dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
64

exocet_cm
Writing
Premium Member
join:2003-03-23
Brooklyn, NY

exocet_cm to jc10098

Premium Member

to jc10098

Re: Accuracy?

said by jc10098:

The whole definition of a warrantless is the absence of a judge's signature. If you read the statement you quoted, the verbiage is emphatic about these types don't typically involve a judge.

So either they've factored in that to their estimates or the amount having a signature are negligible. Maybe the other 32 percent are signed and follow protocol? Then, they aren't considered warrantless.

Typically don't, according to Google. In my/our city's case, they dp require a subpoena and I'm sure they do in other jurisdictions as well.

To say "68 percent" are warrantless, as in without a judge's signature, is/can be misleading.

If Google is all about transparency, I'd like to see the amount of subpoenas that require or had a judge's signature affixed to the subpoena.
NOVA_UAV_Guy
Premium Member
join:2012-12-14
Purcellville, VA

NOVA_UAV_Guy

Premium Member

I'd suggest that if Google really wanted to be transparent on this, they would create a searchable archive of all the search requests and place it online for all to see.

The government should have no issue with this, if they requests are indeed righteous and made in good faith. The problem is that lack of respect for the law seems to run rampant in the very agencies whose members swore an oath to uphold it... and the higher up you go in scope (local to national) the worse the corruption becomes.