| reply to exocet_cm
Re: Accuracy? 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. |
|
| 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_cmI am the law - Judge DreddPremium
join:2003-03-23
New Orleans, LA
kudos:2 | 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
|
|
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. |
|
