9 ms·

This is... strange. When the federal government comes asking for your help, I think it's pretty normal for people to provide that help. In a just world, if th

This is... strange. When the federal government comes asking for your help, I think it's pretty normal for people to provide that help. In a just world, if the government asks for something inappropriately, then the party at fault is the government. (In other words, Washington should sue ICE, not Motel 6.) If we want companies to require a subpoena to share information with the federal government (and personally I do want that) then we should set that standard in law. And we should enforce it fairly, not based on the hot political topic of the day. (How much information does the CIA and FBI vacuum up from Washington telcos in a day in violation of this law, and why isn't anyone held to task? Maybe because they have better lawyers than Motel 6.) Helping the federal government do its job and then getting sued by the state seems like mom getting mad at you for doing what dad asked you to.

matt4077 8y ago
They are fined for improperly handing over data. It seems we have already set that standard in law.
- lixtra 8y ago
  So who from the federal government is charged for their part of the crime?
  - Scoundreller 8y ago
    Its taxpayers of course.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - matt4077 8y ago
    Sorry, I only now got OP‘s intention. I believe it’s somewhat defensible to task only one side here with protecting the data. They have that data all the time, and it’s therefore more practical for them to explore the legality of such requests. They are also the party entrusted with that data by the customer, and therefore have a fiduciary duty. It also aligns with the idea of those profiting from data to accept liability for its protection. There’s probably also a federal/state law angle here that I’m unqualified to opine on. Also: this is civil law, and therefore nobody was or will be charged (just a pet peeve).
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    ICE didn't commit a crime...It is not illegal for government agencies to request information from individuals or companies. Nor did Motel 6 for that matter. It was hit with a civil lawsuit...
    - derekp7 8y ago
      This is where the laws need to be tightened -- people tend to not know what their rights or obligations are, and have to rely on expensive professionals to advise them (and it can still go wrong). When a government agent makes a request, often it can come across as a demand, with the implication that your are required by law to comply (they can even lie to you to get you to comply). Now in the case of a large business, I would expect that they have the resources to figure out when to comply or when to ask for a warrant. But individuals have a harder time -- imagine getting sued by your employer for complying with a TSA agent's demand that you open your laptop for them to search through, then you get sued or fired because of that. It should always be illegal for a government official to imply that you are required to do something, if that isn't the case (and make it clear that there is no penalty, such as not being to board your plane, for not complying).
      - EpicEng 8y ago
        "people" This is a huge motel chain. They operate in a state which defines laws as to how you are allowed to handle your customer's information. Ignorance is not an excuse. I don't see how the individual citizen argument apples here and it's all hypotheticals anyway.
        jakelazaroff 8y ago
        The article doesn't go into detail about how this information was obtained. Did they request it from the official company counsel? Or did they intimidate some night manager who doesn't know the law well enough to protest?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > So who from the federal government is charged for their part of the crime? What crime? The charges were for a civil violation of state consumer protection law, which restricted the behavior of the motel, not ICE. Even if ICE officials, in the federally-lawful conduct of their duties could be subject to state law, I don't see any indication that they did anything that would have broken the law at issue, which prohibits the disclosure, not the request.
    - trhway 8y ago
      >Even if ICE officials, in the federally-lawful conduct of their duties could be subject to state law, I don't see any indication that they did anything that would have broken the law at issue, which prohibits the disclosure, not the request. i wonder whether the agents may be breaking any law if say the night manager informed them that he couldn't legally disclose the information, yet the agents would still pressure him into giving it up. Wouldn't the agents thus become participants of a conspiracy to violate that law [IANAL]?
balabaster 8y ago
> seems like mom getting mad at you for doing what dad asked you to. Because this never happens XD
js2 8y ago
There's a Washington state consumer protection law. Some Motel 6 locations in the state broke that law by handing over data to Federal officials without a warrant. The Federal officials broke no law in asking for the data without a warrant. It was the hotels which broke the law. Maybe you could make an entrapment argument against the Federal officials. IANAL, so I don't know how that works. (I guess it's not entrapment because the Federal officials weren't trying to get Motel 6 to break the law for the purpose of going after Motel 6.) And btw, since when has the law ever been enforced fairly, really?
- misterprime 8y ago
  >And btw, since when has the law ever been enforced fairly, really? We gotta keep trying our best, even though we're never gonna get it 100% right.
- skrebbel 8y ago
  > The Federal officials broke no law in asking for the data without a warrant. It was the hotels which broke the law. I really don't understand this. How can it be legal for a government to ask its citizens to break the law?
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    The concept that all people should be aware of all laws from all levels of government, and that the government is not the responsible one is so pompous to me. To expect a low wage employee, who is probably not well educated to rebuff people with badges in the moment who have the power to threaten you and disrupt your whole life is rich.
    - xxpor 8y ago
      That's why the company was fined, not the poor desk clerk.
  - nojvek 8y ago
    It’s okay for Federal Officials to demand crap and expect a random citizen to know refusing what demands is a Felony and what isn’t? I don’t even know how to differentiate between a real Federal Officer and a fake one. What does a real court order look vs a fake one ? If I cheat on my taxes, it’s my fault. If the federal officers do something knowingly they shouldn’t do. They should get sacked and fined.
swalsh 8y ago
You can read the details here (https://agportal-s3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploadedfiles/Another/News/Press_Releases/ConsentDecreeMotel6.pdf https://agportal-s3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploadedfiles/Ano...) It makes a lot more sense when you dig into the specifics.
- tylerhou 8y ago
  For the lazy: Specifically, the State alleges that Motel 6 violated the CPA, RCW 19.86.020 and RCW 49.60.030(3), and the WLAD, RCW 49.60.030(1)(b) and RCW 49.60.215(1), by: a. Disclosing private guest registry information to ICE agents, in violation of the public policy of the State of Washington, including the Washington State Constitution and Motel 6's own privacy policy; b. Disclosing private guest registry information to ICE agents with the knowledge that ICE was requesting the guest registry information for the purpose of discovering and investigating guests on the basis of national origin, including guests with Latino-sounding names. Seems reasonable to me.
code_duck 8y ago
Isn’t it your duty to protect the privacy of your data and your customers regardless of who is requesting data? I thought companies like Twitter and Google routinely rebuffed requests for information from government agencies and opposed restrictive rules, e.g. in China, and are praised for it. The concept of resisting government requests for information is well established. If the police called and asked for my customer list, I’d check whether they had that authority and many other issues before turning it over. I think we had an article on here earlier about ‘second order thinking’ that would cover that... getting an invasive request from the government, and fulfilling it regardless of consequences because you want to ‘help’ or consider them to be like Mom and Dad is first order thinking. I’m no expert, but it seems increasingly common to have state laws that oppose or are stricter than federal laws, and you do have to be aware of all laws for your jurisdiction down to the county and city. Especially in any voluntary action, you have to consider whether it violates other laws or duties, and if they weren’t legally compelled to do this t was voluntary.
- ProAm 8y ago
  > I thought companies like Twitter and Google routinely rebuffed requests for information from government agencies and opposed restrictive rules They say this but look at AT&T and room 641A and the NSA.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
  - cromwellian 8y ago
    Guilt by association? AT&T is a completely different kind of company than SV tech companies.
    - cheez 8y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%... The documents identified several technology companies as participants in the PRISM program, including Microsoft in 2007, Yahoo! in 2008, Google in 2009, Facebook in 2009, Paltalk in 2009, YouTube in 2010, AOL in 2011, Skype in 2011 and Apple in 2012.[22] The speaker's notes in the briefing document reviewed by The Washington Post indicated that "98 percent of PRISM production is based on Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft".[1]
closetohome 8y ago
This kind of deferential attitude towards authority is extremely troubling.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> When the federal government comes asking for your help, I think it's pretty normal for people to provide that help. There's all kinds of times when turning over information to the government, or certain agents of government, without a compulsory order is illegal, either under civil or criminal law or both. Sometimes it goes beyond that, and even prohibits such disclosure under otherwise compulsory orders. I've worked with personal data of federally-funded substance abuse treatment program clients. Beyond (and actually, IIRC, predating) HIPAA protections that also apply, I could not, legally, disclose such information even to an law enforcement agent with a subpoena for the information, without a separate, accompanying federal court order authorizing disclosure of the protected client information. The implementing regulations (42 CFR Part 2) even take the unusual step of specifically calling out a number of nonexceptions to the general rule against disclosure outside of the specific parameters permitted: [42 CFR § 2.13(b)] ”The restrictions on disclosure and use in the regulations in this part apply whether or not the part 2 program or other lawful holder of the patient identifying information believes that the person seeking the information already has it, has other means of obtaining it, is a law enforcement agency or official or other government official, has obtained a subpoena, or asserts any other justification for a disclosure or use which is not permitted by the regulations in this part.” If you work in an industry to which the law—state, federal, local, whatever—applies such protection to the data you hold, you are responsible to know that, abide by it, and not just roll over when someone vaguely waves a badge in your direction. > If we want companies to require a subpoena to share information with the federal government (and personally I do want that) then we should set that standard in law. The State of Washington did that. That's exactly what the case is about. > (How much information does the CIA and FBI vacuum up from Washington telcos in a day in violation of this law, and why isn't anyone held to task? Probably none, mostly because the law at issue doesn't apply to telcos.
mikeash 8y ago
I would much rather educate the population on their rights and teach people to be skeptical of all requests from strangers, even when those strangers have a badge or a uniform. A world where “a government agent requested it so I complied” is a sufficient excuse for misbehaving seems ripe for abuse.
scarface74 8y ago
When the federal government comes asking for your help, I think it's pretty normal for people to provide that help. It depends on whether you are in a demographic that believes law enforcement is just or corrupt. I’ve told my sons if they ever get questioned by the police to not say a word until I get there. Even if they don’t have anything to hide. I’ve told them how to react when they get stopped by the police and always keep their emotions under control. I’ve told them never to expect fair treatment. All of my paranoia is backed by statistics.
eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
I don’t want to live in that world. The natural result of this is then everyones rights would constantly be violated. Police would ask and every company would roll over and give out any info that is requested. And when we talk about personal information getting out, the damage is sort of done once it happens. And your only recourse is to then sue the government or get your state AG to possibly do it for you? If you want to operate a business that takes personal information, it is your responsibility to protect it. Nobody is forcing anyone to start a business but there are inherent risks.
romwell 8y ago
>When the federal government comes asking for your help, I think it's pretty normal for people to provide that help. I can come to any bank, and politely ask them to help me out a bit by giving me some money. That's not an illegal (or wrong) thing to do. Now if the bank does help me out by emptying out their customer's storage cells, someone's going into jail for that. See, it's fine to help out. It's not OK to do so at someone else's expense. In this case, Motel 6 gave away something that's not theirs to give away, according to the law (namely: their customers' data). Motel 6 did not break the law by helping out the feds. It broke the law by harming their customers (sharing their customer's data). In the end, it's normal to ask for help. It's also pretty normal to politely decline to provide it. Title nitpick: Motel 6 illegally gave away this information. They broke the state law, were sued for that, and lost $12M (and made further commitments on top of that). Why NPR chose to soften it to "improperly" is beyond me; the attorney general quoted in the article uses "illegally" in the same sentence.
- waffleguy 8y ago
  That makes no sense. You have no authority over the bank. The federal government can be considered a scary bully who will lie to send anyone to jail.
  - wybiral 8y ago
    They need a warrant by law in most cases but ICE seems to be requesting this data without much to back it up. The standard approach is to challenge it and keep records of the interaction.
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    Your legal duty to your customer doesn't end wherein this duty is inconvenient.
  - romwell 8y ago
    >You have no authority over the bank. And ICE doesn't have authority over Motel 6 without a warrant.
paxy 8y ago
If you do something illegal to help the federal government, you are still on the hook for it.
fataliss 8y ago
Seriously, I would think too. Although I agree that maybe Motel 6 broke a law and should be held responsible for that, I'm also pretty sure that ICE fully knows and abuses of their position to extort information illegally out of people knowing no better. Imagine being a clerk or a manager at Motel 6, probably paid around minimum wage, potentially not very aware of state laws and having an ICE agent storm in and ask about a guest. What do you do? Government agencies should be held accountable to the same degree if not higher than private companies. They literally work for us (gvt), they have to be accountable to us the people!
- op00to 8y ago
  > What do you do? As a front desk person, refer to the laminated playbook card that explains to the LEO exactly what Motel 6's policy is. The card refers the front desk agent to request a warrant for any protected information. If LEO insists, call corporate legal, and comply if threatened with arrest. Make sure interaction is captured on security cameras. Don't be facile. Of course anyone working the front desk at Motel 6 is going to be trained on what to do from now on.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
emmelaich 8y ago
> Helping the federal government do its job and ... I don't think invading privacy is part of the government's job.
smsm42 8y ago
> When the federal government comes asking for your help, I think it's pretty normal for people to provide that help. Well, maybe they should not, if that help involves violation of other's right to privacy. If your ISP would "help" federal government to watch your communications without a court order, you might be justifiably upset. Yes, telecoms are guilty in such behavior too, and largely are never punished. That doesn't mean it's ok. > In other words, Washington should sue ICE, not Motel 6. ICE has the right to ask. M6 should have answered "sure, gladly, as soon as we see that warrant".

matt4077 8y ago

They are fined for improperly handing over data. It seems we have already set that standard in law.

lixtra 8y ago
So who from the federal government is charged for their part of the crime?
- Scoundreller 8y ago
  Its taxpayers of course.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- matt4077 8y ago
  Sorry, I only now got OP‘s intention. I believe it’s somewhat defensible to task only one side here with protecting the data. They have that data all the time, and it’s therefore more practical for them to explore the legality of such requests. They are also the party entrusted with that data by the customer, and therefore have a fiduciary duty. It also aligns with the idea of those profiting from data to accept liability for its protection. There’s probably also a federal/state law angle here that I’m unqualified to opine on. Also: this is civil law, and therefore nobody was or will be charged (just a pet peeve).
- gamblor956 8y ago
  ICE didn't commit a crime...It is not illegal for government agencies to request information from individuals or companies. Nor did Motel 6 for that matter. It was hit with a civil lawsuit...
  - derekp7 8y ago
    This is where the laws need to be tightened -- people tend to not know what their rights or obligations are, and have to rely on expensive professionals to advise them (and it can still go wrong). When a government agent makes a request, often it can come across as a demand, with the implication that your are required by law to comply (they can even lie to you to get you to comply). Now in the case of a large business, I would expect that they have the resources to figure out when to comply or when to ask for a warrant. But individuals have a harder time -- imagine getting sued by your employer for complying with a TSA agent's demand that you open your laptop for them to search through, then you get sued or fired because of that. It should always be illegal for a government official to imply that you are required to do something, if that isn't the case (and make it clear that there is no penalty, such as not being to board your plane, for not complying).
    - EpicEng 8y ago
      "people" This is a huge motel chain. They operate in a state which defines laws as to how you are allowed to handle your customer's information. Ignorance is not an excuse. I don't see how the individual citizen argument apples here and it's all hypotheticals anyway.
      - jakelazaroff 8y ago
        The article doesn't go into detail about how this information was obtained. Did they request it from the official company counsel? Or did they intimidate some night manager who doesn't know the law well enough to protest?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > So who from the federal government is charged for their part of the crime? What crime? The charges were for a civil violation of state consumer protection law, which restricted the behavior of the motel, not ICE. Even if ICE officials, in the federally-lawful conduct of their duties could be subject to state law, I don't see any indication that they did anything that would have broken the law at issue, which prohibits the disclosure, not the request.
  - trhway 8y ago
    >Even if ICE officials, in the federally-lawful conduct of their duties could be subject to state law, I don't see any indication that they did anything that would have broken the law at issue, which prohibits the disclosure, not the request. i wonder whether the agents may be breaking any law if say the night manager informed them that he couldn't legally disclose the information, yet the agents would still pressure him into giving it up. Wouldn't the agents thus become participants of a conspiracy to violate that law [IANAL]?

balabaster 8y ago

> seems like mom getting mad at you for doing what dad asked you to. Because this never happens XD

js2 8y ago

There's a Washington state consumer protection law. Some Motel 6 locations in the state broke that law by handing over data to Federal officials without a warrant. The Federal officials broke no law in asking for the data without a warrant. It was the hotels which broke the law. Maybe you could make an entrapment argument against the Federal officials. IANAL, so I don't know how that works. (I guess it's not entrapment because the Federal officials weren't trying to get Motel 6 to break the law for the purpose of going after Motel 6.) And btw, since when has the law ever been enforced fairly, really?

misterprime 8y ago
>And btw, since when has the law ever been enforced fairly, really? We gotta keep trying our best, even though we're never gonna get it 100% right.
skrebbel 8y ago
> The Federal officials broke no law in asking for the data without a warrant. It was the hotels which broke the law. I really don't understand this. How can it be legal for a government to ask its citizens to break the law?
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  The concept that all people should be aware of all laws from all levels of government, and that the government is not the responsible one is so pompous to me. To expect a low wage employee, who is probably not well educated to rebuff people with badges in the moment who have the power to threaten you and disrupt your whole life is rich.
  - xxpor 8y ago
    That's why the company was fined, not the poor desk clerk.
- nojvek 8y ago
  It’s okay for Federal Officials to demand crap and expect a random citizen to know refusing what demands is a Felony and what isn’t? I don’t even know how to differentiate between a real Federal Officer and a fake one. What does a real court order look vs a fake one ? If I cheat on my taxes, it’s my fault. If the federal officers do something knowingly they shouldn’t do. They should get sacked and fined.

swalsh 8y ago

You can read the details here (https://agportal-s3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploadedfiles/Another/News/Press_Releases/ConsentDecreeMotel6.pdf https://agportal-s3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploadedfiles/Ano...) It makes a lot more sense when you dig into the specifics.

tylerhou 8y ago
For the lazy: Specifically, the State alleges that Motel 6 violated the CPA, RCW 19.86.020 and RCW 49.60.030(3), and the WLAD, RCW 49.60.030(1)(b) and RCW 49.60.215(1), by: a. Disclosing private guest registry information to ICE agents, in violation of the public policy of the State of Washington, including the Washington State Constitution and Motel 6's own privacy policy; b. Disclosing private guest registry information to ICE agents with the knowledge that ICE was requesting the guest registry information for the purpose of discovering and investigating guests on the basis of national origin, including guests with Latino-sounding names. Seems reasonable to me.

code_duck 8y ago

Isn’t it your duty to protect the privacy of your data and your customers regardless of who is requesting data? I thought companies like Twitter and Google routinely rebuffed requests for information from government agencies and opposed restrictive rules, e.g. in China, and are praised for it. The concept of resisting government requests for information is well established. If the police called and asked for my customer list, I’d check whether they had that authority and many other issues before turning it over. I think we had an article on here earlier about ‘second order thinking’ that would cover that... getting an invasive request from the government, and fulfilling it regardless of consequences because you want to ‘help’ or consider them to be like Mom and Dad is first order thinking. I’m no expert, but it seems increasingly common to have state laws that oppose or are stricter than federal laws, and you do have to be aware of all laws for your jurisdiction down to the county and city. Especially in any voluntary action, you have to consider whether it violates other laws or duties, and if they weren’t legally compelled to do this t was voluntary.

ProAm 8y ago
> I thought companies like Twitter and Google routinely rebuffed requests for information from government agencies and opposed restrictive rules They say this but look at AT&T and room 641A and the NSA.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
- cromwellian 8y ago
  Guilt by association? AT&T is a completely different kind of company than SV tech companies.
  - cheez 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%... The documents identified several technology companies as participants in the PRISM program, including Microsoft in 2007, Yahoo! in 2008, Google in 2009, Facebook in 2009, Paltalk in 2009, YouTube in 2010, AOL in 2011, Skype in 2011 and Apple in 2012.[22] The speaker's notes in the briefing document reviewed by The Washington Post indicated that "98 percent of PRISM production is based on Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft".[1]

closetohome 8y ago

This kind of deferential attitude towards authority is extremely troubling.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> When the federal government comes asking for your help, I think it's pretty normal for people to provide that help. There's all kinds of times when turning over information to the government, or certain agents of government, without a compulsory order is illegal, either under civil or criminal law or both. Sometimes it goes beyond that, and even prohibits such disclosure under otherwise compulsory orders. I've worked with personal data of federally-funded substance abuse treatment program clients. Beyond (and actually, IIRC, predating) HIPAA protections that also apply, I could not, legally, disclose such information even to an law enforcement agent with a subpoena for the information, without a separate, accompanying federal court order authorizing disclosure of the protected client information. The implementing regulations (42 CFR Part 2) even take the unusual step of specifically calling out a number of nonexceptions to the general rule against disclosure outside of the specific parameters permitted: [42 CFR § 2.13(b)] ”The restrictions on disclosure and use in the regulations in this part apply whether or not the part 2 program or other lawful holder of the patient identifying information believes that the person seeking the information already has it, has other means of obtaining it, is a law enforcement agency or official or other government official, has obtained a subpoena, or asserts any other justification for a disclosure or use which is not permitted by the regulations in this part.” If you work in an industry to which the law—state, federal, local, whatever—applies such protection to the data you hold, you are responsible to know that, abide by it, and not just roll over when someone vaguely waves a badge in your direction. > If we want companies to require a subpoena to share information with the federal government (and personally I do want that) then we should set that standard in law. The State of Washington did that. That's exactly what the case is about. > (How much information does the CIA and FBI vacuum up from Washington telcos in a day in violation of this law, and why isn't anyone held to task? Probably none, mostly because the law at issue doesn't apply to telcos.

mikeash 8y ago

I would much rather educate the population on their rights and teach people to be skeptical of all requests from strangers, even when those strangers have a badge or a uniform. A world where “a government agent requested it so I complied” is a sufficient excuse for misbehaving seems ripe for abuse.

scarface74 8y ago

When the federal government comes asking for your help, I think it's pretty normal for people to provide that help. It depends on whether you are in a demographic that believes law enforcement is just or corrupt. I’ve told my sons if they ever get questioned by the police to not say a word until I get there. Even if they don’t have anything to hide. I’ve told them how to react when they get stopped by the police and always keep their emotions under control. I’ve told them never to expect fair treatment. All of my paranoia is backed by statistics.

eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago

I don’t want to live in that world. The natural result of this is then everyones rights would constantly be violated. Police would ask and every company would roll over and give out any info that is requested. And when we talk about personal information getting out, the damage is sort of done once it happens. And your only recourse is to then sue the government or get your state AG to possibly do it for you? If you want to operate a business that takes personal information, it is your responsibility to protect it. Nobody is forcing anyone to start a business but there are inherent risks.

romwell 8y ago

>When the federal government comes asking for your help, I think it's pretty normal for people to provide that help. I can come to any bank, and politely ask them to help me out a bit by giving me some money. That's not an illegal (or wrong) thing to do. Now if the bank does help me out by emptying out their customer's storage cells, someone's going into jail for that. See, it's fine to help out. It's not OK to do so at someone else's expense. In this case, Motel 6 gave away something that's not theirs to give away, according to the law (namely: their customers' data). Motel 6 did not break the law by helping out the feds. It broke the law by harming their customers (sharing their customer's data). In the end, it's normal to ask for help. It's also pretty normal to politely decline to provide it. Title nitpick: Motel 6 illegally gave away this information. They broke the state law, were sued for that, and lost $12M (and made further commitments on top of that). Why NPR chose to soften it to "improperly" is beyond me; the attorney general quoted in the article uses "illegally" in the same sentence.

waffleguy 8y ago
That makes no sense. You have no authority over the bank. The federal government can be considered a scary bully who will lie to send anyone to jail.
- wybiral 8y ago
  They need a warrant by law in most cases but ICE seems to be requesting this data without much to back it up. The standard approach is to challenge it and keep records of the interaction.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  Your legal duty to your customer doesn't end wherein this duty is inconvenient.
- romwell 8y ago
  >You have no authority over the bank. And ICE doesn't have authority over Motel 6 without a warrant.

paxy 8y ago

If you do something illegal to help the federal government, you are still on the hook for it.

fataliss 8y ago

Seriously, I would think too. Although I agree that maybe Motel 6 broke a law and should be held responsible for that, I'm also pretty sure that ICE fully knows and abuses of their position to extort information illegally out of people knowing no better. Imagine being a clerk or a manager at Motel 6, probably paid around minimum wage, potentially not very aware of state laws and having an ICE agent storm in and ask about a guest. What do you do? Government agencies should be held accountable to the same degree if not higher than private companies. They literally work for us (gvt), they have to be accountable to us the people!

op00to 8y ago
> What do you do? As a front desk person, refer to the laminated playbook card that explains to the LEO exactly what Motel 6's policy is. The card refers the front desk agent to request a warrant for any protected information. If LEO insists, call corporate legal, and comply if threatened with arrest. Make sure interaction is captured on security cameras. Don't be facile. Of course anyone working the front desk at Motel 6 is going to be trained on what to do from now on.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

emmelaich 8y ago

> Helping the federal government do its job and ... I don't think invading privacy is part of the government's job.

smsm42 8y ago

> When the federal government comes asking for your help, I think it's pretty normal for people to provide that help. Well, maybe they should not, if that help involves violation of other's right to privacy. If your ISP would "help" federal government to watch your communications without a court order, you might be justifiably upset. Yes, telecoms are guilty in such behavior too, and largely are never punished. That doesn't mean it's ok. > In other words, Washington should sue ICE, not Motel 6. ICE has the right to ask. M6 should have answered "sure, gladly, as soon as we see that warrant".