[JumpCrisscross]

> Isn't the line due process of law, though?

For state actions, yes. For private actors, if I suspect someone is using my services to break the law or engage in terrorism, "but your honor, I didn't have a court order confirming they were terrorists" won't cut my liability.

Parler was a free speech question because it was almost purely speech. NSO Group isn't just speaking. It's doing, and it's doing things that will bring liability for people around it.

[Dah00n]

So then the question becomes Did Amazon let police gather evidence before touching anything?

[JumpCrisscross]

> So then the question becomes Did Amazon let police gather evidence before touching anything?

Why does that become the question? If I fire a customer, must I ask the police for permission first?

America isn't a police state. And we don't have general data retention laws. The First Amendment contains both the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly; there is a balance between Parler's freedom to spew rubbish and Amazon's freedom to not assemble with them. With NSO Group, the free speech question is sharply constrained; Amazon's rights are thus stronger.

[Dah00n]

When you changed it. To use your own words, if you "suspect someone is using my services to break the law or engage in terrorism" and you then delete all evidence then you are absolutely tampering with evidence. If AWS was used to DDoS all hospitals in the US and people died, would you see a move by Amazon to delete all trace as just fine and dandy "because the US isn't a police state"? I doubt that. It doesn't matter if it is a small or big crime; knowingly deleting evidence is a crime too.