4 ms·

The linked Google policy states: >We won’t give notice when legally prohibited under the terms of the request. The post states that his lawyer has reviewed th

by eurleif 6mo ago

The linked Google policy states: >We won’t give notice when legally prohibited under the terms of the request. The post states that his lawyer has reviewed the subpoena, but doesn't mention whether or not it contained a non-disclosure order. That's an important detail to address if the claim is that Google acted against its own policy.

sam345 6mo ago
[flagged]
- kokanee 6mo ago
  Weird take. When it comes to trying to compel tech companies to not be evil, trying to use legal precedent for crimes you can charge them with is usually difficult and turns into a semantic debate. I think what's more important is that we recognize when people and companies abuse power to do evil things, regardless of what legal precedent or written corporate policy is relevant. These companies act exactly as evil as they can possibly get away with without pushing us to other products and services.
- Forgeties79 6mo ago
  Frankly I trust the EFF more than anyone else in this situation/conversation. So I will assume there is a very clear basis. I don’t know what you mean by “activism narrative” but the EFF has been fighting for your digital rights for many, many years. It reads like you consider their work disingenuous, but I can tell you from firsthand experience it is not. They deserve less skepticism than you’re giving them.
  - nomdep 6mo ago
    John Perry Barlow‘S EFF surely did, but are you sure you can trust Nicole Orze’s EFF to fight for your rights if one of your sympathies doesn’t align with current California’s sensibilities? https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicoleozer https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicoleozer
    - Forgeties79 6mo ago
      This is just a link to her LinkedIn. I don’t understand what I’m supposed to be looking for.
      - nomdep 6mo ago
        [flagged]
        Forgeties79 6mo ago
        This is a bizarre take and I don’t think we will find a good avenue for productive conversation here.
FireBeyond 6mo ago
Administrative subpoenas are tenuous at best, but in the absence of an actual court order, words from ICE attorneys or officers saying "You are ordered not to disclose the details of this subpoena" have no actual weight in law.
- hypeatei 6mo ago
  This exactly. It's like everyone is assuming whatever ICE ordered Google to do was completely lawful. Even if this administration was a tightly run ship, when an agency gets a massive funding increase and daily quotas to hit like ICE did, all bets are off and you should never give them the benefit of the doubt. Obviously when the DHS secretary is calling American protesters domestic terrorists, cosplaying as a cop, and spending $200M+ on ads that feature herself, then you definitely give maximum scrutiny to everything that agency is doing/did.
  - fn-mote 6mo ago
    Cited elsewhere in this thread. [1] > First, numerous other individuals have challenged recent administrative subpoenas in court after receiving notice, and the Department of Homeland Security has withdrawn those subpoenas before reaching a court decision. They don't want a ruling against them. > [The subpoena would have been quashed because] there are facial deficiencies in the subpoena, including that the subpoena is missing a “Title of Proceeding.” [1]: https://www.eff.org/files/2026/04/13/eff_letter_re_google_notice_-_california.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2026/04/13/eff_letter_re_google_no...
    - hedora 6mo ago
      I’m really hoping this leads to criminal convictions once these clowns are voted out of office. Congress needs to retroactively eliminate the presidential pardon, or (more realistically) states need to pass laws allowing them to prosecute members of the federal government (the federal government already did this to the states; the result would be symmetric, and likely survive legal challenges.)
jmyeet 6mo ago
According to the ACLU [1]: > This document explains two key ways that recipients can resist immigration administrative subpoenas: First, any gag order in these subpoenas has no legal effect; you are free to publicize them and inform the target of the subpoena. Second, you do not have to comply with the subpoena at all, unless ICE goes to court—where you can raise a number of possible objections—and the court orders compliance. [1]: https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/app/uploads/drupal/sites/default/files/aclu-kyr-on-ice-administrative-subpoenas-4.17.25.pdf https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/app/uploads/drupal/sites...
- busterarm 6mo ago
  Is the ACLU offering to pay your legal bills or participate in your defense along with that legal advice that they're offering?
  - hluska 6mo ago
    How is that relevant?
    - busterarm 6mo ago
      It's relevant if you follow their legal advice and the government decides to pursue a case against you. Even if you're in the right, defending yourself in a legal proceeding is expensive. You need a checkbook that can back up your confidence in what they're telling you. And sure, Google has that money, but they're also fighting off half of congress trying to break up their business. It's in their best interests to do whatever the DoJ asks of them.
- paulddraper 6mo ago
  The next question is, who likes paying legal fees?
jgkelley 6mo ago
EFF's letter offers more details and says that the subpoena did not contain a gag order: https://www.eff.org/files/2026/04/13/eff_letter_re_google_notice_-_california.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2026/04/13/eff_letter_re_google_no...
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- inkysigma 6mo ago
  Well it did contain a request to not notify according to that same letter. I suppose that brings up several questions. 1. Does that mean the same thing in the ToS? 2. How valid are these requests?
  - hluska 6mo ago
    A gag order would be from a judge. There would be severe penalties if a party breaks a gag order. A request not to notify is just a request; it has zero legal standing and there would be zero repercussions to ignoring it.
  - crazygringo 6mo ago
    I'm very curious about this. Google knows users care about their privacy, and it made the promise in its terms precisely for that reason. People pay attention to this stuff, as the popularity of this story shows. Therefore, it's generally not going to be in Google's interest to break its own terms. So what's going on? Did a Google employee simply mess up? Is the reporting not accurate or missing key details, e.g. Google truly is legally prohibited? Or is there some evidence that the Trump administration was putting pressure on Google, e.g. threatening to withhold some contract if this particular person were notified, or if Google continued notifying users belonging to some particular category of subpoenas? Because Google isn't breaking its own terms just for funsies. There's more to this story, but unfortunately it's not clear what.
    - airstrike 6mo ago
      > Google knows users care about their privacy, and it made the promise in its terms precisely for that reason. People pay attention to this stuff, as the popularity of this story shows. Does it know? And do users really care? Popularity on HN isn't popularity everywhere. I'd wager most people don't care enough to move away from Gmail. But even if they did, unfortunately this isn't the only variable a business is solving for. Corporations will generally just pick between the least unprofitable of two evils, not the lesser of.

by eurleif 6mo ago

sam345 6mo ago

[flagged]

kokanee 6mo ago
Weird take. When it comes to trying to compel tech companies to not be evil, trying to use legal precedent for crimes you can charge them with is usually difficult and turns into a semantic debate. I think what's more important is that we recognize when people and companies abuse power to do evil things, regardless of what legal precedent or written corporate policy is relevant. These companies act exactly as evil as they can possibly get away with without pushing us to other products and services.
Forgeties79 6mo ago
Frankly I trust the EFF more than anyone else in this situation/conversation. So I will assume there is a very clear basis. I don’t know what you mean by “activism narrative” but the EFF has been fighting for your digital rights for many, many years. It reads like you consider their work disingenuous, but I can tell you from firsthand experience it is not. They deserve less skepticism than you’re giving them.
- nomdep 6mo ago
  John Perry Barlow‘S EFF surely did, but are you sure you can trust Nicole Orze’s EFF to fight for your rights if one of your sympathies doesn’t align with current California’s sensibilities? https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicoleozer https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicoleozer
  - Forgeties79 6mo ago
    This is just a link to her LinkedIn. I don’t understand what I’m supposed to be looking for.
    - nomdep 6mo ago
      [flagged]
      - Forgeties79 6mo ago
        This is a bizarre take and I don’t think we will find a good avenue for productive conversation here.

FireBeyond 6mo ago

Administrative subpoenas are tenuous at best, but in the absence of an actual court order, words from ICE attorneys or officers saying "You are ordered not to disclose the details of this subpoena" have no actual weight in law.

hypeatei 6mo ago
This exactly. It's like everyone is assuming whatever ICE ordered Google to do was completely lawful. Even if this administration was a tightly run ship, when an agency gets a massive funding increase and daily quotas to hit like ICE did, all bets are off and you should never give them the benefit of the doubt. Obviously when the DHS secretary is calling American protesters domestic terrorists, cosplaying as a cop, and spending $200M+ on ads that feature herself, then you definitely give maximum scrutiny to everything that agency is doing/did.
- fn-mote 6mo ago
  Cited elsewhere in this thread. [1] > First, numerous other individuals have challenged recent administrative subpoenas in court after receiving notice, and the Department of Homeland Security has withdrawn those subpoenas before reaching a court decision. They don't want a ruling against them. > [The subpoena would have been quashed because] there are facial deficiencies in the subpoena, including that the subpoena is missing a “Title of Proceeding.” [1]: https://www.eff.org/files/2026/04/13/eff_letter_re_google_notice_-_california.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2026/04/13/eff_letter_re_google_no...
  - hedora 6mo ago
    I’m really hoping this leads to criminal convictions once these clowns are voted out of office. Congress needs to retroactively eliminate the presidential pardon, or (more realistically) states need to pass laws allowing them to prosecute members of the federal government (the federal government already did this to the states; the result would be symmetric, and likely survive legal challenges.)

jmyeet 6mo ago

According to the ACLU [1]: > This document explains two key ways that recipients can resist immigration administrative subpoenas: First, any gag order in these subpoenas has no legal effect; you are free to publicize them and inform the target of the subpoena. Second, you do not have to comply with the subpoena at all, unless ICE goes to court—where you can raise a number of possible objections—and the court orders compliance. [1]: https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/app/uploads/drupal/sites/default/files/aclu-kyr-on-ice-administrative-subpoenas-4.17.25.pdf https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/app/uploads/drupal/sites...

busterarm 6mo ago
Is the ACLU offering to pay your legal bills or participate in your defense along with that legal advice that they're offering?
- hluska 6mo ago
  How is that relevant?
  - busterarm 6mo ago
    It's relevant if you follow their legal advice and the government decides to pursue a case against you. Even if you're in the right, defending yourself in a legal proceeding is expensive. You need a checkbook that can back up your confidence in what they're telling you. And sure, Google has that money, but they're also fighting off half of congress trying to break up their business. It's in their best interests to do whatever the DoJ asks of them.
paulddraper 6mo ago
The next question is, who likes paying legal fees?

jgkelley 6mo ago

EFF's letter offers more details and says that the subpoena did not contain a gag order: https://www.eff.org/files/2026/04/13/eff_letter_re_google_notice_-_california.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2026/04/13/eff_letter_re_google_no...

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
inkysigma 6mo ago
Well it did contain a request to not notify according to that same letter. I suppose that brings up several questions. 1. Does that mean the same thing in the ToS? 2. How valid are these requests?
- hluska 6mo ago
  A gag order would be from a judge. There would be severe penalties if a party breaks a gag order. A request not to notify is just a request; it has zero legal standing and there would be zero repercussions to ignoring it.
- crazygringo 6mo ago
  I'm very curious about this. Google knows users care about their privacy, and it made the promise in its terms precisely for that reason. People pay attention to this stuff, as the popularity of this story shows. Therefore, it's generally not going to be in Google's interest to break its own terms. So what's going on? Did a Google employee simply mess up? Is the reporting not accurate or missing key details, e.g. Google truly is legally prohibited? Or is there some evidence that the Trump administration was putting pressure on Google, e.g. threatening to withhold some contract if this particular person were notified, or if Google continued notifying users belonging to some particular category of subpoenas? Because Google isn't breaking its own terms just for funsies. There's more to this story, but unfortunately it's not clear what.
  - airstrike 6mo ago
    > Google knows users care about their privacy, and it made the promise in its terms precisely for that reason. People pay attention to this stuff, as the popularity of this story shows. Does it know? And do users really care? Popularity on HN isn't popularity everywhere. I'd wager most people don't care enough to move away from Gmail. But even if they did, unfortunately this isn't the only variable a business is solving for. Corporations will generally just pick between the least unprofitable of two evils, not the lesser of.