The parent post says companies "believe they have to respond to subpoenas or face public obstruction or co-conspiracy charges." This is simply not true. Google

The parent post says companies "believe they have to respond to subpoenas or face public obstruction or co-conspiracy charges." This is simply not true. Google fought a DOJ subpoena for search terms in court (while Yahoo, AOL, and Microsoft did not): http://news.cnet.com/FAQ-What-does-the-Google-subpoena-mean/2100-1029_3-6029042.html http://news.cnet.com/FAQ-What-does-the-Google-subpoena-mean/... Twitter successfully fought for the ability to notify the Wikileaks crew of a DOJ (d) order it received, who then fought it in court with the help of EFF and ACLU: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20027893-281.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20027893-281.html Facebook fought a subpoena from the state of Virginia: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10352587-38.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10352587-38.html Amazon.com fought the DOJ in court in Wisconsin and fought the North Carolina tax collectors in court in Seattle: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9824977-38.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9824977-38.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20020680-281.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20020680-281.html And, perhaps most importantly, Google is currently challenging a secret NSL it received from the FBI in federal court in San Francisco, making it the first large Internet company to do so. In other words, the thesis of the parent's post -- that "contempt of court" is likely -- has been disproven by recent history. That said, I think it's fair to say that AT&T, Verizon, and the other telcos have a much closer relationship with law enforcement and are less likely to take privacy-protective steps via litigation. Look at AT&T's warrantless wiretapping for the NSA. And in the case of the recently-publicized DOJ subpoena to Verizon for the AP's phone records, Verizon could have notified the affected journalists, but chose not to do so.