4 ms·

> While ICE “requested” that Google not notify Thomas Johnson, the request was not enforceable or mandated by a court Sounds like Google stopped caring. But

by Ardren 6mo ago

> While ICE “requested” that Google not notify Thomas Johnson, the request was not enforceable or mandated by a court Sounds like Google stopped caring. But... Why on earth do the people filing an administrative subpoena not have to notify the interested parties too? Why is it Google's responsibility? If they didn't tell you, would you ever find out?

titanomachy 6mo ago
What do you mean? Eventually notifying him seems like the one thing Google did right here.
- Ardren 6mo ago
  On a scale of 1-10, Yeah, I'd give them a 1-2 for notifying him after the fact. The problem is they tell user that they'll inform you right away and give them a chance to challenge the subpoena. A quick search shows that they've done in the past and people have been able to get the subpoena's withdrawn. https://thefulcrum.us/rule-of-law/us-administrative-subpoenas#:~:text=Anonymous%20speech%20and%20compelled%20disclosure https://thefulcrum.us/rule-of-law/us-administrative-subpoena...
  - dmix 6mo ago
    Google's lawyer responded by claiming they do follow that policy normally except when their lawyers nearly miss the "artificial deadline set by the government" and sometimes send it out same day. I'm curious if this was a common issue or Google's legal team was flooded with subpoenas during the first months of the administration during their deportation surge (they did around 100k removals around that time). Homeland sent the request to Google a month prior to when they released the data and notified him, so they had time to notify, but it clearly isn't an automated thing.
- subscribed 6mo ago
  You give Google credit for holding someone's head above the icy lake after they pushed them into lake themselves at the request of the piranhas.
noselasd 6mo ago
> But... Why on earth do the people filing an administrative subpoena not have to notify the interested parties too? Generally they do - with some notable exceptions being if you're a non-citizen and you're no longer in the US, and it's either a criminal investigation or related to intelligence or national security.
- GuB-42 6mo ago
  Which is the case here: > In September 2024, Amandla Thomas-Johnson was a Ph.D. candidate studying in the U.S. on a student visa when he briefly attended a pro-Palestinian protest. > Weeks later, in Geneva, Switzerland It is obviously not criminal, but I guess that you don't need much to qualify something as related to intelligence and national security, attending a pro-Palestinian protest may be enough.

by Ardren 6mo ago

titanomachy 6mo ago

What do you mean? Eventually notifying him seems like the one thing Google did right here.

Ardren 6mo ago
On a scale of 1-10, Yeah, I'd give them a 1-2 for notifying him after the fact. The problem is they tell user that they'll inform you right away and give them a chance to challenge the subpoena. A quick search shows that they've done in the past and people have been able to get the subpoena's withdrawn. https://thefulcrum.us/rule-of-law/us-administrative-subpoenas#:~:text=Anonymous%20speech%20and%20compelled%20disclosure https://thefulcrum.us/rule-of-law/us-administrative-subpoena...
- dmix 6mo ago
  Google's lawyer responded by claiming they do follow that policy normally except when their lawyers nearly miss the "artificial deadline set by the government" and sometimes send it out same day. I'm curious if this was a common issue or Google's legal team was flooded with subpoenas during the first months of the administration during their deportation surge (they did around 100k removals around that time). Homeland sent the request to Google a month prior to when they released the data and notified him, so they had time to notify, but it clearly isn't an automated thing.
subscribed 6mo ago
You give Google credit for holding someone's head above the icy lake after they pushed them into lake themselves at the request of the piranhas.

noselasd 6mo ago

> But... Why on earth do the people filing an administrative subpoena not have to notify the interested parties too? Generally they do - with some notable exceptions being if you're a non-citizen and you're no longer in the US, and it's either a criminal investigation or related to intelligence or national security.

GuB-42 6mo ago
Which is the case here: > In September 2024, Amandla Thomas-Johnson was a Ph.D. candidate studying in the U.S. on a student visa when he briefly attended a pro-Palestinian protest. > Weeks later, in Geneva, Switzerland It is obviously not criminal, but I guess that you don't need much to qualify something as related to intelligence and national security, attending a pro-Palestinian protest may be enough.