2 ms·
> They've cooperated on frequent occasions with warrant-less surveillance requests. If you're not talking about NSLs, please provide a reliable citation for th
by simoncion 11y ago
> They've cooperated on frequent occasions with warrant-less surveillance requests.
If you're not talking about NSLs, please provide a reliable citation for this claim. :)
Every company that receives an NSL that passes the laugh test is more-or-less obligated to comply with it. It's my understanding that Google fights as hard as they legally can to protect the private information of their users.
Fun fact: Did you know that from 1986 until very, very recently the law of the land in the US was that emails stored on third-party servers for longer than 180 days were considered abandoned and could be retrieved -in their entirety- by law enforcement with nothing more than what is effectively a note that declared that the information was relevant to a law enforcement investigation? It's true! [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Communications_Privacy_Act#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Communications_Priv... but also http://www.cnet.com/news/doj-we-dont-need-warrants-for-e-mail-facebook-chats/ http://www.cnet.com/news/doj-we-dont-need-warrants-for-e-mai...
- zaroth 11y agoWhat do you mean until recently?
- simoncion 11y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Warshak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Warshak "United States v. Warshak is a criminal case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit holding that government agents violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights by compelling his Internet Service Provider (ISP) to turn over his emails without first obtaining a search warrant based on probable cause." So, yeah, I fucked up. :( It's a circuit court decision, so it's not law of the land, but it is promising.