3 ms·

>It's not a piece of software that says "here, based on the scope of your warrant, here's the information you require". Correct, Uber's lawyers will be able to

>It's not a piece of software that says "here, based on the scope of your warrant, here's the information you require". Correct, Uber's lawyers will be able to review and perhaps fight the warrant in courts. Uber's sysadmins will have time to figure out how to reveal the required data in a clean way that does not compromise the rest of Uber's data which includes but is not limited to data about where private citizens travel from time to time. >"FOAD until our counsel green lights unlocking Perfect, yes it does say this. We should all say this. Would you like Google or Facebook or whatever other service you use to reveal your private information if the government does not provide a proper warrant? >potentially before or after some housecleaning". Okay, well in this imaginary scenario Uber would be guilty of tampering with evidence and I'm confident Canada has relevant laws.

FireBeyond 9y ago
> if the government does not provide a proper warrant? How or in what way was this warrant deemed to be improper? There was zero consideration of that, instead it was "nuke from orbit" at first sight.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  By the judicial system, obviously. Uber's lawyers will review the warrant and if they agree that it's proper they will instruct their sysadmins to provide ONLY THE DATA COVERED BY THE WARRANT to authorities. If they don't feel the warrant is proper, they will fight it in court. The vast majority of times warrants are upheld, so really all that happens is the authorities are only granted access to the data they had probable cause to request. What you're suggesting is that the authorities should have access to anything and everything that a person who happened to be logged in at the time of the raid had access too. You are suggesting that the authorities should always be granted arbitrary access to a random amount of data, which is almost certainly not relevant to their case, any time they get a warrant for any data at all. Further, you are acting as if that article is the end of the story, but it's not. There will be legal review by relevant professionals and Uber will provide whatever it is legally required to provide.

FireBeyond 9y ago

> if the government does not provide a proper warrant? How or in what way was this warrant deemed to be improper? There was zero consideration of that, instead it was "nuke from orbit" at first sight.

Consultant32452 9y ago
By the judicial system, obviously. Uber's lawyers will review the warrant and if they agree that it's proper they will instruct their sysadmins to provide ONLY THE DATA COVERED BY THE WARRANT to authorities. If they don't feel the warrant is proper, they will fight it in court. The vast majority of times warrants are upheld, so really all that happens is the authorities are only granted access to the data they had probable cause to request. What you're suggesting is that the authorities should have access to anything and everything that a person who happened to be logged in at the time of the raid had access too. You are suggesting that the authorities should always be granted arbitrary access to a random amount of data, which is almost certainly not relevant to their case, any time they get a warrant for any data at all. Further, you are acting as if that article is the end of the story, but it's not. There will be legal review by relevant professionals and Uber will provide whatever it is legally required to provide.