It looks like a storm in a tea cup. $100k? Seems like a rounding error for the national grid of a country like the UK.
You should read to the end of the sentence. That was only for one 30-minute period.
How do they communicate it? Some of these things need to be communicated rapidly - they can't rely on face-to-face communication.
No, the identity of an informant or the existence of a wiretap do not need to be communicated rapidly. Those are planned and known in advance, so they are discussed in person at the police station. In the rare instance that any kind of information related to those things needs to be sent over the radio, code words would have been picked ahead of time.
If your lawyers didn't consider that at some point you might have to retain records that you routinely destroy because they might end up as part of a discovery process, then your lawyers have failed you.
I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect some better specificity from the judge.
When it comes to writing a contract and privacy policy, it would be unreasonable. The lawyers will, if they aren't incompetent, always add a clause that says the privacy policy does not apply to anything subject to court order.
The judge also seems remarkably casual about invading the privacy of potentially millions of people.
Clearly you've never worked or been involved in litigation. The logs would almost certainly be subject to a protective order, so the only people that will ever see them are the lawyers and the judge. The only exception might be a small number of excerpts that are presented as evidence during trial, and those would still be heavily redacted. And if you're worried about someone leaking anything subject to a protective order, keep in mind that the punishment for doing so is quite harsh.
It seems to me like a blanket warrant, and therefore, violating End users' 4th amendment rights and privacy rights which is Unconstitutional.
It's been established precedent for quite a while now that server logs are the property of the server owner, not the user.
Warrants are supposed to have to be specific and indicate preserving a specific thing or the files of a specific person or place, for example.
This isn't a search warrant, it's a preservation order. It's quite common for a court to order a company to preserve all documents (which includes things like emails and server logs) related to ongoing litigation.
that's not the problem, that's the business plan
:why-not-both:
We all like praise, but a hike in our pay is the best kind of ways.
