Clearly, the stories in the press have hurt them, especially the police abuse. Requiring case codes is a good step, and proactively catching signs of abuse is a big change from "we're just an unopinionated tool; you should talk to your policy department". They're still passing the buck on educating users on the limitations of their tool. I remain skeptical of any of their claims around data ownership.

Reading these actions, you can pick apart how to circumvent them, and the security audit is still pending — let's see how damning of a report they'll allow to be released.

I dont know why we're not looking at the obvious answer here. Encrypt the data behind warrants and require narrow parameters for the warrants. It will require state-by-state implementation + legal changes sure but it's the safest, simplest solution.

P.S: Anyone know how London has solved this problem?

> More than one-third of our customers have voluntarily adopted Audit Assistance.

Looks like they don't actually give a shit. These safeguards should be the required bare minimum.