Country | Number of requests | Percentage of requests where some or all information was produced | Number of sites specified |
---|---|---|---|
Andorra | 1 | 0% | 1 |
Argentina | 1 | 0% | 1 |
Austria | 4 | 0% | 4 |
Bangladesh | 1 | 0% | 1 |
Brazil | 2 | 0% | 1 |
Bulgaria | 1 | 0% | 1 |
Colombia | 1 | 0% | 1 |
France | 2 | 0% | 2 |
Germany | 9 | 0% | 9 |
India | 20 | 0% | 19 |
Italy | 3 | 0% | 3 |
Lebanon | 1 | 0% | 1 |
Malaysia | 1 | 0% | 1 |
Pakistan | 1 | 0% | 1 |
Portugal | 1 | 0% | 1 |
Slovakia | 1 | 0% | 1 |
South Africa | 1 | 0% | 1 |
Spain | 1 | 0% | 1 |
Sweden | 1 | 0% | 1 |
Taiwan | 1 | 0% | 6 |
Turkey | 1 | 0% | 1 |
United Kingdom | 2 | 0% | 2 |
United States | 45* | 96% | 61 |
Total | 102 | 42% | 121 |
Recent Examples
Here are a few recent examples of requests for user information that we received from government sources. We did not provide information in response to any of these requests.
Brazil
- A police officer requested information in order to identify a user whose site allegedly caused “damage to images of political and governmental authorities in [the] state.”
Germany
- Cybercrime police requested user information relating to an investigation involving the apparent distribution of “incriminated contents via e-mail.”
- A police department requested user information and asked that we keep the request confidential, but they did not provide any valid legal process or sufficient reasoning to justify the confidentiality.
India
- Law enforcement requested user information related to multiple sites which they say published defamatory content “with the purpose to create unrest and breach of peace.”
Slovakia
- A police officer requested user information as part of an investigation into an alleged “offense against civic coexistence.”