> Google has a direct financial gain in fighting them
Wait, what? Google has a direct financial gain in fighting warrants? How do you figure?
Wait, what? Google has a direct financial gain in fighting warrants? How do you figure?
Edit: Clarified what NSL means.
Also, fighting them takes work too. Much more work (done by more highly-paid individuals) than complying with them. The PR angle may make it a net gain, but I don't think there's a slam-dunk case for that being true. What about consumers who believe NSLs are a necessary tool to fight terrorists?
Are we sure that's all NSL's cover? I've been told repeatedly that we can't be told what is required under the NSLs by their very nature(despite being overturned by the Supreme Court). Also, I was under the impression a subpoena also requires a judge's approval.
Regardless, while the two(a subpoena and a warrant) are different, in this case their nature is more than a bit similar, considering subpoenas generally are used to produce information, whereas warrants are to be able to reasonably search for information- which on a server, the two are only differentiated by who is accessing the data and how.
NSL power is defined by law, and is limited to metadata, not content. I suspect what they meant is that specific details about whose information is being requested, and how many requests are received, can't be released.
>Also, I was under the impression a subpoena also requires a judge's approval.
An administrative subpoena is a type of subpoena that does not need to be signed by a judge. An NSL is a type of admin subpoena that the FBI uses for national security matters, but the FBI uses admin subpoenas in other investigations, too. Many other federal agencies also have admin subpoena power, and some states grant it to their agencies as well.
Some already have stopped, of course.
On the other hand, Google doesn't want to piss off the Feds or the Military Industrial Complex. They spend a lot of money and have friends in high places.