We’re exercising our freedom and taking off the 3rd to celebrate the 4th. See you Monday!Hide

Tech Companies Increasingly Telling Users When Law Enforcement Comes Asking For Data

from the good-for-them dept

In the past, we've noted that Twitter, alone among major tech companies, had made it a corporate policy to not just roll over when law enforcement came asking for user data, even alerting users that law enforcement was seeking their data, and giving them the chance to try to block the requests. Apparently, now a bunch of other big tech companies have started doing the same thing:
Google already routinely notified users of government data requests but adopted an updated policy this week detailing the few situations in which notification is withheld, such as when there is imminent risk of physical harm to a potential crime victim. “We notify users about legal demands when appropriate, unless prohibited by law or court order,” the company said in a statement.

Lawyers at Apple, Facebook and Microsoft are working on their own revisions, company officials said, although the details have not been released. All are moving toward more routinely notifying users, said the companies, which had not previously disclosed these changes.

“Later this month, Apple will update its policies so that in most cases when law enforcement requests personal information about a customer, the customer will receive a notification from Apple,” company spokeswoman Kristin Huguet said.
If you're looking for who to thank about this turn of events, there are two places to point. First: the good folks at EFF. For the past few years, it's been publishing its Who Has Your Back? chart looking at how companies respond to government requests for data. Each year, this list has convinced more and more companies to improve how they protect their users, and how they push back on government requests. And, the reason why so many companies are rushing to change their policies is because the EFF is about to release its latest version. Yet another reason to be happy the EFF exists.

Second, of course, is Ed Snowden. While not entirely directly at issue here -- since things like FISA Court Orders and National Security Letters are subject to gag orders barring companies from telling their users -- the generally heightened interest in government access to information provided to internet services has certainly created a culture where these companies can't get away with just rolling over for the government any more.

Of course, you could argue that it's taken these companies too long to get here -- and that's absolutely true -- but better late than never.

Oh yeah. Guess who's really upset about all of this:
The Justice Department disagrees, saying in a statement that new industry policies threaten investigations and put potential crime victims in greater peril.

“These risks of endangering life, risking destruction of evidence, or allowing suspects to flee or intimidate witnesses are not merely hypothetical, but unfortunately routine,” department spokesman Peter Carr said, citing a case in which early disclosure put at risk a cooperative witness in a case. He declined to offer details because the case was under seal.
Once again, it seems like the DOJ and others think that anything that makes their job harder is somehow wrong. But that's incorrect. The whole point of protecting freedom is that it's supposed to be hard for law enforcement to spy on people and arrest them. That's how it's supposed to work.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2014 @ 4:22am

    If you want more of this to happen, don't forget to donate to EFF:

    https://supporters.eff.org/donate

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Crawlard, May 2nd, 2014 @ 4:32am

    Policing is only easy in a police state.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2014 @ 4:42am

    unusual for a case to be 'under seal', i dont think!! the way things are going, i'm surprised any trial gets to be conducted outside of a locked room, with only certain people allowed access, like everyone on the prosecutors side and no one for the defendant! then add in how it's heading yet closer to the police state that only those who are a part of it or support it think it's ok and we have another dangerous situation brewing, just how it was in the dark ages. that led to revolt and it will do so again! being wealthy does mean you are right and shouldn't mean you get to dictate the terms and the outcomes!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    me@me.net, May 2nd, 2014 @ 4:44am

    Given the amount of abuses that you see daily now

    This is generally a positive deelopment given that its inceasingly hard NOT to see the DOJ as the enemy. It's isn't about justice naymore if it ever was, it's about things like the FBI inventing terrorist attacks of their own creation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Beech, May 2nd, 2014 @ 5:21am

    The DOJ just hates it when the first amendment is exercised.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2014 @ 6:20am

      Re:

      The DOJ just hates it when the first amendment is exercised by the proletariat.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        David, May 2nd, 2014 @ 6:33am

        Re: Re:

        Oh, they don't just hate the first amendment. They are heavily invested with branches like NSA and CIA and secret courts and stuff to get rid of the fourth amendment. They have factually killed off the sixth amendment ("right to a jury trial") with the invention of plea deals that basically deny a fair jury trial to all but the ultra-rich, and with the invention of "secret courts" and other stuff.

        They don't believe in the separation of powers, they diddle in ex post facto law (retroactive immunity) and so on.

        The Department of Justice considers the U.S. constitution a handicap and a historical curiosity rather than a goal and a standard. It routes around it whenever it can get away with it.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    GuyFromV, May 2nd, 2014 @ 5:24am

    Probationary Supervison

    This is good for us only in the way in that it is good for the companies' bottom line to do such for us. I'll be giving them the Futurama Fry Eye for a bit longer. Also, remember that they should have been doing this for us in the first place. So, yeah...we're cool man...just don't f up anymore, dig?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    David, May 2nd, 2014 @ 6:20am

    Department of "Justice"

    anything that makes their job harder is somehow wrong.

    That's exactly the problem.

    It's like building security removing support pillars that get in their way of protecting the building and its inhabitants from danger.

    Though at the current point of time, we are getting actually closer to "if we replace the first two floors with air, we'll be able to evacuate the building twice as fast in case of an emergency." and so they are wiring up all the explosives they need for making everyone safe and free.

    Department of Justice. No need to outsource terrorism and treason when we can abolish the U.S. way of life, the constitution and other tenets of freedom perfectly well by relying on local expertise.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2014 @ 6:20am

    HISSSS THE SPOTLIGHT IT BURNS!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    madasahatter (profile), May 2nd, 2014 @ 6:42am

    Real Issue

    The problem is the political elite wants all the power at the expense of the citizens.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Squirrels Without Borders, May 2nd, 2014 @ 6:51am

    It seems that whenever the executive agencies have a great example of how doing this or that harms enforcement and victims, details of the case are conveniently under seal/confidential.

    "We have this wonderful case to show you that you're wrong, but you have to trust us, the details a secret."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2014 @ 7:23am

    “We notify users about legal demands when appropriate, unless prohibited by law or court order”

    This is 100% weasel clause, and Mike knows it. Ultimately, all it means is "When it isn't subject to gag order, and most of it is, we will somehow find it inappropriate to inform you. Have a nice day."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Eric Stein, May 2nd, 2014 @ 7:30am

    Our tax dollars at work

    The problem is that the American government is increasingly un-American. Can you not say that the DOJ hates us for our freedom? Further proof of victory for Osama. Long may he remain dead.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 2nd, 2014 @ 8:14am

    If you're looking for who to thank about this turn of events, there are two places to point.
    Actually, I'd say if you wanted to give credit for this turn of events, it should be given to the US government. They single-handedly created the massive worldwide demand for increased privacy and better security. Of course, it's the exact opposite of what they wanted to happen, but that's beside the point.

    For any NSA members who might be out there, I have a memo from 2,500 years ago: "Grasp at the shadow and lose the substance".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), May 2nd, 2014 @ 10:15am

    'But there was a wolf this time, I promise!'

    I wonder if they realize that after years of crying wolf with nary a fuzzy tail in sight, no one believes them any more when they claim that people/companies doing A, or B, or C will cause massive damage to national security, and/or threaten countless lives or whatever other boogieman they bring up?

    At this point they should just come out and tell the public the real reasons, namely that people exercising and defending their rights makes their jobs harder. Pathetic and contemptible as the real reasons are, such a statement would at least be honest.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Advertisement
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Chat
Techdirt Reading List
Advertisement
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Support Techdirt - Get Great Stuff!

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.