I still don't understand why Google can't advise the user that the account is suspended for legal reasons and that it has been handed over to the authorities to deal with. Just closing it and go silent, is really not acceptable, as I see it.
In some cases, informing the user of the presence of a subpoena is illegal. These secret subpoenas are typically used in conjunction with the PATRIOT Act, but could be in use elsewhere.
For example, Nicholas Merrill (John Doe, of ACLU v. Ashcroft) was hit with a national security letter that barred him from disclosing anything about the subpoena, even that he had received a subpoena: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Ashcroft.
OK. So are you suggesting that this might have been the case in this situation? I would suggest that unless it is, then the proper reaction from Google would have been to inform the user what was going on. I understand that Google are covering their backs - and I appreciate that they should do that. What I'm saying is that inasmuch that it doesn't pose a risk (in legal terms) for them to keep the user informed, they could be expected to do so.
troels, I completely agree with the sentiment that "inasmuch that it doesn't pose a risk (in legal terms) for them to keep the user informed, they could be expected to do so."
The issue in this case is that with a potential child pornography situation, the legal risks are much different and harsher in all kinds of unexpected ways.
