dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
277
share rss forum feed


exocet_cm
Free at last, free at last
Premium
join:2003-03-23
New Orleans, LA
kudos:3

Accuracy?

From Google's site:

quote:
"68 percent of the requests Google received from government entities in the U.S. were through subpoenas. These are requests for user-identifying information, issued under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), and are the easiest to get because they typically dont involve judges." (emphasis mine)
I know here we have to have subpoenas signed by judges the same as warrants. I typically tell detectives that come to me for assistance to just get a search warrant since the verbiage and paperwork process is almost identical to the subpoena process since it has to be signed by a judge anyway.

I understand this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but making a statement that "x number of data requests are warrantless" without further explaining the process, reads as if the government has unfettered access to our data. If Google really wants to be "transparent", they should break down the number of subpoenas signed by a judge and the number of subpoenas not signed by a judge but issued on "a judge's behalf" from a court.
--
"All newspaper editorial writers ever do is come down from the hills after the battle is over and shoot the wounded." - Bruce Anderson
"I have often regretted my speech, never my silence." - Xenocrates

jc100

join:2002-04-10

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.



carpetshark3
Premium
join:2004-02-12
Idledale, CO

While maybe I don't have much to hide - a lot of info is nobody's business but my own. I don't even like public records. You get spam from collectors of info.



exocet_cm
Free at last, free at last
Premium
join:2003-03-23
New Orleans, LA
kudos:3
reply to jc100

said by jc100:

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.
--
"All newspaper editorial writers ever do is come down from the hills after the battle is over and shoot the wounded." - Bruce Anderson
"I have often regretted my speech, never my silence." - Xenocrates

Androidian

join:2012-12-14
Purcellville, VA
Reviews:
·Comcast

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.