[icambron]

It seems like the correct approach is for Facebook to do only what's legally required of it, and nothing more. That would allow society to have a transparent debate about what, exactly, should be required, leaving FB policy out of it.

As I understand it, FB is currently only required to respond to appropriately specific subpoenas and warrants. If the cops want more, they should petition for laws to require that and we can all argue about it like responsible citizens. And we could equally demand more protection.

But this thing where sometimes FB voluntarily sends law enforcement bits of information and sometimes they don't based on poorly defined criteria is just creepy. And why does FB even want this responsibility? Isn't the simplest, most obvious model to say no by default?

[greenyoda]

> "And why does FB even want this responsibility?"

Maybe Facebook wants to cultivate the appearance of being a "safe place", as a precursor to opening its services to younger users? That would certainly be a way of growing their user base.

I agree that whatever the reason they're doing this is, it's misguided and creepy.

[flyinRyan]

Even better would be for them to set up the system in such a way that they couldn't provide this information if they wanted to. They should go as far as moving the actual data to servers that respect human rights and privacy better than the US government does.