Google Handed ICE Student Journalist's Bank and Credit Card Numbers
Google supplied ICE with a student journalist's sensitive data, including bank accounts, in response to an administrative subpoena. The lack of user notification and the nature of 'administrative subpoenas' sparked a fierce debate on corporate responsibility versus government power. This event reignited concerns on Hacker News about digital privacy, government surveillance, and the practical challenges of 'de-Googling' one's life.
The Lowdown
The Intercept reports that Google provided Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with extensive personal and financial data belonging to Amandla Thomas-Johnson, a student activist and journalist, without his prior knowledge. This disclosure, made in response to an administrative subpoena, involved highly sensitive information, including bank and credit card numbers, raising significant concerns about digital privacy and corporate compliance with government demands.
- Thomas-Johnson, a British national, attended a brief protest at Cornell in 2024, leading to a campus ban and subsequent targeting by ICE after executive orders concerning pro-Palestinian student protestors.
- The data handed over by Google included usernames, addresses, service usage (including IP masking), phone numbers, and crucially, credit card and bank account details.
- ICE's subpoena, which included a gag order, provided no specific justification beyond 'enforcement of U.S. immigration laws.' Thomas-Johnson had already fled the U.S. to Geneva and then Dakar.
- Organizations like EFF and ACLU advocate for tech companies to challenge such subpoenas and provide users with notice, emphasizing that Google's lack of notification deprived Thomas-Johnson of the chance to fight the disclosure.
- Legal experts highlight the distinction between judicial warrants and administrative subpoenas, noting that the latter often bypass judicial review and allow agencies like DHS broad power.
- Google's public privacy policy states it pushes back on overly broad requests, yet its transparency report indicates compliance with millions of government requests, with questions remaining about user notification.
- The case underscores the increasing 'friendliness' between Big Tech and government agencies, prompting calls for legal reforms to enhance data privacy and regulate data sharing.
This incident serves as a stark reminder of the power wielded by both tech giants and government agencies, prompting a reevaluation of existing legal frameworks and the extent to which individual digital privacy is protected in an era of pervasive data collection and surveillance.
The Gossip
Administrative Authority vs. Accountable Action
Commenters heavily debated whether Google was legally obligated to hand over the data, distinguishing between judicial warrants and less stringent 'administrative subpoenas' issued by agencies like ICE. Many argued that Google had a moral and potentially legal obligation to resist or at least notify the user, citing instances where other companies have pushed back. Others countered that Google, as a large corporation, is simply complying with legal demands and that the true fault lies with the government's expansive powers, rather than Google's compliance.
De-Googling Dilemmas
A significant portion of the discussion revolved around user agency and the practical challenges of avoiding Google and other major tech platforms. Many expressed frustration at the perceived inevitability of using these services, particularly for work or social connections, while others shared their 'de-Googling' journeys and recommended alternatives. The comments highlighted the tension between privacy concerns and the convenience and ubiquity of Big Tech ecosystems.
Surveillance State Concerns
Commenters expressed broad concerns about government overreach and the erosion of civil liberties, drawing parallels to past surveillance revelations like Snowden's disclosures. The discussion extended to how US-based tech companies are perceived globally, with some commenters unfavorably comparing US surveillance practices to those of countries like China. There was a palpable sense of resignation and anger at the expanding powers of agencies like ICE, particularly concerning their ability to obtain sensitive data without robust judicial oversight.