Apple says it didn't know DOJ was asking for House Democrats' data when it complied with subpoena; Microsoft also received and complied with a similar subpoena
Related coverage also says Apple provided data about Donald F. McGahn II under a separate DOJ subpoena, indicating that the issue extends beyond one set of congressional records to how providers process sealed government demands.
First-order effects
Apple and Microsoft are tied to subpoenas for House Democrats’ data despite Apple saying it lacked knowledge of the targets; Apple’s notification to lawmakers came only after the gag order ended.
House Democrats whose records were sought are left to assess a disclosure that occurred without contemporaneous notice, as described in the earlier report on Apple’s delayed notification.
Second-order effects
Apple and Microsoft face greater pressure to explain what recipient information they receive with sealed subpoenas and how they notify affected users once restrictions lapse.
The DOJ’s use of gagged demands becomes a central part of the privacy debate because providers can comply while being unable to identify targets or alert them publicly.
Third-order effects
If comparable subpoenas continue to be processed this way, privacy commitments by major platforms will be judged not only by data minimization but by the legal visibility they have into government requests.
The pattern points toward a more contested boundary between provider compliance and user notification, with disclosure rules around sealed demands shaping where accountability sits.
The trend: Government data demands are making subpoena transparency and post-gag-order notification a core test of large platforms’ privacy posture.
Apple statement re: Trump DOJ demanding metadata for House Intel members. Apple said the grand jury subpoena had a gag order & gave “no information” about the nature of the investigation & would've been “virtually impossible” to know without digging through users' accounts. https…
A subpoena from a grand jury *when sent to a Telco* will get you subscriber information and text messaging/call metadata. However when sent to a tech company it will not get you this info. Instead you get subscriber ID and recent IP addresses. 2/
Say what? Companies like Apple challenge such requests, but in this case a grand jury and federal judge forced Apple to comply and keep it quiet. Apple says it didn't know Trump's DOJ was asking for Democrats' data when it complied with subpoena https://www.cnbc.com/...
Apple did not realize that data on two Democratic lawmakers was part of a request by the Trump Justice Department. It was handled by a paralegal like a routine request. https://www.nytimes.com/...
We need a full accounting of the Trump DOJ's abuse of power targeting Congress and the press. An IG investigation is just the start. The full range of the misconduct must be examined, including Barr's efforts to protect those who lied to cover up, and go after Trump's enemies.
Also, I understand the legal situation. But imagine being a lawyer and knowing that the White House is spying on the House Intelligence Committee, but being duty bound to keep that secret for three years.
I retweeted this morning, but didn't look like a thread. The quoted thread covers weaponization of the DOJ, Apple's failure and fear of encrypting iCloud and Watergate-style political espionage of opposition: https://twitter.com/...
The Trump DOJ was sifting through the emails and phone calls of Democratic politicians while refusing our legitimate oversight requests. Want government to work better? Congress needs to be able to conduct real oversight. https://www.cnn.com/...