing of significance in that account is irrelevant. I very much doubt that they’d have gone for my info if they weren’t on a major fishing expedition.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate