ZDNet:

When the authorities send a subpoena to Facebook for your account information, what do they receive? Here is a document showing the pages and pages of data Facebook hands over.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/heres-what-facebook-sends-the-cops-in-response-to-a-subpoena/11528

---

I was going to say something when Tracer76 posted his response--in which he is both correct and incorrect--but for whatever reason I let it pass.

He is correct in that this is not a legal subpoena.  He is likely incorrect in that it is not an authentic demand to produce documents.

It is an "administrative" subpoena.  Which means Facebook could have ignored it.  It is a legal ruse performed by either the prosecutors or police in which they confront someone demanding something hoping they don't look to see if it is signed by a judge.  Legally it is just a request for information made to look like it has the power of law.  If someone complies (they usually do) their ignorance is their problem. 

I am certain Facebook's highly paid lawyers know this.  I am quite certain Facebook is more than happy to cooperate with the authorities rather than inconveniencing them to get a judge (which is so rubber stamp these days that if they can't do it means they have crossed a threshold even an hired magistrate isn't willing to sign off on).

 I have no knowledge about it and will remember this .

it support nz

Unfortunately the times they are a changing.  If you were counting on the 3 branches of government to not unite, if you were counting on any of them to do their sworn (and sole) duty and protect your individual rights it is time to wake up.  It is not the government of any constitution I am aware of that rules.  Ah well, I knew it was only a matter of time.  Good luck to all of you IT admins.  You work for law enforcement now.

We Don’t Need No Stinking Warrant: The Disturbing, Unchecked Rise of the Administrative Subpoena

By David Kravets

Wired

Sept. 28, 2012

When Golden Valley Electric Association of rural Alaska got an administrative subpoena from the Drug Enforcement Administration in December 2010 seeking electricity bill information on three customers, the company did what it usually does with subpoenas — it ignored them.

That’s the association’s customer privacy policy, because administrative subpoenas aren’t approved by a judge.... [continue reading article at this link]

Well the problem somewhat lies in the archaic Communications Storage Act of 1986. I had a custody battle and did a lot of research about it, wanting to use some Facebook evidence. Basically, it's worded as to give direction as to early/mid 1990's message boards. I suppose the law never imagined anything like the current internet collecting information as it has. The many different ways information could be stored extends far beyond old BBS channels.

To an extent, there still is some protection of your privacy due to the DCS. But there is a huge gray area for other people (not companies) to exploit. I'll admit my skepticism against 'big brother' and that if someone has the power to do something...'good morals' won't exactly apply to stop them, especially in positions of power such as government or law enforcement.

It will be a sad day when we lose the internet as we know it. Whether it become channeled like a television, or completely controlled. I believe there will be a digital revolution eventually. Just as the physical revolutions in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and the US back in the 1700's. Right now they are starting to abuse their power. And as that escalates, I imagine people will start protecting themselves more. It's why I have no problem educating people on privacy, encryption, and just general habits to avert social engineering.

This is a very, very informative PDF if you have the interest and the time.

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v24/24HarvJLTech563.pdf

The SCA can be powerful, in both the right and wrong ways, unfortunately.

http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/09/stored_communic_1.htm

Actually I am correct on all accounts and know the laws very well indeed. one you can never place a search warrant based on a false name or address this is against the law, also names like Jane Doe or even John Doe can never be on a Warrant. By Law if both the prosecuting attorney, State Attorney  General, and the Circut cort have to by law list names.

When you see a Fake Warrant such is this seen above, and its quite obvious that it is on all accounts. not showing the real address by law they do have to place this as well. And a warrant shown to the public would be blacked out not showing all information. 

Infact out of hte blue I did find a JPG of one small but yes this is what a real warrant looks like. 

http://www.planebuzz.com/search-warrant-page11.html

Its always 1 page showing who, what, when, and what for. All have to be acculturate by law.  First off the first page is a big warring that this is fake.

"

Dear Sir or Mama,

                        Please be advised our office is conducting a official criminal investigation that the below accounts. 

 "

This is from a county that is no were near California and  legality has to ask the feds to file the subpoena on said accounts not them. With the internet or what is really called INET, the Federal Government has to issue the subpoena not a township, not a state and not a county. So ask your self this why wasn't the feds called in to issue the correct subpoena to said Facebook? At this point it is across state lines.

---

A "warrant" supplied by the authorities to the press or public may (likely) indeed be blacked out.  But a copy of the one supplied by whomever was served or their attorney will not be blacked out anywhere.  It is ludicrous for you to say this is not a authentic government issued document when such documents are served several times a day on IT dept., data centers, ISPs, libraries, etc.  And Facebook.  What is really troubling is these administrative warrants signed by no-one in particular--and certainly not a member of the judicial branch--are perfectly (and still) legal if the government wants to read your e-mails without obtaining a search warrant.  Even when a judge declares the evidence obtained without a warrant a violation of someone's 4th Amendment Rights rather than dismiss under the poisoned fruit doctrine they usually admit the evidence anyway under a good faith doctrine.  Mighty white of them. 

 As I linked above: "Meet the administrative subpoena (.pdf): With a federal official’s signature, banks, hospitals, bookstores, telecommunications companies and even utilities and internet service providers — virtually all businesses — are required to hand over sensitive data on individuals or corporations, as long as a government agent declares the information is relevant to an investigation. Via a wide range of laws, Congress has authorized the government to bypass the Fourth Amendment — the constitutional guard against unreasonable searches and seizures that requires a probable-cause warrant signed by a judge."