

Here’s What A Facebook Response To A User Data Subpoena Looks Like - johnr8201
http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/06/heres-what-a-facebook-response-to-a-user-data-subpoena-looks-like/

======
nicpottier
The piece I find most interesting about this is what isn't there.

For example, what pages or friends did the user look at, without posting or
sending messages to?

That there isn't the entire 'browsing' history is either a sign that Facebook
didn't hand over as much as they actually have or that they aren't tracking
it.

My bet would be on the former, so kudos to Facebook?

------
verelo
I guess i need to start doing my online drug deals through a less obvious
source...

I was surprised that there seemed to be no mention of chat transcripts, or no
relationship history. Perhaps these things are not retained centrally?

------
simonw
Aside, but WOW the TechCrunch iPhone version is annoying. It's automatically
paginated in the middle of sentences and (cardinal sin) there's no way to opt
out and get access to the desktop version.

~~~
rdl
tcfast in the "news.yc" style is my favorite.

------
natch
Serious privacy fail, Facebook. You should not provide information on the
friends unless their accounts are also subpoenaed as well (as John/Jane Doe if
necessary). Without that, your response should be redacted so friends are
listed only with non-identifying strings. IANAL, but this is common sense.

~~~
lukeschlather
How so? It sounds like this is a case where the police had a demonstrable need
to find out who he had communicated with, and presumably they also had access
to his cell phone records. I don't see how names are any more worthy of
protection than phone numbers. Especially since the name is really metadata
associated with a Facebook ID, which is exactly like a phone number.

~~~
rhizome
Because fishing expedition, and the law of unintended consequences.

