this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2026
233 points (99.6% liked)

Technology

81161 readers
5487 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
233
DHS asks tech companies for names, email addresses and phone numbers of accounts that criticize ICE (www.seattletimes.com)
submitted 1 day ago by Beep@lemmus.org to c/technology@lemmy.world
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The Department of Homeland Security is expanding its efforts to identify Americans who oppose Immigration and Customs Enforcement by sending tech companies legal requests for the names, email addresses, telephone numbers and other identifying data behind social media accounts that track or criticize the agency.

In recent months, Google, Reddit, Discord and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, have received hundreds of administrative subpoenas from DHS, according to four government officials and tech employees privy to the requests. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Google, Meta and Reddit complied with some of the requests, the government officials said. In the subpoenas, the department asked the companies for identifying details of accounts that do not have a real person’s name attached and that have criticized ICE or pointed to the locations of ICE agents. The New York Times saw two subpoenas that were sent to Meta over the past six months.

The tech companies, which can choose whether or not to provide the information, have said they review government requests before complying. Some of the companies notified the people whom the government had requested data on and gave them 10 to 14 days to fight the subpoena in court.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Vorticity@lemmy.world 5 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Not that I disbelieve you but, source please?

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 4 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

http://andywibbels.com/privacy-email-cloud/

Back when email was new, server storage was tiny and you downloaded your emails frequently. That's when this law was passed.

Nowadays with gmail etc... no one downloads their emails. They stay on the server forever, and government agencies are free to take them without a warrant.

[–] Vorticity@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours ago

How have I never heard of this? In the digital age the 4th amendment really means nothing...

[–] nirodhaavidya@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Seconded. If true, my paranoia will be justified and prove to be woefully insufficient.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R41733

Section 2702 authorizes voluntary disclosure. Section 2703 speaks to the circumstances under which ECS and RCS providers may be required to disclose communications content and related records. Section 2703 distinguishes between recent communications and those that have been in electronic storage for more than 180 days. The section insists that government entities resort to a search warrant to compel providers to supply the content of wire or electronic communications held in electronic storage for less than 180 days. It permits them to use a warrant, subpoena, or a court order authorized in subsection 2703(d) to force content disclosure with respect to communications held for more than 180 days.

A subsection 2703(d) court order may be issued by a federal magistrate or by a judge qualified to issue an order under Title III.220 It need not be issued in the district in which the provider is located.

The person whose communication is disclosed is entitled to notice, unless the court authorizes delayed notification because contemporaneous notice might have an adverse impact. Government supervisory officials may certify the need for delayed notification in the case of a subpoena. Traditional exigent circumstances and a final general inconvenience justification form the grounds for delayed notification in either case: