> Processing warrantless subpoenas costs time and money.
Takes me two seconds to throw out the junk mail in my mailbox. Sometimes I save it as firestarter.
How is a “warrantless subpoena” any different? (Maybe it is, actually asking here).
Takes me two seconds to throw out the junk mail in my mailbox. Sometimes I save it as firestarter.
How is a “warrantless subpoena” any different? (Maybe it is, actually asking here).
Also possible to separate the streams of input. Maybe can’t force it, but having a “warrants” stream that gets priority triage and another for “other” that works a lot slower because it’s mostly garbage. Can create a shit list for those that abuse the “warrants” stream.
I'm not, at least in the extent I've participated in subpoena response and had conversations with an employer's counsel in that connection.
If you're b2c and past a certain point of scale, it just becomes an overhead, a bit of a pain but no big deal. That's if you respond promptly and completely - any company that screws around with something credibly subpoena-shaped is taking a dangerous risk; that's a great way to draw the interest of courts ("contempt of"), and SDNY in particular is known for being quite proddy.
It’s not an “illegal” subpoena, police can try and ask whatever they want, but I’m assuming there’s no penalties for ignoring.
But I asked a question, maybe there are exceptions and you must respond anyway despite lack of warrant.
While there could be reasons considered valid to respond to an informal request (some urgent life/safety matter), the police can and do lie, but are less likely to do so to a judge.
Lived in a building once where management agreed to police installed warrantless spycams in some hallways and told management it was to investigate a car theft ring, but it was some guy (edit:) storing drugs and keeping to themself.
Sadly, I don’t think there’s any kind of post-review of urgent informal requests to assess validity/accuracy of the request with consequences.
Also, like the article explains, it is possibly illegal for them to send this warrantless subpoenas. Further, they are not simply "asking," as you describe - the text of the subpoena starts off "We command you," and ends with the explicit threat of legal action if twitter fails to comply.
Cooperation obtained under false pretences may be fraud.
Privacy laws exist, with exceptions for illegal behavior. It may well be illegal to give data to cops unless you have user permission or a warrant (IANAL).
It's not the cameras that GP is complaining about, it is the lack of warrant.