Google Explains How It Handles Government Requests For Data; Why Don't More Companies Do This?

from the be-transparent dept

Just recently, we pointed to Google latest Transparency Report, which showed a massive increase in requests for info on users from government agencies. However, it also showed that a much lower percentage of such requests were being honored, raising some questions about how Google handled such requests. Well, wonder no more (or, at least, wonder a little less) as Google has now explained the process by which it handles such requests, going into a fair bit of detail (you have to click through) in terms of the legal requirements and how Google handles different types of requests, and what data Google may be compelled to reveal. However, in an accompanying blog post, Google makes clear that it often pushes back:

When government agencies ask for our users’ personal information—like what you provide when you sign up for a Google Account, or the contents of an email—our team does several things:

  • We scrutinize the request carefully to make sure it satisfies the law and our policies. For us to consider complying, it generally must be made in writing, signed by an authorized official of the requesting agency and issued under an appropriate law.
  • We evaluate the scope of the request. If it’s overly broad, we may refuse to provide the information or seek to narrow the request. We do this frequently.
  • We notify users about legal demands when appropriate so that they can contact the entity requesting it or consult a lawyer. Sometimes we can’t, either because we’re legally prohibited (in which case we sometimes seek to lift gag orders or unseal search warrants) or we don’t have their verified contact information.
  • We require that government agencies conducting criminal investigations use a search warrant to compel us to provide a user’s search query information and private content stored in a Google Account—such as Gmail messages, documents, photos and YouTube videos. We believe a warrant is required by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure and overrides conflicting provisions in ECPA.

This is definitely good to see — and lots of other companies should do the same thing. However, it still remains an issue that governments can, and do, get lots of information with limited oversight — even when companies push back.

Speaking of which, Twitter also came out with its latest transparency report, which highlights the information requests it gets as well. Both companies are really leading the way on transparency here, but it’s a shame that these stories are even newsworthy, rather than the way most large companies act.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: google, twitter

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Google Explains How It Handles Government Requests For Data; Why Don't More Companies Do This?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
weneedhelp - not signed in says:

Re: % of requests that produce data still very high

Damned if they do and damned if they dont. OOTB? boB? AJ?

The government needs legal process?such as a subpoena, court order or search warrant?to force Google to disclose user information. Exceptions can be made in certain emergency cases, though even then the government can’t force Google to disclose.

So if they push back and then receive a subpoena, court order, or a warrant, they must comply. Thats great, google is at least forcing them to do so. What is troubling is the amount of requests with a subpoena, court order, or a warrant attached. No abuse there.

Complain about Google and not the Government abuse? Yeah, hi boB, how ya been?

It WAS boB that was against big everything, right? Or was it OOTB, or AJ? Ah who cares, a self appointed shill is a self appointed shill.

acduah5 says:

Re: Re: % of requests that produce data still very high

I am not complaining about Google. I am complaining about the article, which indicates the % of requests that produce data is now “much lower” (it isn’t) and that Google “often pushes back” (no figures on this, but if they do, it doesn’t seem to have efficacy).

acduah5 says:

Re: % of requests that produce data still very high

To be precise, for the US, it is now 90% of requests result in data submitted to the requesting agency, down from 93% the year prior. That is ‘much lower’ according to the article, which again reads as if this is nothing to worry about because Google has got your back. Now, nothing Google can do about this really, except spend more money and time fighting maybe, but they’ll almost always lose.

For the WORLD, which fared much better than the US, it is now 66% of requests resulting in data. Down from 70% the year prior.

So, that is the tremendous decrease the article mentions… Totally inaccurate. The article should be amended.

acduah5 says:

Re: Re: Re:

The poster her is probably referring to the favoritism that seems apparent in the article given the figures I state above (despite your berating, dunno who you are calling me, but you need some help..). Since Google makes or breaks Techdirt, this is valid criticism for any journalist, especially when the article is slanted, again as I point out above.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I swear, it never gets old how you lot seem to continue to think that Techdirt is an employee of, or otherwise working for, google.

Laughing at regular blind people would be wrong in all sorts of ways, but I can’t find it in me to feel guilty for laughing at those that blind themselves regarding a particular subject on purpose just because they find the facts inconvenient.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Honestly though…I see more Google Bias from very few of the commenters that actually show it. One AC in particular makes it a point to correct anything I say in favor of or against either Apple or Google. What the bias indicator for the certain said AC is simply that his insulting nature shows his bias. The mere mention of the word “Apple” from me in a comment would trigger him.

Wally (profile) says:

Good News, Sort of Bad News, and Bad News

The Good News:
Google requires a search warrant for the US gvt. to search through your e-mails, private massages, and YouTube videos pertaining to investigations.

The Sort of Bad News:
The RIAA and MPAA are still have free reign to apply DCMA takedowns on YouTube videos without review from Google.

The Bad News:
To determine whether a search warrant is required, Google is going through your personal data…

Anyone see the potential in advertising for them through this??

weneedhelp - not signed in says:

Re: Good News, Sort of Bad News, and Bad News

“The Bad News:” No they tell you exactly what data is used per request be it a subpoena, court order, or a warrant.

(you have to click through)
What’s the difference between a subpoena, a search warrant and a court order under ECPA? And what information can a government agency get from Google with each?

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Good News, Sort of Bad News, and Bad News

“No they tell you exactly what data is used per request be it a subpoena, court order, or a warrant.”

2 problems with that:

1. In order for this to be put in the way you put it…Google is still having to go through your data to determine what data is being asked for in order to send it to you. By law, if you get served with a subpoena, court order, or warrant, you have the inalienable right under The 5th Amendment to the Constitution to the United States to know what you are being charged with. It also entitles you to not say anything self incriminating.

2. Legality aside…Google has to point out what is being investigate to it’s users who are being investigated…ego, no matter what either they or the US government do…you are still having your 4th Amendment rights being violated by both parties. Google can get in more trouble due to misrepresentation in the process.

DH's Love Child (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Good News, Sort of Bad News, and Bad News

“you are still having your 4th Amendment rights being violated by both parties”

Um.. no you’re not. Google is not a government entity, therefore you have no 4th amendment protection from them sifting through the data you provide to them. What they do with your data is outlined in their privacy policies, but that is not a 4th amendment issue. You have no 4th amendment protection from a private company.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Good News, Sort of Bad News, and Bad News

So a government agency isn’t allowed….does it make Google any better for doing it themselves??? Either way your personal data is sifted through. Doesn’t Google have a privacy clause preventing them from sifting through your personal e-mail?
I do not see how Google can be praised for this when they sift through your data themselves…

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...