During the period of January 2011 to July 2011, Google reports that they received a request from a local United States law enforcement agency. The agency wanted Google to take down certain YouTube videos that depicted police brutality. Google says that they refused to remove the videos in question.

On a separate occasion, another law enforcement agency made multiple requests that Google remove videos “allegedly defaming law enforcement officials.” They also refused to remove the content, which they file under “defamation requests.”

Overall in the U.S., the number of requests to remove content from Google services increased by 70% when compared to the last period (July to December 2010).

Across the world, content removal requests increased in places like India, Poland, and the UK. The United Kingdom saw an increase in these requests comparable to what was seen in the United States (71%).

According to the raw data, U.S. governmental agencies filed the 3rd most requests for content removal with 92. This is behind Brazil (224) and Germany (125). Those 92 requests contained 757 actual items to be removed. Google complied with 63% of those requests.

On another front, user data requests increased by 29% from the last reporting period (in the U.S.). The United States had the most data requests and among those requests, the most users/accounts specified of any country on the report.

From January 2011 to June 2011, Google received 5,950 user data requests the encompassed 11,057 different users. Since Google just began disclosing the compliance rate of these requests, we now know that Google is handing over the data with relative certainty when it comes to us in the United States. During that period, Google complied with 93% of those 5,950 user data requests.

That was the highest compliance rate of any country listed in the report. On the flip side, Google received 42 user data requests from Russia and complied with exactly 0% of them.

Of course, the fact that Google refused to yank videos of police brutality and ones with so-called “defamatory content” is a big deal. Videos of police brutality have been talked about a lot lately, as many have emerged from the #OccupyWallStreet movements and become viral hits on YouTube.

Does anything surprise you about this transparency report? Let us know in the comments.

The MORIS case from BI2 Technologies is an iPhone add-on that allows police officers to take a quick photo with the device’s camera and cross-check criminal records databases to find a matching entry. And that’s not all it does. According to the Wall Street Journal –

With the device, which attaches to an iPhone, an officer can snap a picture of a face from up to five feet away, or scan a person’s irises from up to six inches away, and do an immediate search to see if there is a match with a database of people with criminal records

The gadget also collects fingerprints. Until recently, this type of portable technology has mostly been limited to military uses, for instance to identify possible insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan.

As soon as September of this year, over 1,000 MORIS units are expected to arrive at over 40 different police organizations across the country.

They are about $3,000 a pop and will be available for Android OS in the future.

How will various police departments use the new MORIS device? Simply, identification. If officers arrest an individual for a crime, they can use the MORIS to quickly determine the suspect’s actual I.D. and criminal history.

Or, if police want to identify someone who isn’t carrying a valid photo I.D., viola!

Of course, this is bound to raise serious concerns about privacy and constitutional rights. Would the snapping of a photo for use on the MORIS constitute an illegal search if it was done without a warrant and without resonable suspicion? If not, how about the iris scan? Under what circumstances will officers be able to force compliance with that measure?

On the flip side, this tool could be wonderful for law-enforcement. Just imagine how many people are dishonest about their identity to police. What about wanted criminals who attempt to change their appearance to avoid capture? On site eye-scans would be a great tool in uncovering their deception.

Here’s a video of the device in action –

What do you think about the new tech? Let us know in the comments.

That’s one (relatively simplistic) way that Facebook can aid in law enforcement. Want to know the other way?

The way that doesn’t involve drunk hockey hooligans has to do with U.S. agencies, federal judges, warrants and something called a “neoprint.” According to Reuters, Federal agencies are relying more and more on data collected from Facebook to aid in their law-enforcement operations.

In the past few years, there has been an increase in warrants granted by Federal judges to agencies like the FBI, DEA and ICE to conduct “Facebook searches” of people’s social data.

What kind of juicy information can Facebook provide to the FBI? Just your private messages, statuses, event calendars, photos, wall posts and even rejected friend requests. Manuals exist for law-enforcement agencies to learn the proper way to request such information from Facebook, assuming a warrant has been issued. The terms that describe these sets of user data are called “Neoprints” and “Photoprints” according to Reuters.

Basically those are detailed packets of user info, containing everything that I outlined above and more.

Reuters reviewed the Westlaw legal database and determined that since 2008, at least a couple dozen warrants have been granted to get a specific user’s information from Facebook. And in 2011, at least 11 warrants have already been authorized, double the amount that were authorized last year. That means that the practice may be becoming more popular within the law-enforcement community (at least at a federal level).

And even more interesting perhaps than the info-grabbing itself is the fact that the people whose info is being grabbed are not being notified by Facebook.

From Reuters –

None of the warrants discovered in the review have been challenged on the grounds that it violated a person’s Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure, according to a review of the cases.

Some constitutional-law experts said the Facebook searches may not have been challenged because the defendants – not to mention their “friends” or others whose pages might have been viewed as part of an investigation — never knew about them.

By law, neither Facebook nor the government is obliged to inform a user when an account is subject to a search by law enforcement, though prosecutors are required to disclose material evidence to a defendant.

Basically this all boils down to a privacy issue, involving the Fourth Amendment protection against illegal searches and seizures. Do these warrants violate that right in some way?

A 1970′s Supreme Court ruling determined that third parties need not notify people when they turn over records to federal agencies. That case was The United States v. Miller and it involved a bank as the third party and the ATF as the federal agency.

But now social media is the third party, and that opens up a whole new can of constitutional worms. Given, none of this should be too shocking to anyone. We’ve known for quite some time that if complete privacy is something you treasure, Facebook is probably not the thing for you.

What do you think about this issue of privacy? Should law-enforcement be able to “search” Facebook like they can search your place of residence with a warrant? Let us know how you feel.

Mills is a member of the Toronto Police Service, and wrote, "For the last two years, I have used my Facebook account, as well as Facebook groups, events and Pages, to inform Toronto residents about crimes in their area and encourage them to provide anonymous tips.  Messages can be broadcast quickly and easily to wide audiences with immediate feedback."

More specifically, he then continued, "Outreach through Facebook has helped Toronto Crime Stoppers sniff out threats against local schools, bring much needed help to people at risk of committing suicide, warn the public about criminals on the loose and even locate missing persons."

It’s possible to use Facebook to pal around, too, of course, and it’s come in handy with several community get-together-type efforts.

Anyway, Mills supports the idea of police departments using social networks even more in the future, and believes that many of them are on that path.

Google’s Marc Crandall recently posted an item at the official Google blog about Google’s participation in the 6th Annual Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) National Conference in San Jose. Crandall briefly described that participation:

My conference session, entitled “Google: Combating the Online Exploitation of Children,” gave the attendees an overview of our products and tips for law enforcement agencies on how to work effectively with Google on child exploitation investigations.

Cooperating effectively helps law enforcement build an effective chain of evidence to present to prosecutors when a suspect has been identified. Having the search engine and law enforcement on the same page helps the evidence gathering process move quickly when it is needed most.