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

from the good-for-them dept

Fri, May 2nd 2014 3:33am — Mike Masnick

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.

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: doj, law enforcement, privacy, protecting users, subpoenas, tech companies, warrants
Companies: apple, eff, facebook, google, microsoft, twitter, yahoo

24 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2014 @ 4:22am

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

https://supporters.eff.org/donate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Crawlard, 2 May 2014 @ 4:32am

Policing is only easy in a police state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 2 May 2014 @ 5:27am
  
  Re:
  Actually, it's not even easy in a police state. They continue to take liberty from the people and history has shown it doesn't help.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mason Wheeler (profile), 2 May 2014 @ 11:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    The more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2014 @ 6:13am
  
  Re:
  Depends upon your definition of "policing".
  
  Funny how those who espouse "rule of law" believe they're immune to it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 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!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2014 @ 6:19am
  
  Re:
  How else are they to withhold exculpatory evidence?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
me@me.net, 2 May 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beech, 2 May 2014 @ 5:21am

The DOJ just hates it when the first amendment is exercised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2014 @ 6:20am
  
  Re:
  The DOJ just hates it when the first amendment is exercised by the proletariat.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - David, 2 May 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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
GuyFromV, 2 May 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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 2 May 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2014 @ 6:20am

HISSSS THE SPOTLIGHT IT BURNS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
madasahatter (profile), 2 May 2014 @ 6:42am

Real Issue
The problem is the political elite wants all the power at the expense of the citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Squirrels Without Borders, 2 May 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."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 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."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Robert, 2 May 2014 @ 9:36am
  
  Re:
  Obama has the Tech companies back.
  
  "White House seeks legal immunity for firms that hand over customer data"
  http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/02/white-house-legal-immunity-telecoms-firms-bill
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 2 May 2014 @ 10:22am
    
    Re: Re:
    That's not so much "having the tech companies' back" as it is having the spy agencies' back. They trying to mitigate one of the main business and legal reasons why companies would push back against being turned into surrogate spies: fear of being sued.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2014 @ 10:51pm
  
  Re:
  What a surprise, you don't want the grandmothers to know that you're suing them for porn they didn't download. Boo hoo, the humanity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2014 @ 2:41am
  
  Re:
  There once was an average joe
  Who worked as an average ho
  He met with Chris Dodd
  Licked down his Chris bod
  And gave him an average blow
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eric Stein, 2 May 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 May 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".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 2 May 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]