You're being watched online. Google and Twitter report growing trend in Government requests for your data.

 

 
Google has just reported in its "transparency report" that Government requests for user data is growing dramatically.

In the first half of 2012, there were nearly 21,000 requests regarding 35,000 accounts. In 2009 it was 12,500.

There were 1,791 Government requests to remove data too this year which removed nearly 18,000 pieces of content. Google also claims to receive "falsified court orders" which they do not comply with although I'm not entirely sure what it means.

You can see it here  http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/

Twitter and Dropbox are also reporting a similar trend in Government requests. Twitter have said they comply with 63% of Government requests although in 2012, that amounted to 1,181 accounts, the vast majority inside the US. And they do inform users of these requests unless prohibited by law.

However, Twitters Government requests already in 2012 are more than the total for 2011. It has deleted more than 5,000 tweets because of "copyright" issues alone which could mask that details (such as reports) are being circulated freely and they could be removed because of "copyright". In other words, if you have a Government document, they can stop it being circulated using this method.

One topical example is that of an 'Occupy Wall Street' protester where a US judge has ordered Twitter to hand over his (Malcolm Harris) details. Which raises the matter of privacy.

It would seem that Governments are using Social Media as a monitor. In order to make these requests, they need to be watching. But it's inherently wrong that Google and Twitter should roll-over so easily.

Other publishers would generally rather go to prison than reveal their source. Whilst there is an argument in cases of say, rape or abuse, with which we all would agree that disclosure is useful, it does however, represent the thin edge of the wedge.

If you allow access to those cases, you have to allow it in all - such as the case of the Occupy Wall Street protester which is political, rather than legal. You restrict the freedom of speech which may be unpalatable to a Government and we know the role that Social Media has played in revolutions, positively.

It's either one or the other.
Comply with access or not.

By complying, it has opened a door for Government to watch you.

And that's not good politically, certainly. 

As was said once, I don't like you, I don't agree with what you're saying but I'll fight to death for your right to say it.