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!
Troubled battery maker Northvolt reportedly considers Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States as…
Microsoft's cloud business practices are reportedly facing a potential anti-competitive investigation by the FTC
Ilya Lichtenstein sentenced to five years in prison for hacking into a virtual currency exchange…
Target for Elon Musk's lawsuit, hate speech watchdog CCDH, announces its decision to quit X…
Antitrust penalty. European Commission fines Meta a hefty €798m ($843m) for tying Facebook Marketplace to…
Elon Musk continues to provoke the ire of various leaders around the world with his…
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.