It’s certainly not altruism, but devil’s advocate: avoidance has been their go-to tactic in working around court-ordered law enforcement cooperation. If they can make it so they don’t have access to the requested data, then they can throw their hands up when subpoenas come and avoid taking sides.
Again, I don’t think it’s altruism. The legal and technical infrastructure required for law enforcement cooperation is an expensive, high-liability mess, and now they have the added risk of a fledgling privacy brand.
It’s not implausible they would delete an app hosting sensitive user data as soon as they suspect they may be forced to hand it over. In fact, what’s more weird to me is that they let it stay up until an official DoJ request.
It’s certainly not altruism, but devil’s advocate: avoidance has been their go-to tactic in working around court-ordered law enforcement cooperation. If they can make it so they don’t have access to the requested data, then they can throw their hands up when subpoenas come and avoid taking sides.
Again, I don’t think it’s altruism. The legal and technical infrastructure required for law enforcement cooperation is an expensive, high-liability mess, and now they have the added risk of a fledgling privacy brand.
It’s not implausible they would delete an app hosting sensitive user data as soon as they suspect they may be forced to hand it over. In fact, what’s more weird to me is that they let it stay up until an official DoJ request.
Edit: nice