[crooked-v]

"Administrative subpoenas" have always been bullshit that mostly rely on there being no penalty for companies that hand over user information to anyone with a badge and then justify it with a five-hundred-page TOS document.

[linkregister]

Google, among most other tech companies, deny portions of administrative warrants. Here's a story about someone who was stressed out about their notification by Google (spoiler, Google decided to deny the government's request)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2026/02/03/hom...

edit: It appears that this outcome is an outlier and most admin warrants are honored. It is unfortunate to see the Washington Post decline in reliability like this.

[legitster]

Hence, why I wonder if this is specific their credit/banking products as part of Know Your Customer rules.

[antonvs]

> It is unfortunate to see the Washington Post decline in reliability like this.

In case you haven't been paying attention, Bezos has been all the way up Trump's ass for years now, and this is not in any way a coincidence.

A few highlights:

* The Post's refusal to endorse a presidential candidate in 2024

* The Melania documentary/bribe

* The recent decimation of the Post's staff

[legitster]

There is a case to be made that administrative subpoenas can be good. They save taxpayers money, they speed up investigations, and they free up the court for more important matters.

As with all things though, these agencies should not be self-regulated without civilian and judicial oversight.

[amanaplanacanal]

They seem unconstitutional on their face, to me. Speeding things up because the Constitution makes it too hard is a bad idea.

[ethanwillis]

Save taxpayers money?

I don't think I've ever seen my taxes go down in any tangible way from all the supposed taxpayer saving initiatives over the years.

Somehow we broke the "cheap, fast, good" metric and we don't even get "good" nor "cheap".

I'd prefer good and what i'm paying regardless over some false "savings"