zlacker

Sounds like they subpoenaed dozens of websites. While USA Today fought it, the rest fell right over without mentioning it/fighting it.

I’ve seen this before where a user got an email from Google legal about a subpoena against them, spent $7k successfully fighting it, but it didn’t matter because several other $BigCos didn’t even let the user know.

>>Scound+(OP)
I’m not American and I’m curious what is your personal position on this. And I wonder how far your logic transfers to the real world. If FBI subpoenas you to show CCTV records in your convenience store to identify a suspected child molester, do you insist you should fight that subpoena and “let the user know”?

To what extent do Americans want to not help investigate crimes to defend corporations “protecting user privacy” (all while these corporations collect and keep the data to themselves and do as they please, including profiling and selling it to third parties).

I guess there is some greater good that your position intends to stand for, but what is that greater good?

Genuinely curious.

>>donny2+HU1
Not American either. As for fighting the subpoena themselves, that's the corp's choice, but kinda nuts to not let the user know about it if they're not going to fight it themselves. But falling over to a government demand (valid or not) protects you from future antitrust accusations.

Answering this from the point of view of an informal request: If it's not a situation of active harm, then they have time to get their court order. If it is a situation of active harm, there should still be a process to ensure the request was valid after the fact. Police can and do lie to get access under false pretences. Without a valid followup process, you can't be assured their request is legit.