3 ms·
> But the case represents “an amazing Catch-22,” he said. > Google doesn’t “have the strongest right to challenge the > scope or the reasonableness of the
by dudus 12y ago
> But the case represents “an amazing Catch-22,” he said.
> Google doesn’t “have the strongest right to challenge the
> scope or the reasonableness of the warrant. The only people
> who really have that are the targets of the warrant, and
> they don’t know about it. So essentially the government has
> carte blanche to get whatever they want.”
Shouldn't in cases like this the gag order go to the target of the warrant. I imagine it could go something like this. Google hands the information and inform only the target. The target can't publicize or inform anyone else, but now have the knowledge and right to defend himself.
Not informing the target would restrict his ability to defend himself.
In a similar note, why even involve Google at all. Why not require the target to hand the information.
Maybe the fact that the targets are in different countries a problem to this approach.
- sarciszewski 12y ago"why even involve Google at all" "So essentially the government has carte blanche to get whatever they want" I think your quote answered your own question.
- higherpurpose 12y agoYup. Going to the third party provider as if it owns your data is a complete bypass of the 4th amendment. To make an analogy it would be like the federal government having to serve a warrant/court order/gar order only to your local mayor to search your house without your permission. Imagine how messed up that would be. Yet, it's exactly what happens in the digital world, and somehow we've learned to take it for granted. If it's your data, the warrant should be served to you. As for terms of service and such of online services that say once you upload your data to their cloud, then it becomes "theirs", that's complete bull, and such a thing should be made illegal.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- zaroth 12y agoIt just occurred to me, they figured out how to serve a complaint against your property (civil forfeiture) so I'm actually half surprised they don't serve warrants against the house not the house's occupants. Or even better, just serve the data itself; US Government versus 134,612 bytes of Data!
- anonbanker 12y agoThat's called in rem[1] jurisdiction. I hope to see it happen with bytes of data in my lifetime. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem