If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Stabley Times)   Google sides with Gmail users, won't turn over emails to law enforcement without a warrant   (stableytimes.com) divider line 43
    More: Hero, Gmail, Google, Gmail users, law enforcement, Google sides, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, other nations, e-mails  
•       •       •

3612 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Jan 2013 at 1:18 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



43 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-24 12:55:09 AM
Glad they chose not to be evil
 
2013-01-24 01:16:50 AM
Unless the law enforcement agency does advertising work, of course.
 
2013-01-24 01:22:15 AM

RedPhoenix122: Unless the law enforcement agency does advertising work, of course.


Points for being funny and right.
 
2013-01-24 01:27:45 AM
*Something goes the way it SHOULD go in a decent society*
*Hero tag*

/Google probably just saves money by doing less paperwork
 
2013-01-24 01:28:50 AM
It's pretty sad that simply doing what is right, and legal, justifies the "hero" tag.
 
2013-01-24 01:44:15 AM
That's a step in the right direction. Ideally backlogs shouldn't be available at all, like snail mail and phone calls.
 
2013-01-24 01:53:51 AM
I thought they already do that
 
2013-01-24 02:01:52 AM
The vast majority of cloud service providers work this way, including Yahoo mail and Live mail.

They'll be getting hero tags too, right?
 
2013-01-24 02:05:58 AM
autopen.co

Now the Feds have to kill forests and load one of these machines with some friendly judge's signature.

Ever get a bit of snail spam that had a hand addressed envelope?

Linky
 
2013-01-24 02:37:30 AM
Well, it's probably legal for them to lie about it... so take this announcement with a grain of salt.

/right? I vaguely remember hearing that about telco's, anyway.
 
2013-01-24 02:53:10 AM
At least they acted like there was a choice.
 
2013-01-24 03:02:56 AM
I'd be impressed, if warrants were harder to come by. Civil subpoenas are even easier; a judge doesn't even have to review them, the attorney asking for the documents has the authority to demand them, unless you can prove your emails are completely covered by a legal privilege.
 
2013-01-24 03:03:48 AM
You win this time, google. Thissss tiiiiime.
 
2013-01-24 03:49:01 AM
Well then my vendor can stop being paranoid.
 
2013-01-24 05:02:09 AM
I'm glad to see that Denmark is low on the list of countries making these requests. Not so happy to see that Denmark is on the list, when countries like Norway and Sweden isn't.
 
2013-01-24 05:54:42 AM
...unless the user lives in China.
 
2013-01-24 05:56:18 AM
Unfortunately it's not that hard to get a judge to sign an ex-parte order, at which point Google will give up every piece of data they've mined on you.
 
2013-01-24 06:09:51 AM

MrEricSir: That's a step in the right direction. Ideally backlogs shouldn't be available at all, like snail mail and phone calls.


Cell phone numbers to/from are logged along with texts and cell towers (i.e. location). ACLU has details on how long they are kept (pops), varying from one to seven years.

Not sure about land line providers, but the to/from details are definitely logged.
 
2013-01-24 07:28:56 AM
Change we can believe in
 
2013-01-24 07:30:46 AM

the8re: ...unless the user lives in China.


Do you have a source to support that China gets unfettered access to Gmail?
I'm asking because according to Google there have been no such requests from China.
 
2013-01-24 07:35:02 AM

cman: Change we can believe in


I nominate this for Non Sequitur of the Day.
...but the day is young.
 
2013-01-24 07:54:08 AM
So Google won't hand over e-mails I've written that are to law enforcement agencies....does that mean they will hand over e-mails I'm sending to other people?  And why would law enforcement want e-mails I've sent them since they're on the distribution?  Are they trying to force Google to deliver the mail properly?
 
2013-01-24 08:17:40 AM

Dansker: cman: Change we can believe in

I nominate this for Non Sequitur of the Day.
...but the day is young.


Didnt Obama run on a platform of stopping this nonsense? Isnt the DoJ controlled by the executive branch?

1 + 1 = 2
 
2013-01-24 08:21:29 AM

Dansker: the8re: ...unless the user lives in China.

Do you have a source to support that China gets unfettered access to Gmail?
I'm asking because according to Google there have been no such requests from China.


...They don't "ask."  They just take.
 
2013-01-24 08:33:27 AM

cman: Dansker: cman: Change we can believe in

I nominate this for Non Sequitur of the Day.
...but the day is young.

Didnt Obama run on a platform of stopping this nonsense? Isnt the DoJ controlled by the executive branch?

1 + 1 = 2


I don't remember Obama ever mentioning Google, Gmail or law enforcement's ability to make warranted requests. Plus, I probably take a more global view of things; your President doesn't have a say on e.g. Danish police work, or Google's behavior in India, Turkey or France.
Not everything is about the US. Not for me, anyway. So that's why your comment seemed to me to come out of left field.
 
2013-01-24 08:34:58 AM

Honest Bender: Dansker: the8re: ...unless the user lives in China.

Do you have a source to support that China gets unfettered access to Gmail?
I'm asking because according to Google there have been no such requests from China.

...They don't "ask."  They just take.


Maybe, probably, perhaps. But that's not a source.
 
2013-01-24 08:43:08 AM

slayer199: So Google won't hand over e-mails I've written that are to law enforcement agencies....does that mean they will hand over e-mails I'm sending to other people?  And why would law enforcement want e-mails I've sent them since they're on the distribution?  Are they trying to force Google to deliver the mail properly?


You've misread the TFA's headline. When it says "won't turn over emails to law enforcement without a warrant" it doesn't mean "emails sent to law enforcement", it means your emails won't be handed over to law enforcement without a warrant.
Reading the actual article makes this clear. It's not too long to read.
 
2013-01-24 08:43:24 AM

Dansker: cman: Dansker: cman: Change we can believe in

I nominate this for Non Sequitur of the Day.
...but the day is young.

Didnt Obama run on a platform of stopping this nonsense? Isnt the DoJ controlled by the executive branch?

1 + 1 = 2

I don't remember Obama ever mentioning Google, Gmail or law enforcement's ability to make warranted requests. Plus, I probably take a more global view of things; your President doesn't have a say on e.g. Danish police work, or Google's behavior in India, Turkey or France.
Not everything is about the US. Not for me, anyway. So that's why your comment seemed to me to come out of left field.


What about Warrantless Wiretapping and repeal of the Patriot Act?

Linkie. He really isn't doing so hot on Civil Rights issues.

Warrantless wiretapping and Patriot Act in particular though, wasn't a compromise, we still have the damn Patriot Act, as he signed an extension.
 
2013-01-24 08:46:56 AM
They can have my emails when they pry them from my cold, dead digital digits.
 
2013-01-24 08:49:33 AM

Quantumbunny: Dansker: cman: Dansker: cman: Change we can believe in

I nominate this for Non Sequitur of the Day.
...but the day is young.

Didnt Obama run on a platform of stopping this nonsense? Isnt the DoJ controlled by the executive branch?

1 + 1 = 2

I don't remember Obama ever mentioning Google, Gmail or law enforcement's ability to make warranted requests. Plus, I probably take a more global view of things; your President doesn't have a say on e.g. Danish police work, or Google's behavior in India, Turkey or France.
Not everything is about the US. Not for me, anyway. So that's why your comment seemed to me to come out of left field.

What about Warrantless Wiretapping and repeal of the Patriot Act?

Linkie. He really isn't doing so hot on Civil Rights issues.

Warrantless wiretapping and Patriot Act in particular though, wasn't a compromise, we still have the damn Patriot Act, as he signed an extension.


That doesn't seem to have anything to do with this story; it's about warranted requests. And again, I'm less focused on the US law enforcement practices side of the story, and more on Google's stand. Hence my misunderstanding of cman's comment.
I'll let you get on with your Obama bashing now.
 
2013-01-24 09:04:34 AM

Dansker: Quantumbunny: Dansker: cman: Dansker: cman: Change we can believe in

I nominate this for Non Sequitur of the Day.
...but the day is young.

Didnt Obama run on a platform of stopping this nonsense? Isnt the DoJ controlled by the executive branch?

1 + 1 = 2

I don't remember Obama ever mentioning Google, Gmail or law enforcement's ability to make warranted requests. Plus, I probably take a more global view of things; your President doesn't have a say on e.g. Danish police work, or Google's behavior in India, Turkey or France.
Not everything is about the US. Not for me, anyway. So that's why your comment seemed to me to come out of left field.

What about Warrantless Wiretapping and repeal of the Patriot Act?

Linkie. He really isn't doing so hot on Civil Rights issues.

Warrantless wiretapping and Patriot Act in particular though, wasn't a compromise, we still have the damn Patriot Act, as he signed an extension.

That doesn't seem to have anything to do with this story; it's about warranted requests. And again, I'm less focused on the US law enforcement practices side of the story, and more on Google's stand. Hence my misunderstanding of cman's comment.
I'll let you get on with your Obama bashing now.


A, I'm not bashing not bashing Obama, I'm explaining cman's comment.
B, I'm not sure how Google requiring warrants for e-mail access (e-mail being a communication medium going over wires... the internet, which is not a series of trucks) is unrelated to WIREtapping without warrants. It sounds fairly relevant. The only difference is Google is saying no, we won't do your wiretap for you, unlike the phone companies.
 
2013-01-24 09:14:56 AM

Quantumbunny:
A, I'm not bashing not bashing Obama, I'm explaining cman's comment.


He did a much better job of that himself.

B, I'm not sure how Google requiring warrants for e-mail access (e-mail being a communication medium going over wires... the internet, which is not a series of trucks) is unrelated to WIREtapping without warrants. It sounds fairly relevant.

One is warranted, the other warrantless. Seems like two different issues to me.

The only difference is Google is saying no, we won't do your wiretap for you, unlike the phone companies.

Which is nice. And not terribly interesting to me; Danish law enforcement is not allowed warrantless wiretapping.
Damn, this thread is like quicksand. I'm going to pull myself out before I get stuck.
 
2013-01-24 09:21:17 AM

Dansker: Quantumbunny:
A, I'm not bashing not bashing Obama, I'm explaining cman's comment.

He did a much better job of that himself.

B, I'm not sure how Google requiring warrants for e-mail access (e-mail being a communication medium going over wires... the internet, which is not a series of trucks) is unrelated to WIREtapping without warrants. It sounds fairly relevant.

One is warranted, the other warrantless. Seems like two different issues to me.

The only difference is Google is saying no, we won't do your wiretap for you, unlike the phone companies.

Which is nice. And not terribly interesting to me; Danish law enforcement is not allowed warrantless wiretapping.
Damn, this thread is like quicksand. I'm going to pull myself out before I get stuck.


I made the mistake of assuming you were American, hence my sharp remark in such fashion. I apologize for that.
 
2013-01-24 09:28:09 AM

Dansker: slayer199: So Google won't hand over e-mails I've written that are to law enforcement agencies....does that mean they will hand over e-mails I'm sending to other people?  And why would law enforcement want e-mails I've sent them since they're on the distribution?  Are they trying to force Google to deliver the mail properly?

You've misread the TFA's headline. When it says "won't turn over emails to law enforcement without a warrant" it doesn't mean "emails sent to law enforcement", it means your emails won't be handed over to law enforcement without a warrant.
Reading the actual article makes this clear. It's not too long to read.


thatsthejoke.jpg
 
2013-01-24 10:11:09 AM

Dansker: You've misread the TFA's headline. When it says "won't turn over emails to law enforcement without a warrant" it doesn't mean "emails sent to law enforcement", it means your emails won't be handed over to law enforcement without a warrant.
Reading the actual article makes this clear. It's not too long to read.


It was deliberate and I was being snarky...so lighten up Francis.
 
2013-01-24 10:11:56 AM

wildcardjack: [autopen.co image 850x387]

Now the Feds have to kill forests and load one of these machines with some friendly judge's signature.

Ever get a bit of snail spam that had a hand addressed envelope?

Linky


Those 'hand written' envelopes are printed script 99% of the time, not autopen. Look at them, you can see the bloody pixels on the things most of the times, printers don't have 'bad penmenship' resolution.
 
2013-01-24 10:16:09 AM

cman:
I made the mistake of assuming you were American, hence my sharp remark in such fashion. I apologize for that.


It's all good, my man. We cool.


Grither:
thatsthejoke.jpg


That's possible. I never really got the hang of that guy's sense of humour.
 
2013-01-24 10:18:50 AM

slayer199:
It was deliberate and I was being snarky...so lighten up Francis.


My bad. Have a nice day.
 
2013-01-24 11:58:10 AM

HotWingAgenda: I'd be impressed, if warrants were harder to come by. Civil subpoenas are even easier; a judge doesn't even have to review them, the attorney asking for the documents has the authority to demand them, unless you can prove your emails are completely covered by a legal privilege.


THIS. I despise the way that we as a society have become placated by the word "warrant". A warrant is nothing more than a legal document that states that the law enforcement office said, "please." Not even "pretty please with sugar on top" just plain ordinary "please". It is an astounding turn of events when a judge turns down a warrant because the legal standard for getting a warrant is so low as to be meaningless in practice.

Part of the problem is the law but the bigger problem is with judges who equate probable cause with whimsy.
 
2013-01-24 01:24:01 PM
Quantumbunny

Warrantless wiretapping and Patriot Act in particular though, wasn't a compromise, we still have the damn Patriot Act, as he signed an extension.
Hey now, we all know it's only wrong when a texan does it.
 
2013-01-24 01:39:11 PM
I'll just leave this here.

Link
 
2013-01-24 02:51:31 PM

wildcardjack: [autopen.co image 850x387]

Now the Feds have to kill forests and load one of these machines with some friendly judge's signature.

Ever get a bit of snail spam that had a hand addressed envelope?

Linky


I have no idea what a machine like this would be useful for. If someone signs their name enough, they just get a signature plate made.
 
2013-01-25 01:32:50 AM
If Uncle Sugar wants to read my e-mail, then he's in for a very dull -- and perhaps depressing -- time.
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report