Google Gives In To Uncle Sam, Stops Challenging US Warrants

Over the last few years, Google has made a showing of its resistance to the US government’s efforts to invade the privacy of its consumers. The company has even challenged warrants on several occasions. Now, however, it would seem that the tech firm has finally given in and has quietly resigned itself to the full probing of the US government.

The biggest point that Google and the government often contest is the matter of providing data stored in overseas servers to law enforcement agencies. In a new Supreme Court filing, however, it seems Uncle Sam has finally won this battle, Ars Technica reports.

According to the document, Google has finally agreed to be more cooperative in complying with warrants served. This comes on the heels of the Trump administration pressuring the justice branch to declare that warrants served to the tech sector also applies to overseas servers.

As far as access to servers and security is concerned, the biggest companies standing up to the government have been Apple, Microsoft, and Google. In recent months, however, the challenges by tech companies have been rejected by courts one by one. The most recent instance involves Google being found in contempt of court for defying a judge’s order and protecting its overseas data beyond all else.

In the Supreme Court filing detailing Google’s surrender to the government, the Justice Department noted exactly how much cooperation it will get from the tech firm from now on. The Supreme Court has made no comments regarding the matter.

“Google has reversed its previous stance and informed the government that it will comply with new Section 2703 warrants outside the 2nd Circuit (while suggesting that it will appeal the adverse decisions in one or more existing cases). Consequently, the government's ability to use Section 2703 warrants to obtain communications stored abroad—which may contain evidence critical to criminal or national-security investigations—now varies depending on the jurisdiction and the identity of the provider,” the court document reads.