- How to stream live TV on PlayStation 4 6 Years Ago
- How to watch Disney XD online for free 6 Years Ago
- Who survived the ‘Game of Thrones’ series finale? Sunday 10:21 PM
- Justin Bieber fans are damaging one of Iceland’s top tourist spots Sunday 1:28 PM
- James Charles drops 41-minute response video to Tati Westbrook’s accusations Sunday 1:15 PM
- Watch what happens when this Twitch streamer quits his job on camera Sunday 12:25 PM
- Men are finally sharing their abortion stories Sunday 10:58 AM
- Netflix’s ‘Maria’ is a trigger-happy B-movie Sunday 9:07 AM
- How to stream Money in the Bank 2019 for free Sunday 9:00 AM
- How to watch ‘Game of Thrones’ season 8, episode 6 for free Sunday 8:00 AM
- These ‘Game of Thrones’ houses are gone forever Sunday 7:54 AM
- The 10 best anime movies on Hulu Sunday 7:00 AM
- Vibe TV puts a premium price tag on piracy Sunday 6:00 AM
- Twitter unites in collective confusion over ‘Democrats for Trump’ trending Saturday 2:28 PM
- YouTube star tweets and deletes video of his Black cousin ‘Peanut’ acting as a stool Saturday 1:04 PM
The Department of Justice didn’t want to reveal Google’s name, but a redaction error foiled that plan.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently won a court case against an Internet company that wanted to let its users know exactly how often the agency files requests for their personal data. The company filing suit was never named, because the DOJ maintained revealing it would be contrary to the national interest.
But a redacted document filed by the DOJ in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, was apparently not redacted enough. It contained one instance of the company’s name: Google.
“On June 6, 2013, the public’s already healthy interest in Google’s receipt of, and response to, national security legal process skyrocketed,” the document read.
Internet companies have been squirming and holding their hands over their mouths in a desperate desire to tell their suspicious users just what they’ve been legally required to do, what kind of data they have been (allegedly) forced to divulge about those users, but have been largely forbidden to do.
Google prosecuted the case in response to a “national security letter.” These NSLs, as they’re known, “allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation to demand account information and other data, but not the content of calls and emails,” according to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the redaction slip-up story. “They typically come with a strict gag order, and companies cannot even acknowledge they receive them.”
Once a judge in California ruled the law supporting NSLs was unconstitutional, Google challenged several of the NSLs it had received in court on that basis.
Despite this being not the first but the second instance in which Google’s name was inadvertently released to the public, the company is still forbidden by law to tell users how their information is being used.
Curt Hopkins has over two decades of experience as a journalist, editorial strategist, and social media manager. His work has been published by Ars Technica, Reuters, Los Angeles Times, and San Francisco Chronicle. He is the also founding director of the Committee to Protect Bloggers, the first organization devoted to global free speech rights for bloggers