7 ms·

I think an important difference is if he “owned” and solelt possessed the data, the warrant would be his to fight (or not comply with) in court. When someone e

I think an important difference is if he “owned” and solelt possessed the data, the warrant would be his to fight (or not comply with) in court. When someone else possesses your data (not even sure ownership matters) they may just share it and if you’re lucky you get an FYI in the mail. You’re not even necessarily a party to the request and you’re banking on a company rep to fight for you. IANAL but you’d hope fighting the warrant yourself on the interior cameras would be easy but definitely not necessarily the case.

piotrkaminski 4y ago
> I think an important difference is if he “owned” and solelt possessed the data, the warrant would be his to fight (or not comply with) in court. My understanding from the article is that he was, in fact, given 7 days to contest the warrant, and elected not do so because he didn't want to spend money on a lawyer. Which sounds pretty similar to the options he'd have if he had sole possession of the data and the warrant was served directly to him, though of course IANAL.
- mrobins 4y ago
  That was true in this case but unclear if it always is so. Also if you’re not providing the data and are essentially a bystander there’s no guarantee the process works as expected.