It says, in about as many words, "FOAD until our counsel green lights unlocking, potentially before or after some housecleaning".
Correct, Uber's lawyers will be able to review and perhaps fight the warrant in courts. Uber's sysadmins will have time to figure out how to reveal the required data in a clean way that does not compromise the rest of Uber's data which includes but is not limited to data about where private citizens travel from time to time.
>"FOAD until our counsel green lights unlocking
Perfect, yes it does say this. We should all say this. Would you like Google or Facebook or whatever other service you use to reveal your private information if the government does not provide a proper warrant?
>potentially before or after some housecleaning".
Okay, well in this imaginary scenario Uber would be guilty of tampering with evidence and I'm confident Canada has relevant laws.
How or in what way was this warrant deemed to be improper? There was zero consideration of that, instead it was "nuke from orbit" at first sight.
You are suggesting that the authorities should always be granted arbitrary access to a random amount of data, which is almost certainly not relevant to their case, any time they get a warrant for any data at all.
Further, you are acting as if that article is the end of the story, but it's not. There will be legal review by relevant professionals and Uber will provide whatever it is legally required to provide.
Locking down the computers until Uber's lawyers have had a chance to verify what the warrant covers and what access the investigators are entitled to seems like a fairly prudent security measure.
If somebody showed up at your office with a piece of paper saying they were allowed access to everything on your computer, would you unquestioningly give them that access? Personally, I'd hope any services that I trust my data to wouldn't give up access without some verification that it's a legitimate request.