4 ms·

Were they legally required to?

by Filligree 8mo ago

diego_moita 8mo ago
[flagged]
- zzzeek 8mo ago
  giant private companies like Google are not ever going to be involved with defying court orders, especially ones that do lots of business with the federal government (which will be just about any company even half of google's size). You can say it's wrong or whatever but it's like asking a brick wall to do an Irish jig. The only solution to this problem is for the US to have a vastly more active anti-monopoly regime so that companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon etc. are simply not allowed to exist at such scales where consumers are locked into them.
  - riku_iki 8mo ago
    it depends if potential reputation damage is high. Apple was fighting for user's privacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d...
- everforward 8mo ago
  It reflects even worse on Google for vacuuming up and keeping the data. They can’t really refuse to hand over the data, but they could purge and stop collecting identifying data on Americans. As is, they are tacitly complicit by collecting data they know will be used against protesters.
  - mikae1 8mo ago
    > they could purge and stop collecting identifying data on Americans. That's their entire business model though...
    - everforward 8mo ago
      Their business model is ads, which doesn’t inherently require storing information the government would want. Some of that data probably isn’t useful in that space, others might reduce efficacy by a tiny margin but it wouldn’t shut them down. Eg I can’t think of a reason why they’d need to store your exact location. Do people target ads down to a precise GPS location, or even a street? I can’t imagine they need things more granular than a ZIP code. That also doesn’t absolve them of supporting autocracy. The difference between the morally upright and the morally bankrupt is what they do when doing the right thing will cost them, not what they do when the right thing is free.
- wyager 8mo ago
  Let's be real, if a bigtech ignored judicial orders, whether you would describe it as "fighting autocracy" or "corporate fascism" is 100% dependent on who is currently in office Google is a multi trillion dollar company, not a scrappy libertarian upstart ready to gamble everything in court
- semiquaver 8mo ago
  Because it’s important context for understanding what the “point” of the article is. It could be any of: - reporting on google’s violation of privacy laws or handing over info they weren’t required to - reporting on the US government’s abuse of existing process that Google was legally required to comply with but ought to have challenged - calling attention to investigatory legal practices that are normal and above-board but the author of the article wishes they were otherwise. Some of these are motives are closer to the journalism end of the spectrum and some of them are closer to advocacy. I interpret this article as the third bucket but I wish it were clearer about the intent and what they are actually attempting to convey. The fact that the article is not clear about the actual law here (for example, was this a judicial subpoena?) makes me trust it less.
saubeidl 8mo ago
[flagged]
- monero-xmr 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - saubeidl 8mo ago
    Indeed.
  - well_ackshually 8mo ago
    [dead]
jmyeet 8mo ago
According to the ACLU, they are not [1]. So Google voluntarily handed over user information. It requires a court order to enforce it and that requires a judge to sign off on it. This is somewhat analogous to ICE's use of administrative warrants, which really have no legal standing. They certainly don't allow ICE to enter a private abode. You need a judicial warrant for that. That too requires a judge to sign off on it. [1]: https://www.aclu.org/documents/know-your-rights-ice-administrative-subpoenas https://www.aclu.org/documents/know-your-rights-ice-administ...
- ceejayoz 8mo ago
  > They certainly don't allow ICE to enter a private abode. I'd just note that ICE is (falsely) claiming otherwise these days. https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-trump-00d0ab0338e82341fd91b160758aeb2d https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-... "Federal immigration officers are asserting sweeping power to forcibly enter people’s homes without a judge’s warrant, according to an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo obtained by The Associated Press, marking a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect constitutional limits on government searches."
  - linkregister 8mo ago
    Indeed, law enforcement officers frequently lie about laws in order to accomplish their goals. This erodes public trust in law enforcement. As a society we should structure incentives such that agents of the government should be exposed to the externalities resulting from their actions.
    - warkdarrior 8mo ago
      The government (=Stephen Miller) said ICE agents have "federal immunity," so good luck with applying "externalities resulting from their actions."
    - sneak 8mo ago
      > As a society we should structure incentives such that agents of the government should be exposed to the externalities resulting from their actions. That’s the most oblique way of writing “lock and load” that I’ve ever seen.
legitster 8mo ago
For a normal subpoena from a court, yes. For an "administrative" subpoena from an agency, they take a risk in court. Judicial review is deferred. If Google thinks the subpoena is egregious, they can go to court and argue. But in the meantime they can either carry it out or risk being held in contempt if they don't and lose in court.
- linkregister 8mo ago
  According to this article, it is treated as a request and often denied by the company. The target of the warrant did go to court to quash it, but that was already after Google declined to share the information. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2026/02/03/homeland-security-administrative-subpoena/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2026/02/03/hom... edit: it appears that either 1. the Washington Post is printing misinformation, or 2. I have made a grave misinterpretation.
  - lotsofpulp 8mo ago
    Washington Post can be relied on to publish disinformation, not just misinformation: https://bsky.app/profile/cingraham.bsky.social/post/3mecltnbww224 https://bsky.app/profile/cingraham.bsky.social/post/3mecltnb...
    - skybrian 8mo ago
      Washington Post editorials have gotten pretty conservative, but that's different from articles in the news section. (It seems similar to the difference between the Wall Street Journal's reporting and editorials.)
      - lotsofpulp 8mo ago
        If their editorial content is for sale, is it not reasonable to assume the rest is for sale also? The above example isn’t a “conservative” editorial, it is a partisan editorial. A legitimate organization would never publish such inconsistent writing.
dathinab 8mo ago
the only way to legally search a house, car or force companies to hand anything over is with a judge signing it off the article isn't clear about it but it implies that this was not approved by a judge but DHS alone, this is also indicated but the fact that the supona contained a gag order but Google still informed the affected person that _some_ information was hanged over now some level of cooperation with law enforcement even without a judge is normal to reduce friction and if you love in a proper state of law there is no problem Keith it. Also companies are to some degree required to cooperate. What makes this case so problematic is the amount of information shared without a judge order, that ICE tried to gag Google, that Google did delay compliance to give the affected person a chance to take legal action even through they could, and last but but least that this information seems to have been requested for retaliation against protestor which is a big no go for a state of law
- dmix 8mo ago
  Apparently around 300 students have been deported over pro-Palestine activism, similar to the person in the article who self-deported https://www.themarshallproject.org/2025/04/05/visa-immigration-first-amendment-protest-speech https://www.themarshallproject.org/2025/04/05/visa-immigrati... > Legally, the answer is murky, one expert told The Washington Post — at least when it comes to combing through Supreme Court decisions for answers. The court has been clear that First Amendment protections from criminal or civil penalties for speech apply to citizens and noncitizens alike. What’s less settled, however, is how those protections apply in the immigration context, where the executive branch has broad discretion to detain or deport.
  - dathinab 8mo ago
    The law is both in wording and spirit pretty clear that - any civilian has a right for free speech, and protests count as that - any civilian has a right for due process There is nothing murky about that. There are just people pretending it's murky (in this and many other cases) to systematically undermine the US constitution. Which is a huge problem (beyond this specific case and made much worse by the state of current supreme court).
  - 8mo ago

Were they legally required to?

diego_moita 8mo ago

[flagged]

zzzeek 8mo ago
giant private companies like Google are not ever going to be involved with defying court orders, especially ones that do lots of business with the federal government (which will be just about any company even half of google's size). You can say it's wrong or whatever but it's like asking a brick wall to do an Irish jig. The only solution to this problem is for the US to have a vastly more active anti-monopoly regime so that companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon etc. are simply not allowed to exist at such scales where consumers are locked into them.
- riku_iki 8mo ago
  it depends if potential reputation damage is high. Apple was fighting for user's privacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d...
everforward 8mo ago
It reflects even worse on Google for vacuuming up and keeping the data. They can’t really refuse to hand over the data, but they could purge and stop collecting identifying data on Americans. As is, they are tacitly complicit by collecting data they know will be used against protesters.
- mikae1 8mo ago
  > they could purge and stop collecting identifying data on Americans. That's their entire business model though...
  - everforward 8mo ago
    Their business model is ads, which doesn’t inherently require storing information the government would want. Some of that data probably isn’t useful in that space, others might reduce efficacy by a tiny margin but it wouldn’t shut them down. Eg I can’t think of a reason why they’d need to store your exact location. Do people target ads down to a precise GPS location, or even a street? I can’t imagine they need things more granular than a ZIP code. That also doesn’t absolve them of supporting autocracy. The difference between the morally upright and the morally bankrupt is what they do when doing the right thing will cost them, not what they do when the right thing is free.
wyager 8mo ago
Let's be real, if a bigtech ignored judicial orders, whether you would describe it as "fighting autocracy" or "corporate fascism" is 100% dependent on who is currently in office Google is a multi trillion dollar company, not a scrappy libertarian upstart ready to gamble everything in court
semiquaver 8mo ago
Because it’s important context for understanding what the “point” of the article is. It could be any of: - reporting on google’s violation of privacy laws or handing over info they weren’t required to - reporting on the US government’s abuse of existing process that Google was legally required to comply with but ought to have challenged - calling attention to investigatory legal practices that are normal and above-board but the author of the article wishes they were otherwise. Some of these are motives are closer to the journalism end of the spectrum and some of them are closer to advocacy. I interpret this article as the third bucket but I wish it were clearer about the intent and what they are actually attempting to convey. The fact that the article is not clear about the actual law here (for example, was this a judicial subpoena?) makes me trust it less.

saubeidl 8mo ago

[flagged]

monero-xmr 8mo ago
[flagged]
- saubeidl 8mo ago
  Indeed.
- well_ackshually 8mo ago
  [dead]

jmyeet 8mo ago

According to the ACLU, they are not [1]. So Google voluntarily handed over user information. It requires a court order to enforce it and that requires a judge to sign off on it. This is somewhat analogous to ICE's use of administrative warrants, which really have no legal standing. They certainly don't allow ICE to enter a private abode. You need a judicial warrant for that. That too requires a judge to sign off on it. [1]: https://www.aclu.org/documents/know-your-rights-ice-administrative-subpoenas https://www.aclu.org/documents/know-your-rights-ice-administ...

ceejayoz 8mo ago
> They certainly don't allow ICE to enter a private abode. I'd just note that ICE is (falsely) claiming otherwise these days. https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-trump-00d0ab0338e82341fd91b160758aeb2d https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-minneapolis-... "Federal immigration officers are asserting sweeping power to forcibly enter people’s homes without a judge’s warrant, according to an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo obtained by The Associated Press, marking a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect constitutional limits on government searches."
- linkregister 8mo ago
  Indeed, law enforcement officers frequently lie about laws in order to accomplish their goals. This erodes public trust in law enforcement. As a society we should structure incentives such that agents of the government should be exposed to the externalities resulting from their actions.
  - warkdarrior 8mo ago
    The government (=Stephen Miller) said ICE agents have "federal immunity," so good luck with applying "externalities resulting from their actions."
  - sneak 8mo ago
    > As a society we should structure incentives such that agents of the government should be exposed to the externalities resulting from their actions. That’s the most oblique way of writing “lock and load” that I’ve ever seen.

legitster 8mo ago

For a normal subpoena from a court, yes. For an "administrative" subpoena from an agency, they take a risk in court. Judicial review is deferred. If Google thinks the subpoena is egregious, they can go to court and argue. But in the meantime they can either carry it out or risk being held in contempt if they don't and lose in court.

linkregister 8mo ago
According to this article, it is treated as a request and often denied by the company. The target of the warrant did go to court to quash it, but that was already after Google declined to share the information. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2026/02/03/homeland-security-administrative-subpoena/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2026/02/03/hom... edit: it appears that either 1. the Washington Post is printing misinformation, or 2. I have made a grave misinterpretation.
- lotsofpulp 8mo ago
  Washington Post can be relied on to publish disinformation, not just misinformation: https://bsky.app/profile/cingraham.bsky.social/post/3mecltnbww224 https://bsky.app/profile/cingraham.bsky.social/post/3mecltnb...
  - skybrian 8mo ago
    Washington Post editorials have gotten pretty conservative, but that's different from articles in the news section. (It seems similar to the difference between the Wall Street Journal's reporting and editorials.)
    - lotsofpulp 8mo ago
      If their editorial content is for sale, is it not reasonable to assume the rest is for sale also? The above example isn’t a “conservative” editorial, it is a partisan editorial. A legitimate organization would never publish such inconsistent writing.

dathinab 8mo ago

the only way to legally search a house, car or force companies to hand anything over is with a judge signing it off the article isn't clear about it but it implies that this was not approved by a judge but DHS alone, this is also indicated but the fact that the supona contained a gag order but Google still informed the affected person that _some_ information was hanged over now some level of cooperation with law enforcement even without a judge is normal to reduce friction and if you love in a proper state of law there is no problem Keith it. Also companies are to some degree required to cooperate. What makes this case so problematic is the amount of information shared without a judge order, that ICE tried to gag Google, that Google did delay compliance to give the affected person a chance to take legal action even through they could, and last but but least that this information seems to have been requested for retaliation against protestor which is a big no go for a state of law

dmix 8mo ago
Apparently around 300 students have been deported over pro-Palestine activism, similar to the person in the article who self-deported https://www.themarshallproject.org/2025/04/05/visa-immigration-first-amendment-protest-speech https://www.themarshallproject.org/2025/04/05/visa-immigrati... > Legally, the answer is murky, one expert told The Washington Post — at least when it comes to combing through Supreme Court decisions for answers. The court has been clear that First Amendment protections from criminal or civil penalties for speech apply to citizens and noncitizens alike. What’s less settled, however, is how those protections apply in the immigration context, where the executive branch has broad discretion to detain or deport.
- dathinab 8mo ago
  The law is both in wording and spirit pretty clear that - any civilian has a right for free speech, and protests count as that - any civilian has a right for due process There is nothing murky about that. There are just people pretending it's murky (in this and many other cases) to systematically undermine the US constitution. Which is a huge problem (beyond this specific case and made much worse by the state of current supreme court).
- 8mo ago