5 ms·
I know for a fact that they don't fully cooperate even when law enforcement is involved. Most LEO's won't jump through the hoops over and over when there are mo
by speedyrev 14y ago
I know for a fact that they don't fully cooperate even when law enforcement is involved. Most LEO's won't jump through the hoops over and over when there are more important cases to work on.
- Xylakant 14y ago> I know for a fact that they don't fully cooperate even when law enforcement is involved. Nor should they. Let's construct a little far-fetched case where police officer X tries to spy on woman Y and asks amazon to retrive information for account of Y. That's what a court order is supposed to restrict. The police actually can do very little without a warrant, and that's for a reason.
- chimeracoder 14y ago> The police actually can do very little without a warrant, and that's for a reason. That used to be the case, but not so much anymore - [very] unfortunately.
- Xylakant 14y agoI have little knowledge about the US state of affairs but I was always under the impression that most of the extended permissions mostly apply to the FBI (warrantless wiretaps, ...) and not to the regular police - hence my cautious wording. I might be flat out wrong with this. Anyhow, the assertion is still true for germany. Unless there's an emergency they're not allowed to enter your house, ask for anything more than your name (well, they can ask, but you don't have to answer) and so forth. These regulations get ignored on a regular basis, but that's a different matter completely.
- Zimahl 14y agoFar-fetched and irrelevant. In the original case, a police officer isn't asking for information about a random person. They are asking about stolen goods and who now owns the account of the stolen item.