Airbnb Law Enforcement Transparency Report

http://transparency.airbnb.com/

by rezist808 • 10 years ago

75 36 10 years ago

transparency.airbnb.com

wonder_er• 10 years ago

This is a helpful report. I'm always curious to know the number of requests, at least to the right order of magnitude.

dopamean• 10 years ago

I have no idea what to do with or how to feel about this information. I'm sure plenty here will sooo... someone care to draw some conclusions?

joshmn• 10 years ago

Well, for starters, it sure looks like France has some problems.

Or it's the same group/people/individual hitting the same place again and again.

tmcpro• 10 years ago

(in the case of certain types of national security-related requests in the United States like national security letters) from publicly acknowledging receiving it, such as in a transparency report like this one. (To date, we have not received a national security letter or other similar request that would limit our ability to disclose it here)

They have included a warrant canary

tswartz• 10 years ago

I like that they've done this. Are there examples of companies that have done this and users or the media noticed when they removed it?

unimpressive• 10 years ago

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/reddit-removes-wa...

pseudometa• 10 years ago

Reddit did.

https://m.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/4ct1kz/reddit_dele...

mikeryan• 10 years ago

Apple - https://gigaom.com/2014/09/18/apples-warrant-canary-disappea...

nstj• 10 years ago

Just discovered that the original warrant canary (2005) was purportedly created by a librarian, being a sign in her library reading: “The FBI has not been here (watch very closely for the removal of this sign).”[0]

[0] http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v28/28HarvJLTech525...

SOLAR_FIELDS• 10 years ago

Why does everyone make such a huge deal about a warrant canary when LE is clearly aware of them and a true gag order would obviously preclude you from removing any such canaries?

enave• 10 years ago

I'm surprised the government hasn't just sent a banal request to everyone along the lines of, "you are required to disclose every known space alien who uses your service and you are prohibited from disclosing this order."

Every service then has to kill its canary.

williamscales• 10 years ago

Probably because a warrant canary would never hold up in court and they just don't care.

ikeboy• 10 years ago

There would be no legal basis for such a prohibition, as there's no plausible national security endangerment were the request to be revealed.

dimino2• 10 years ago

Warrant canaries make zero sense, the court would simply require you keep your warrant canary as part of its order.

philsnow• 10 years ago

From what I understand, the way canaries are supposed to work is, you keep publishing a document every day / week / whatever, that includes a phrase like "Today is 2016-09-02, and we have not received any national security letters or gag orders".

When you receive an NSL, you either publish a document including the phrase "Today is 2016-09-03." or else simply stop publishing that document and leave the one with the old date up, and let people draw their own conclusions.

Under this scheme, the court would have to compel speech on your part (force you to publish a new canary), but there's some precedent that might indicate that you can tell them to stuff it.

spocklivelong• 10 years ago

I'm kinda intrigued why there are `74` affected accounts (higher than any other country) for a single submission in India.

lazaroclapp• 10 years ago

Probably something of the form "all persons that have stayed at $property during $time"?

DINKDINK2• 10 years ago

In the report, they call the ratio of "Requests For Which At Least Some User Data Was Disclosed" to the "Total Requests" the "Compliance Rate". In this report it's 43.6% which implies that Airbnb is "out of compliance" with 56.4% of requests.

I wouldn't call that ratio the compliance rate because it a rejected request may be very justified from the standpoint of the business / customers privacy. "Disclosure ratio" seems like a more apt term.

nitrogen• 10 years ago

If you interpret "compliance" as the noun form of the verb "to comply", it makes more sense. Compliant behavior, that is, "compliance", is not always positive.

DINKDINK2• 10 years ago

I suppose it depends on what legal weight there is around the request. Depending on the legal situation, if a company is "out of compliance" they may be fined etc.

dan-silver• 10 years ago

Is there a formal requirement for an emergency request?

Airbnb Law Enforcement Transparency Report

Related Stories