Credit: Mike Scarcella / ALM

In announcing the criminal charges of a Russian national for alleged midterm election conspiring, Department of Justice officials explicitly thanked a pair of significant, if somewhat unusual, cooperators: Facebook and Twitter.

“The investigative team received exceptional cooperation from private sector companies, such as Facebook and Twitter,” read the DOJ's announcement. The DOJ statement came alongside the unsealing of a complaint that alleges that defendant Elena Alekseevna Khusyaynova conspired to tilt the U.S. midterms and other elections by purchasing advertisements and creating posts and groups on social media outlets like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

Recent scandals involving social media's role in election interference may be changing technology companies' hardline approach to government requests for user information. Former DOJ trial attorney Peter Henning said in a typical government investigation, social media companies would “demand a subpoena or a search warrant. Though because this is Russia interference, I don't think they don't have the same privacy concerns.”

“They're trying to mend their ways, or at least to rebuild their reputation,” explained Henning, now a law professor at Wayne State University. “Because it's Russian interference, they're not worried about privacy, that has definitely taken a backseat.”

But the reputation benefits don't just go one way. The DOJ's “shout-out,” Henning noted, is a way to demonstrate to other regulators that they can “play ball” with social media companies. Russia is “a very different beast” than situations like providing assistance in unlocking the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone.

“'I want to protect Russia trolls' is not a battle cry,” Henning said.

The DOJ's complaint doesn't reveal the companies' roles in the investigation efforts. Facebook for its part told The Recorder in a statement that “combatting election interference is a task that requires cooperation from government and private industry.” Twitter, meanwhile, noted that it didn't “have anything to share” regarding its role.

Theresa Payton, former CIO for the White House under George W. Bush, said that when the DOJ mentions exceptional cooperation “it typically indicates that the companies went above and beyond what's required.”

“This could mean that they not only supplied information and intelligence but possibly also experts and inside operations that would assist DOJ with understanding any conclusions their internal teams have reached,” she said. “I see this as a positive step to a more collaborative relationship between the two stakeholders to combat this issue.”

Eric Goldman, co-director of Santa Clara Law's High Tech Law Institute, took a sober view as to whether this sort of give-and-take will change the dynamic between the government and big tech. He noted that it “seems funny” a “social media company would work with the government” given tech companies view federal interference “as an assault on their services.” On the other hand, he said that “much of the government's bashing of internet companies” is about the “much deeper struggle” over user privacy.

“No doubt that the internet companies are motivated to fight the Russian trolls. So when the government comes calling, seeking help on that issue, the internet companies are going to provide greater than normal support for that effort,” Goldman said. And the collaboration, he added, not only pushes the companies to do more, but helps “tell D.C. they can be our friends and not our enemies.”

Social media companies have taken steps in recent months to repair their image after a series of snafus over data privacy protection and allowing election tampering have tarnished their images with the general public. Facebook hired former DOJ prosecutor Nathaniel Gleicher in January to track down trolls trying to rile up political passions and nation-state-led disinformation campaigns. Twitter for its part has banned conservative commentator Alex Jones from its services for posting content that violated the company's abusive behavior policy.