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: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.
- 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.
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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: data, government, information, privacy, transparency
Companies: google, twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
% of requests that produce data still very high
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: % of requests that produce data still very high
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: % of requests that produce data still very high
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: % of requests that produce data still very high
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: % of requests that produce data still very high
That's not how I read the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Going off the rails on a crazy train.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
EVERYWHERE I tells ya! *rocks back and forth grinning evilly encased in the latest straight jacket fashion*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh? Please explain this accusation, with supporting evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good News, Sort of Bad News, and Bad 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??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good News, Sort of Bad News, and Bad News
(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?
https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/legalprocess/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good News, Sort of Bad News, and Bad News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good News, Sort of Bad News, and Bad News
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Good News, Sort of Bad News, and Bad News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good News, Sort of Bad News, and Bad News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good News, Sort of Bad News, and Bad News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good News, Sort of Bad News, and Bad News
You can get most subpoenas without a judge signing off...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Good News, Sort of Bad News, and Bad News
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good News, Sort of Bad News, and Bad News
I do not see how Google can be praised for this when they sift through your data themselves...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google handing over info upon Gov Request
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google handing over info upon Gov Request
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]