4 ms·

A search warrant is not a sealed subpoena, and you should always at least be able verify the people who issued it exist and have the authority to do so. I woul

A search warrant is not a sealed subpoena, and you should always at least be able verify the people who issued it exist and have the authority to do so. I would hope you can also verify some identification number and major details, but I only know the German legal system, not the US one.

KennyBlanken 3y ago
Literally nothing stops these companies from having a staff member look up the courthouse's contact info on the official court website, call a clerk, and verify the warrant....except they don't want to pay for the labor to do so.
- photonbeam 3y ago
  Perhaps they should be reimbursed for the cost
  - lnxg33k1 3y ago
    Perhaps if they can't operate without being a danger to society they shouldn't be allowed to exist
    - ZhadruOmjar 3y ago
      Is offering phone services to the public being a danger to society?
      - eqvinox 3y ago
        Responding to legal requests is part of operating a phone service, and apparently they failed to do that without seriously endangering a stalking victim. I have no idea what exact laws and liabilities apply here, but my feeling is there's very likely going to be an undisclosed civil settlement between Verizon and the victim, and maybe some laughable fine (let's say ≤$10k) for violating privacy laws on the criminal side.
        InCityDreams 3y ago
        Oh, if only there were such a thing as GDPR (or the victim sues in Cali).
        eqvinox 3y ago
        I don't think it'd actually be a GDPR case in EU; it's more of a wiretapping case - note some of the victims communication was revealed. (GDPR violations might be a secondary charge, but wiretapping would be way more significant.) That said it really depends on the exact legal framework (which I have no clue about) and eagerness of a prosecutor to make a case. Hence my "maybe". FWIW I have a side job at a small community ISP in the EU and the GDPR was a no-op for us. The requirements for anyone operating in the telco space were already stricter. If I remember correctly the GDPR fines are higher though, whereas wiretapping (& co.) laws are much more likely to land you personally in jail. (I was being intentionally vague with "privacy laws"; I do include wiretapping charges in that but, again, I don't know the US legal situation.)
        saati 3y ago
        The perp is an individual, GDPR only applies for organizations.
        eqvinox 3y ago
        We're talking about Verizon's liability here, not the stalker.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        multjoy 3y ago
        If the law is "you will hand over this data in response to a warrant", how did they fail? The fact that the US warrant system has holes capable of driving a truck through isn't the fault of Verizon - there exists no sensible way of validating a warrant.
        3y ago
    - spacebanana7 3y ago
      Law enforcement should be free, or at least paid for by generic taxes. If I host a movie night with some friends, and an altercation occurs between them, then it's unjust for the police to create unreasonable cost on me as a host. They shouldn't tear up the house or create lots of time consuming paperwork without compensation. You may think that my movie nights are inherently a danger to society. But even if that's correct, we should create direct legislation to discourage this dangerous activity rather than using search processes/warrants to impose cost in an approximate and roundabout way.
      - lnxg33k1 3y ago
        You’re not a company, if you host a movie night privately its different than a company that handles and has the responsibility of the personal data of millions of people, I am not even sure wtf I am reading, do you guys even consider scale and contexts when writing things or just throw random examples around But also the cost for you would be the time to call law enforcement, for them is the time to verify the validity of a document, so its just nonsense
        spacebanana7 3y ago
        I’m trying to emphasise that safety legislation should operate through direct legislation whenever possible. Large companies can face massive civil & criminal liabilities for mishandling personal data, whilst also being made whole for the administrative cost of cooperating with law enforcement.
  - NoToP 3y ago
    Generally speaking, when you get a subpoena you can demand "conduct money" precisely to reimburse this cost. Otherwise the subpoena is unenforceable. Not sure exactly how warrants work
- autoexec 3y ago
  > except they don't want to pay for the labor to do so. I doubt it wouldn't have cost them anything more than what they're already paying to staff their legal department.
Johnny555 3y ago
>and you should always at least be able verify the people who issued it exist and have the authority to do so I don't think that would have helped in this case since although it was based on an affidavit from a fake police officer, the name of a real judge was used to approve the fake warrant. What would have helped is Verizon calling the court and verifying that they issued the warrant.

KennyBlanken 3y ago

Literally nothing stops these companies from having a staff member look up the courthouse's contact info on the official court website, call a clerk, and verify the warrant....except they don't want to pay for the labor to do so.

photonbeam 3y ago
Perhaps they should be reimbursed for the cost
- lnxg33k1 3y ago
  Perhaps if they can't operate without being a danger to society they shouldn't be allowed to exist
  - ZhadruOmjar 3y ago
    Is offering phone services to the public being a danger to society?
    - eqvinox 3y ago
      Responding to legal requests is part of operating a phone service, and apparently they failed to do that without seriously endangering a stalking victim. I have no idea what exact laws and liabilities apply here, but my feeling is there's very likely going to be an undisclosed civil settlement between Verizon and the victim, and maybe some laughable fine (let's say ≤$10k) for violating privacy laws on the criminal side.
      - InCityDreams 3y ago
        Oh, if only there were such a thing as GDPR (or the victim sues in Cali).
        eqvinox 3y ago
        I don't think it'd actually be a GDPR case in EU; it's more of a wiretapping case - note some of the victims communication was revealed. (GDPR violations might be a secondary charge, but wiretapping would be way more significant.) That said it really depends on the exact legal framework (which I have no clue about) and eagerness of a prosecutor to make a case. Hence my "maybe". FWIW I have a side job at a small community ISP in the EU and the GDPR was a no-op for us. The requirements for anyone operating in the telco space were already stricter. If I remember correctly the GDPR fines are higher though, whereas wiretapping (& co.) laws are much more likely to land you personally in jail. (I was being intentionally vague with "privacy laws"; I do include wiretapping charges in that but, again, I don't know the US legal situation.)
        saati 3y ago
        The perp is an individual, GDPR only applies for organizations.
        eqvinox 3y ago
        We're talking about Verizon's liability here, not the stalker.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - multjoy 3y ago
        If the law is "you will hand over this data in response to a warrant", how did they fail? The fact that the US warrant system has holes capable of driving a truck through isn't the fault of Verizon - there exists no sensible way of validating a warrant.
        3y ago
  - spacebanana7 3y ago
    Law enforcement should be free, or at least paid for by generic taxes. If I host a movie night with some friends, and an altercation occurs between them, then it's unjust for the police to create unreasonable cost on me as a host. They shouldn't tear up the house or create lots of time consuming paperwork without compensation. You may think that my movie nights are inherently a danger to society. But even if that's correct, we should create direct legislation to discourage this dangerous activity rather than using search processes/warrants to impose cost in an approximate and roundabout way.
    - lnxg33k1 3y ago
      You’re not a company, if you host a movie night privately its different than a company that handles and has the responsibility of the personal data of millions of people, I am not even sure wtf I am reading, do you guys even consider scale and contexts when writing things or just throw random examples around But also the cost for you would be the time to call law enforcement, for them is the time to verify the validity of a document, so its just nonsense
      - spacebanana7 3y ago
        I’m trying to emphasise that safety legislation should operate through direct legislation whenever possible. Large companies can face massive civil & criminal liabilities for mishandling personal data, whilst also being made whole for the administrative cost of cooperating with law enforcement.
- NoToP 3y ago
  Generally speaking, when you get a subpoena you can demand "conduct money" precisely to reimburse this cost. Otherwise the subpoena is unenforceable. Not sure exactly how warrants work
autoexec 3y ago
> except they don't want to pay for the labor to do so. I doubt it wouldn't have cost them anything more than what they're already paying to staff their legal department.

Johnny555 3y ago

>and you should always at least be able verify the people who issued it exist and have the authority to do so I don't think that would have helped in this case since although it was based on an affidavit from a fake police officer, the name of a real judge was used to approve the fake warrant. What would have helped is Verizon calling the court and verifying that they issued the warrant.