> I would argue the issue here is that such a warrant was granted in the first place.
I agree that the warrant itself is a huge problem, but I think there's another significant issue here. Google may have just been complying with the law, but that doesn't meant they had to be quiet about it. Unless they had a gag order, they should have publicly stated that the US government was compelling them to hand over search records.
From the article:
> Google declined to disclose how many keyword warrants it's received in the last three years.
They did not say anything about a gag order and, given Google's track record on privacy, I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt here.
Path of least risk and resistance is for them to declare it internally to be kept quiet. An army of internal counsel would be telling everyone in the room to keep their mouth shut to prevent everything from PR issues to actual legal threats. They don't even need a gag order, they'll do it willingly.
I agree that the warrant itself is a huge problem, but I think there's another significant issue here. Google may have just been complying with the law, but that doesn't meant they had to be quiet about it. Unless they had a gag order, they should have publicly stated that the US government was compelling them to hand over search records.
From the article:
> Google declined to disclose how many keyword warrants it's received in the last three years.
They did not say anything about a gag order and, given Google's track record on privacy, I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt here.