Google has been told to pass over users’ private information to the FBI by the same judge who said two months ago that national security letters (NSLs) should not be used to get hold of data from companies.
NSLs are used by law enforcement in their application of the US Patriot Act, as they seek to gain citizens’ private data to help with their investigations. But in March, judge Susan Illston said the NSLs contravened the first amendment of the US constitution.
But now judge Illston has rejected a Google argument that NSLs violated its constitutional rights, according to the Associated Press. It is unclear what data the FBI wants.
The final ruling has not yet been handed down, as the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals makes its decision, although Google has been told to hand over data until then, unless it can prove the FBI did not follow proper procedures.
Illston said 17 of the 19 letters were issued correctly, however. Privacy advocates have expressed their disappointment at the decision.
“We are disappointed that the same judge who declared these letters unconstitutional is now requiring compliance with them,” said Kurt Opsah, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in a statement sent to media.
Are you a pedant on privacy? Try our quiz!
Boeing Starliner space capsule set for first crewed flight into orbit after years of delays,…
Google clashes with US Justice Department in closing arguments as government argues Google used illegal…
Prominent Stanford University AI scientist Fei-Fei Li reportedly completes funding round for start-up based on…
Apple shares surge on optimism that new AI-focused hardware launches will drive renewed sales, starting…
Biden vetoes Republican-backed measure amidst dispute over 'joint employer' status for contract workers, affecting tech…
Lawyers in US social media addiction action say strict controls on Douyin in China show…
View Comments
How many judicial decisions are reached based on the fact that those making the decisions cannot be sued ?
Would the same decisions be reached if "Joe Public" could sue a judge over their decision(s) ?
How about having laws to hold judges responsible for their actions and decisions ?
The phrase "some are more equal than others" comes to mind.