On page 8: "On June 6, 2013, the public's already healthy interest in Google's receipt of, and response to, national security legal process skyrocketed."
It appears to me that that this could be a misunderstanding by the journalist. The entire rest of that paragraph is redacted. To my reading, it appears that this could just as easily be a case of "We want to bring to the court's attention the public's desire to have more information about these NSLs, including Google's denial of the scope of NSLs received in reaction to the Guardian article published on June 6th"
So that this would the attorney's way of showing the court that it's not just the redacted company that is affected, but also very public companies like Google.
1 comment
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 15.8 ms ] threadIt appears to me that that this could be a misunderstanding by the journalist. The entire rest of that paragraph is redacted. To my reading, it appears that this could just as easily be a case of "We want to bring to the court's attention the public's desire to have more information about these NSLs, including Google's denial of the scope of NSLs received in reaction to the Guardian article published on June 6th"
So that this would the attorney's way of showing the court that it's not just the redacted company that is affected, but also very public companies like Google.