4 ms·
Yes, if they challenged it and lost, they would have to comply with it. Assuming David Drummond and Larry Page's denial is accurate, there are various possible
by jdp23 13y ago
Yes, if they challenged it and lost, they would have to comply with it.
Assuming David Drummond and Larry Page's denial is accurate, there are various possible explanations. Two that leap to mind:
- the government has so far held off on a broad order for Google because they assumed that Google would challenge such a broad order (whereas given past history Verizon and most other telcos would be likely to go along meekly).
- perhaps internet-based orders can be targeted more precisely, so Google's gotten requests for tens of thousands of user but not millions
- leoc 13y ago> (whereas given past history Verizon and most other telcos would be likely to go along meekly) Weren't varous telcos co-operating with this program before it was strictly speaking legal? I seem to recall something about them being given retroactive immunity. Indeed, I'd guess that Verizon's broad metadata order is less a means to really compel Verizon than a convenient sicknote for them, giving immunity and some PR cover in the event of discovery.
- jdp23 13y agoYes indeed, almost all the telcos (except for Qwest) cooperated with the Bush administration's illegal wiretapping in the early 2000s. The Protect America Act in 2007 and FISA Amendments Act in 2008 made it legal -- as a bonus the FAA included retroactive immunity for telcos.