I am not actually going to stand with them on their denials. I understand what you are saying but I think you are missing something simple, namely that the eas

I am not actually going to stand with them on their denials. I understand what you are saying but I think you are missing something simple, namely that the easier, cheaper, and more efficient you make the information sharing process, the more requests you are going to get. What Google is being accused of here is collaborating on making this fast and efficient. As it takes less resources to obtain information you can bet that there will be more efforts to obtain information. If you want to avoid much of this, you just require hand-delivered documents from accredited agents to accredited agents, manual review of these documents (and perhaps shipping them between corporate offices for such review). Get a review for being thorough, pushing back, and not hurrying. Make sure it takes time, that lawyers go through them one by one, and send to another lawyer (preferably somewhere else) to cross-check. stall for as long as you can on every order you can. You will get fewer. Google is essentially claiming transparency, while ensuring that the transparency report is increasingly meaningless because it is easier and easier to get info in ways that won't get into it. Within Google's denials is more or less a confirmation that what the NYT is saying is true.