Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Feds Push For Warrantless Cell Phone Tracking

Posted by timothy on from the unless-you-are-in-favor-of-child-abduction dept.

An anonymous reader writes "An article at CNET is reporting on the Obama administration's push for warrantless tracking of the location of cell phones (Verizon Wireless stores location data for one year, for instance). The Justice Department says no warrant is necessary: 'Because wireless carriers regularly generate and retain the records at issue, and because these records provide only a very general indication of a user's whereabouts at certain times in the past, the requested cell-site records do not implicate a Fourth Amendment privacy interest.'"

50 of 400 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Well, in fairness by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    [[/TROLL]]

    Don't be a wuss. Take your moderation like a man, even if you were joking.

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  2. Really? by LaminatorX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing for carriers to provide UPON BEING SERVED WITH A WARRANT!

    1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is more evidence that B.O. is really George Bush III

    2. Re:Really? by Sir_Dill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mod Parent Up. Seriously, this argument could be said about ALL REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION. OBVIOUSLY its available, because when you get a warrant, they look it up and provide it. DUH.

    3. Re:Really? by houstonbofh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is silly... Republicans are not "evil." Democrats are not "evil." Politicians are evil! The little letter next to the name means next to nothing.

  3. But what about the spirit? by ircmaxell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What about the spirit of the 4th amendment? Sure, it may not violate the amendment as it's worded, but was that the intent of it when it was put in?

    We're getting into very precarious situations here. With technology advancing, we're pushing the letter of the law as far as it can go, even when it isn't really applicable. Don't forget, the Constitution was written over 200 years ago. We need to stop looking how the letter of the laws apply to today's world, and start looking into the spirit of the laws.

    --
    If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
    1. Re:But what about the spirit? by Thoreauly+Nuts · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What about the spirit of the 4th amendment? Sure, it may not violate the amendment as it's worded, but was that the intent of it when it was put in?

      The American Constitution is dead. It's an outdated document that has been viciously exploited by the frauds who claim to represent us. What we need to do is to call a Constitutional Convention and rewrite the thing with a clearer and MUCH expanded Bill of Rights.

      In fact, I think that such a convention should be mandatory about every 50 years and there should be very clear rules that each iteration must always err in favor of the rights of the people and never increase the power of government. In fact, it should be mandatory that any increases in power that have occurred in the interim be removed at each convention.

      --
      "Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves. " ---Henry David Thoreau
    2. Re:But what about the spirit? by newcastlejon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm not as USian but as an outside observer it seems to me you need a new amendment for the digital age to finally codify the limits on police powers that apply to modern technology.

      If we've learnt anything so far, it's that you can't rely on those in charge to care about the spirit of the law.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    3. Re:But what about the spirit? by ircmaxell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, to understand #2, you have to understand the times. It was written right after the revolutionary war. A war where the people banded together to fight against their government... They used militias as organized fighting units. So, after the war, they put #2 in there to make sure that people always had the right to form their own militia and fight back against their government if they deemed it tyranical or for any other reason. That's the only way #2 would make sense in the context of how and where it was written. And the fact that it was put as the 2nd amendment (right under the freedom of speech) shows how important they felt it was.

      Sure, it's my interpretation, but it's an educated interpretation based on why I think someone would have written it in the 1880's...

      --
      If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
    4. Re:But what about the spirit? by newcastlejon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Having read some of the comments below I'd suggest you go a step further and impose criminal penalties for any person or company that surrenders personal information to law enforcement without a warrant.

      I may be wrong, but on our side of the pond one of the few cases where an employee can be held individually subject to criminal prosecution is a breach of the Data Protection Act.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    5. Re:But what about the spirit? by unix1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What about the spirit of the 4th amendment? Sure, it may not violate the amendment as it's worded, but was that the intent of it when it was put in?

      But it DOES violate. From their own argument:

      "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records"

      Just because there's a 3rd party (phone company) involved doesn't mean 4th amendment goes out the window. The 4th amendment doesn't have an asterisk that says "(*) doesn't apply when facilitated by a 3rd party." The right is there to protect people from government's abuse of power. The issue is what the government can and cannot do, regardless of whether they are able to hire/convince a 3rd party to do it for them.

      In fact, if the above argument stands as is, we can freely plug in other variables in that statement:

      a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when:

      - phone company reveals to the government its own customer call detail records
      - hotels reveal to the government their guest check-in/out records
      - credit card companies reveal to the government their customer purchase records
      - libraries reveal to the government their book lending records
      - dry cleaners reveal to the government their customer records
      - etc.

      Where does it stop? And all this without a warrant or a probable cause? How does it not violate?

    6. Re:But what about the spirit? by AthleteMusicianNerd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is not outdated. Politicians take an oath to uphold the constitution, but don't. They should be thrown in jail. There is no interpretation of it, it's very easy to read and understand. The Founding Fathers were well aware of the consequences of the actions we're taking in government now because they lived through it in Britain. That's why you hear quotes from very smart men such as Benjamin Franklin saying "If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both." We've seen that actually play out since Sept. 11th. Or other ones like "Remember that time is money." which also continues to hold true.
      Just because there is new technology, does not change the ways laws should be enforced. A cell phone conversation is no different from a land line conversation which is no different from sending a letter. If you intercept a letter, it's a violation of privacy just as it would be to listen to someone's cell phone conversation. The government would like people to believe that there's a difference so they can continue on their malicious ways of fascism.

    7. Re:But what about the spirit? by lidocaineus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not as USian

      Clearly, or you wouldn't use such a retarded word that no one in the North or South American continents actually uses because they don't care one whit about the nomenclature and usage of the word "American". I stopped reading right there.

    8. Re:But what about the spirit? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What we need to do is to call a Constitutional Convention and rewrite the thing with a clearer and MUCH expanded Bill of Rights.

      Oh HELL no. I can tell you what that leads to: the abomination that is the EU constitution. About 200 pages in small print.

      No, No, and No.

      I love the US Constitution because it is short and specific. Everyone can read it over a lunch break. It covers broad areas and puts lower (or upper) limits on what can be implemented, but doesn't spell out the legalistic details. Please don't touch it. There are a few issues with it, but nothing that requires a wholesale rewrite. And for the record - the issues I refer to are not the second amendment, but much more so the Bill of Rights, because suddenly people think that those are all the rights there are.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    9. Re:But what about the spirit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think people misread this. The Second Amendment says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If you read it carefully, you will understand that the point of the amendment is: "The people have the right to keep and bear arms in order to regulate the militia." This should be obvious by the definition of "regulate."

      The Framers had just finished fighting a war against an oppressive power who used their troops against the people, which is also the reason for the 3rd Amendment (forcing people to quarter troops against their will). The intent of the Second Amendment is to allow people to protect themselves from the government.

  4. Re:Well, in fairness by venom85 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So then I assume you also would say that if I have nothing to hide, I shouldn't mind the police tearing my house apart looking for something that may or may not be there? If I have nothing to hide, I shouldn't mind being searched every time I enter or leave a building? I shouldn't mind being spied on at all times during my daily life? That's all ridiculous. Just because I don't want the Feds to know where I am every waking second doesn't mean I'm doing anything wrong. I just like my privacy, and they're interfering with that. It's not like it's anything new in this country (USA), but it's still wrong. Plain and simple.

  5. Re:What happened to warrants? by Itninja · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They only need a warrant if the data owner demands one before compliance. The thing is, the large telecoms are lapdogs to the federal government. They need the government's blessing to make a profit so are all to willing to turn over your records upon request.

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
  6. Re:Well, in fairness by drDugan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This argument, while never voiced due to its absurdity seems the most common rationale for removing privacy protections.

    The comment not a joke at all. It was satire of the recent Google CEO comment: If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place, said Schmidt. You know, kind of like calling a failed politician, "Fucking Retarded" (you're brilliant, Stephen). See? Satire.

  7. Re:What happened to warrants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And why do you think they are keeping that data? Could it be because the Justice Department made an unofficial request to do so? The claim that Verizon just happens to be keeping the data around so it should be fair game, sounds awfully suspicious.

  8. Re:Well, in fairness by Locke2005 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seeing as how the feds are not above blackmail, e.g. "Help us nail this guy or we'll tell your wife where you were last Saturday," I'd have to agree with you. The reason we require warrants is to attempt to prevent abuses of authority.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  9. Where in the Constitution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The question is not only a one of the 4th Amendment, one of GRANTED powers in the Constitution. But since the Supreme Court has eviscerated the Constitution via the Commerce Clause rulings no one seems to even ask "wasn't this a document of ENUMERATED powers, and where is this enumerated?"

    1. Re:Where in the Constitution? by jgtg32a · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's correct but if they actually follow that, then the government is basically required to be tiny, and politicians can't really bribe the voters if the .gov is tiny so they ignore it.

    2. Re:Where in the Constitution? by ari_j · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I didn't say I agree with it. I just said that's what the law is and what the Constitution has been interpreted to mean. The original inquiry was where the authority to do these things comes from, and my answer is accurate (in the same way as it's accurate to say that fairy dust comes from Never Never Land - true, if you believe in fairy dust and Never Never Land).

    3. Re:Where in the Constitution? by Sandbags · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By the congress passing, the executive approving, and the court upholding (especially the HIGH court, who's ONLY call it to review the constitution), FUCK YES, it's constitutional, that the EXACT process the constitution set out!!!

      A Warrant is only defined in the constitution in amendment 4 seperate from search and seisure, in that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause" However, in amendment 5, you CAN be deprived of life, liberty, property through "DUE PROCESS OF LAW."

      What's that mean?

      Well, the supreme court has agreed numerous times that "due process" does not require the issue of a warrant, except to enter your home, read your "papers" or inspect your affects and possessions. Anything in plain sight, including where you go, who you meet, where you shop, etc, is all open to any officer to simply WATCH you do. Anything that can be observed by the common man, in the due course of ain investigation, or through the DUE PROCESS of opening a case, filing an inquiry, issuing a civil fine, etc, does not require a warrant, but does simply require a PROCESS.

      Nowhere does the law say you can not be searched without a warrant, it simply sais you can not be UNREASONABLY searched without DUE PROCESS. About the only exception to this is when you are "presumed" guilty.

      in this case, obtaining your cell location history record, as with your phone records, would be limited to a written request, compensated by the department with payment to the carrier for processing, and restricted to a date/location range consistent with the scope of an active case. outside of that, the access they make is illegal, and you could sue.

      --
      There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
    4. Re:Where in the Constitution? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh no you might sue. You have rights when you can get the cop fired and put into jail. The government prints money and they tax you for it they can effectively get as much as they want, they are exempt from many forms of debt collection. Effectively civil courts can not check the powers of governments, especially police forces. You need a criminal court with an unbiased prosecutor (read somebody that does not work at the DA's office) with the power to charge (via a grand jury) and imprison (via a jury). everybody connected with the crime. This might hinder the police forces that is not a problem we need less laws not more, but less laws do not get people elected.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
  10. Obama must first guarantee no abuse by kawabago · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Police resources are abused by police for their own purposes on a regular basis. An abusive spouse who is also a police officer would have unfettered access to information on the whereabouts of their victims. This scenario alone should be enough to can this proposal, but it probably won't be.

    1. Re:Obama must first guarantee no abuse by bonch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obama doesn't care. His administration flat-out says in the article that Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy." Along with his defense of Bush wiretapping, it sure looks like we got the hope and change we were promised, eh?

  11. Meet the new boss by esocid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Same as the old boss. I'm getting sick of this constant push to roll back privacy. No matter what the government may say, 9/11 was the best thing to happen to give them such blanket authority.

    --
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
  12. requires some hacking activism by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    publish the whereabouts going back a year of some government officials. especially let the wife see some of the more interesting locations

    sounds unfair? no, it's epitome of turnaround and fairness

    of course, it won't stop the assholes from going after the hacker and claiming that a crime was committed. fucking hypocrites

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  13. Re:Is this GPS, or Tower data? by Amouth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    more than likely they are wanting the tower data - BUT depending on the phone - and the towers that may be "hey i was talking to him" or "hey the 3 of us where listening to him here is the strength so you can triangulate" or "yea that phone associated with me - here is it's header data - oh see the GPS info in it?" either way - you may have a phone that only allows GPS data on 911 calls - i bet there are ALOT of phones where that isn't an option - and ALOT more phones where people have no idea it is even in there. Most people have no idea about the e911 location information for emergency calls being added in after Sept.11th.. And if i remember correctly there was recently evidence that some carriers where having the location data on all the time not just for 911 by default. if they can get it past that they don't need a warrant - then what they find in the records would be on the same level as seeing something in plain sight. meaning that even if now it doesn't normally have GPS location - in 2 years it might be the norm.. and they already have a warrant waver.. as far as i'm concerned they should need a warrant to get it.

    --
    '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
  14. I thought Bush was the fascist by WCMI92 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Looks like the Obama administration is full of Hope and Change.

    No way in hell, even under the patriot act that this is legal to do to US citizens.

    Then again, Obama has little faith in the Constitution, he considers it a document of "negative liberty" (see his NPR interview) that unfortunately tells he and his government lots of stuff (like this) they aren't allowed to do.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  15. Shocked by Obama? This is who he is... by inthealpine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this. After all he is a kinder genteeler constitution shredder... From the January 18, 2001, broadcast of the WBEZ's Odyssey program, "The Court and Civil Rights": "[...T]he Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted." http://mediamatters.org/research/200810280021 The constitution was meant to restrict the government from taking more and more control. Obama's vision is a constitution that has limitless government so said government can 'do things on your behalf', as though the government knew best.

    --
    "In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
  16. Re:Hope and Change, eh? by Malk-a-mite · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anonymous Troll writes:
    "I guarantee if this were Bush wanting something similar, the left would be screaming bloody murder at the mere THOUGHT of it. "

    ... reading fundamentals works for me.

    FTFA:
    "Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice Department's request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans' privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed. "

    Gasp! Shock! Amazement!
    People who don't like something under one administration - might also not like it under another!

  17. Re:Have a problem with this? by navyjeff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, because Republicans have been the bastion of reason and protectors of constitutional rights and freedoms lately. Did you forget about the USA PATRIOT Act already? Warrantless wiretaps of the previous administration? Mindlessly and wantonly increasing airport security rules? Did you just crawl out of Vault 101?

    Far be it from me to tell you who to vote for, but voting blindly for any one party only seems to make this mess worse.

  18. Re:Have a problem with this? by oneTheory · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd mod you up if I could. Partisan hacks on both sides try to tell you that their party will do it right next time. Liars! No president or legislators from either party have reined in government powers in recent history.

    I liken America to a child with 2 abusive parents. They each play off the other to win the child over then proceed to beat the crap out of them. Then the other parent comes to the child's rescue with candy and toys, telling them they'll be good to them, back and forth never changing their ways. Are we really this stupid?

  19. Re:Shocked by Obama? This is who he is... by goofyspouse · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this.

    Nope. I hate this sort of nonsense no matter who is doing it. Obama has a long ways to go to catch up the BushCo's level of shenanigans, but he seems intent on doing so.

  20. Re:Hope and Change, eh? by gd2shoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Bush 2.0? Ok, maybe, but only because the other proposed "feature set" wasn't selected. We were going to have a 4 year circus one way or the other.

    --
    I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
  21. Not exactly by joeyblades · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > these records provide only a very general indication of a user's whereabouts

    These records provide only a very general indication of a user's cell phone whereabouts...

  22. Re:Have a problem with this? by FSWKU · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are we really this stupid?

    Yes. Yes we are...

    --
    "So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
  23. Re:What happened to warrants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Take a look at what happened to the QWest CEO when he told the government his company wasn't going to be doing something that sure looks to be illegal. Not only did they lose a lot of government business, but he personally was charged with insider stock trading.
    If you say no to those people you'd better be squeaky clean (and even then you might end up framed for something).

  24. Re:Well, in fairness by ukyoCE · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Schmidt's comment, taking in context, was like saying:

    "The cell phone companies already know and record your location. Turn your phone off if you don't want them tracking you. The tracking is fundamental to them providing cell phone service, and if they have it, the government will be able to subpoena it."

    That seems like common sense, not sure what there is to get riled up about in there. Except for the government trying to get the data without a warrant, of course.

  25. Re:Shocked by Obama? This is who he is... by ukyoCE · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this.

    No. This is flagrantly wrong no matter what administration it's being done under.

  26. Re:Well, in fairness by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The better question is why is the data retained for any time at all?

    It should never be needed later, and should only be available while you are talking to that tower.

  27. Re:Well, in fairness by Shotgun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The cops and the government don;t give a FUCK about you or your habits unless you;re already on their radar.

    And how do you get on their radar? Maybe you had a cop for a boyfriend and dumped him? Maybe you're the head of the homeowner's association, and sent the cop a letter to clean up her yard? Maybe you were on the way home from your oldest son's graduation ceremony following the directions given to you by the GPS, when you find yourself at a police roadblock, having forgotten your driver's license in the rush to get to said ceremony? Should you now be subject to have your possessions searched while the claim you're a drug-dealing prostitute for a half hour because you obviously weren't supposed to be on THAT public street?

    (The last didn't happen to me, but it did happen to my wife.)

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  28. Re:Well, in fairness by Shotgun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This data helps cops, who have DOCUMENTED PROBABLY CAUSE,

    Then what is the problem with getting a warrant? The threshold for a warrant only requires probable cause.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  29. Re:Yeah? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Therefore, they should be required to abide by the **spirit** of the 4th amendment.

    "I'm gonna have my cake and eat it too because I've got a monopoly on violence."

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  30. Re:Shocked by Obama? This is who he is... by Bob9113 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sure everyone that hated Bush is OK with Obama doing this.

    Your surety is mistaken. I hated Bush (maybe hate is too strong -- I found him to be an abject failure as President), and I voted for Obama. I find his about-face on defending The Constitution to be loathsome. Sufficiently so that barring a fantastic reverse in course and taking genuine action to restore The Constitution, I will vote against him.

    "[...T]he Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you,"

    That is exactly correct. The Constitution has some very specific rules about what the government is not allowed to do. Those rules are the most important part of The Constitution, and the only persuasive argument against them at the time was that enumerating them could lead down a path where people would argue that those were the only restrictions on government (we have done that, and gone further to positing that other portions of The Constitution supercede the limitations, which is absolute folly).

    But the above statement, tortured though the term "negative liberties" is, is exactly correct. The liberties guaranteed by The Constitution are so guaranteed by negating the government's authority to infringe them.

    "but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted."

    The second statement above seems to be explaining that The Constitution grants no explicit authority to the government, and certainly nothing that could grant it power beyond the circumscriptions mentioned in the first quote. That is precisely the sort of interpretation that I (a little 'l' libertarian) would like the President to hold.

    Is the point of invoking the Odyssey quote to point out that he does not adhere to his stated beliefs (a point on which I wholeheartedly agree), or is there a supposition that the Odyssey quote itself betrays a conflict with The Constitution? If the latter, could you elaborate please? I am not following, but I am deeply interested.

    --
    Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
  31. Re:Well, in fairness by CTalkobt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not really sure that you could annoymize the data reliably... Assuming we're just talking about cell tower "semi-gps" location tracking I've seen it as accurate as 200ft. When the location patterns show an individual residing at a location for multiple nights it's very easy to tie that into an address lookup.

    If multiple individuals reside at the address additional criteria can be gleaned by also tying it into where the cell being tracked goes from 9-5 daily.

    Any time you begin to go down a slippery slope you've already lost. Warrents should always be required.

    --
    There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
  32. Re:Well, in fairness by Shotgun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Next, you will explain to us all how the "blue code of silence" doesn't exist.

    I've known enough cops to know that:
    - the job makes you a paranoid, egomaniac nut job.
    - cops "protect" each other.

    The founding fathers knew that to. That why we rely on an independant magistrate to issue warrants to protect citizens, not "filling out a form" or "manager approval".

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  33. Re:Well, in fairness by ajs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It was satire of the recent Google CEO comment: If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place, said Schmidt.

    No, actually, that was just his lead-in to his actual point:

    But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines, including Google, do retain this information for some time. And [...] we're all subject, in the US, to the Patriot Act, and it is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities.

    In other words, you have a CEO of a major, public corporation saying, "you can't trust us to keep your data private because, good intentions aside, the feds will slap us with a national security note and it's game over." Funny how I don't recall Yahoo!, Microsoft or any of the other major players pushing this point. Perhaps Google is the only one that gets these requests... or perhaps Schmidt is the only one telling you anything.