Government Information Requests
Summary
WordPress.com routinely receives requests for information about our users from government agencies around the world. In emergency cases, when permitted by law, we may voluntarily disclose limited user data. In all other cases, we do not voluntarily grant government agencies access to user data for law enforcement, intelligence, or surveillance purposes. We will only disclose user information in response to valid legal process, issued by a U.S. authority. The scope of user information disclosed is dependent on the type of legal process received. For more information on our requirements for information requests, please see our legal guidelines.
Evaluating Government Information Requests
We will disclose user information only in response to valid legal process such as a subpoena, search warrant, or court order issued by a U.S. authority, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and/or California state law.
We carefully review all legal process we receive to ensure it is complete and valid. We are unable to process overly broad or vague requests for information. The request must specifically include identifying information such as the relevant URL, email address, or username at issue. For more information on our requirements for information requests and what data may be disclosed, please refer to our legal guidelines.
Additionally, if a request or inquiry highlights a potential violation of our policies or Terms of Service, we will review it in accordance with our standard enforcement procedures.
Emergency Requests
As permitted by US law, we may voluntarily disclose user information to government or law enforcement agencies if we have a good faith belief that there is an emergency involving imminent danger of death or serious physical injury which requires disclosure of information related to the emergency without delay.
For detailed information about emergency requests, and how an emergency request can be submitted, please refer to our legal guidelines.
User notification
It is our policy to notify users, and provide them with a copy of any legal requests regarding their account or site (including formal requests for private information), unless we are prohibited by law or a court order from doing so.
You can learn more about our policies and procedures for handling government, and private information requests in our legal guidelines.
| Country | Number of requests | Percentage of requests where some or all information was produced | Number of sites specified |
|---|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 1 | 0% | 1 |
| Austria | 1 | 0% | 1 |
| Brazil | 3 | 0% | 3 |
| Costa Rica | 1 | 0% | 1 |
| France | 10 | 0% | 11 |
| Germany | 11 | 0% | 13 |
| Greece | 1 | 0% | 1 |
| India | 4 | 0% | 5 |
| Israel | 2 | 0% | 2 |
| Italy | 2 | 0% | 2 |
| Pakistan | 2 | 0% | 2 |
| Spain | 1 | 0% | 1 |
| Sweden | 1 | 0% | 1 |
| United States | 30 | 90% | 36 |
| Total | 70 | 39% | 80 |
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.
France
- Law enforcement requested information about a site owner for allegedly engaging in public defamation and public insults.
Germany
- Law enforcement made several requests for information about various site owners for posting allegedly defamatory content.
- Law enforcement requested information about a site owner who posted “symbols and unconstitutional organizations that are forbidden in Germany.”
India
- The government’s Ministry of Communications and Information Technology’s Department of Information Technology’s Computer Emergency Response Team needed user information to investigate a “cyber incident” that have “a bearing on National Security.”
Italy
- Law enforcement requested user information for an investigation of copyright infringement.
Pakistan
- The government’s National Response Centre for Cyber Crimes’ Federal Investigation Agency requested user information for allegedly damaging someone’s “family’s repute in society and using [the site] for wrongful gains.”
Government Takedown Demands
Summary
WordPress.com routinely receives content removal requests from governments and law enforcement agencies worldwide. These requests may allege that the reported content is in violation of local law(s), or the agency may ask us to review the reported content against WordPress.com policies or Terms of Service. The Transparency Report contains data on all government agency removal requests for each 6 month period.
Evaluating Government Takedown Requests
We carefully review all government takedown requests, and are unable to process overly broad or vague requests. Court orders must be submitted in accordance with our legal guidelines, and takedown requests must clearly identify the content in question.
We first review any reported content in accordance with our policies or Terms of Service. The percentage of requests where content was removed does not include cases where content was removed for violating our policies or Terms of Service.
We do not remove reported content if it does not violate our policies or Terms of Service, however we may restrict content where it is alleged to be in violation of local law(s). See the Content Restrictions section below for more information.
Content Restrictions
When we receive a government-mandated demand or order to block access to content in a country due to alleged violation of local law(s), but the content does not breach WordPress.com policies or Terms of Service, we may geographically restrict access to that content for users and visitors with IP addresses originating from that country. For more details about takedown demands that result in geoblocking, see our country blocks page.
Where content has been geographically restricted, we provide users of the affected URL or site with a notification that the content has been restricted, the impacted country, and the authority that requested the content block.
| Country | Court orders | Requests from government agencies or law enforcement | Percentage of requests where content was removed | Number of sites specified |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 0 | 1 | 0% | 1 |
| Brazil | 0 | 2 | 0% | 2 |
| Colombia | 0 | 1 | 0% | 2 |
| France | 0 | 7 | 0% | 7 |
| Georgia | 0 | 1 | 0% | 2 |
| Germany | 1 | 7 | 0% | 10 |
| India | 0 | 4 | 0% | 7 |
| Israel | 0 | 3 | 0% | 4 |
| Russia | 0 | 73 | 40% | 68 |
| Turkey | 122 | 1 | 0% | 132 |
| United Kingdom | 0 | 8 | 0% | 8 |
| Total | 123 | 108 | 13% | 243 |
Recent Examples
Here are a few recent examples of takedown demands that we received:
India
- Law enforcement requested removal of a site that contained objectionable pictures taken of and posted without a woman’s consent by her ex-husband.
- The government requested the removal of four posts that had the “potential to incite communal hatred.”
Israel
- The government requested the removal of content that violated Israeli law “in matters of slandering a public official, disrespect of the law system and courts, and injuring severely the right for privacy.”
Russia
- We received 73 orders from the Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Telecom, Information Technologies and Mass Communications (Roskomnadzor) for content that was deemed to be in violation of Russian Federal Law 139.
Turkey
- The Telecommunication and Communication Presidency ordered the ban of a site that criticized a terrorist organization under Article 8/A of the Law No. 5651. Article 8/A entitles them to make these decisions in situations requiring protection of national security and public order, prevention of crime, protection of general health upon the request of the relevant Ministries.
- A court ordered the banning of two posts that allegedly violated the personal rights of the president and his wife. Neither post named the person(s) being criticized.
- A court ordered the banning of post related to a lost chief village guard who disappeared after being called from the police station. The post alleges that a specific person and other military personnel are responsible from the disappearance of the chief village guard.
Intellectual Property
Copyright
Our staff carefully reviews each DMCA takedown notice we receive, for accuracy and validity, before content is removed. Each notice may cover more than one site and/or piece of content. Some notices identify dozens of allegedly infringing materials. In the future, we’ll aim to provide more specific data on the number of sites affected and items removed.
We forward formally complete DMCA takedown notices to users, regardless of whether or not we decide to remove content.
You can learn more about our process for reviewing and acting on copyright complaints here, and about how to correctly submit a DMCA complaint or counter notice here.
| Month | Total notices received | Percentage of notices where some or all content was removed | Percentage of notices rejected as incomplete | Percentage of notices rejected as abusive | Counter notices received |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| July | 559 | 58% | 30% | 13% | 1 |
| August | 592 | 58% | 33% | 9% | 5 |
| September | 666 | 56% | 34% | 11% | 3 |
| October | 680 | 51% | 41% | 8% | 3 |
| November | 541 | 54% | 33% | 13% | 2 |
| December | 416 | 57% | 29% | 13% | 4 |
| Total | 3,454 | 55% | 34% | 11% | 18 |
Notes
- The table above indicates the number of copyright infringement notices we received during each month of the reporting period. Each notice may cover more than one site and/or piece of content. Some notices identify dozens of allegedly infringing materials. In the future, we’ll aim to provide more specific data on the number of sites affected and items removed, as those numbers are substantially greater and more accurately represent the impact of DMCA notices than the number of individual notices received.
- The “percentage of notices where some or all content was removed” includes those notices which were formally complete, but the site was suspended for a separate violation of the WordPress.com Terms of Service (spam or warez sites, for example). If we instead counted these as rejected notices, the “percentage of notices where some or all content was removed” would be 42%.
- We carefully review each notice to ensure it’s formally complete, and includes all information required by the DMCA, before taking action. Notices that don’t meet the requirements of the statute are included in “notices rejected as incomplete.”
- We also may decline to remove content if a notice is abusive. “Abusive” notices may be formally complete, but are directed at fair use of content, material that isn’t copyrightable, or content the complaining party misrepresents ownership of a copyright. You can see some examples of notices we’ve rejected on grounds of abuse in our Hall of Shame.
- We forward all formally complete notices to users, regardless of whether we process them.
- Under the DMCA, a user can formally challenge a notice of copyright infringement by submitting a counter notice. When we receive a counter notice, we forward a copy to the individual who submitted the original DMCA notice and restore access to the content if no further action is taken. During this reporting period, 0.94% of valid DMCA notices we received were later subject to a counter notice; of those cases, we’re aware of further action being taken by the original DMCA complainant only once. (We edited this note to adjust the figure for more accuracy, and to reflect that the DMCA notices were valid.)
Top Complainants (Jul – Dec 2015)
| Reporting Organizations | Number of Notices |
|---|---|
| Internet Securities | 162 |
| CEG TEK | 89 |
| Attributor | 79 |
| Guru99 | 79 |
| Cameron Krone | 75 |
| Remove Your Media | 58 |
| Web Capio | 51 |
| RightsGuardian | 51 |
| DMCA Force | 48 |
| PetBirds.gr | 36 |
Notes
The numbers above represent the total notices submitted by different organizations over the relevant period. These are grouped by the complainant’s e-mail address, and so the total number of notices submitted per copyright holder may be greater than shown above if multiple e-mail addresses were used for the submissions. The notices may be on behalf of a number of different copyright holders utilizing a shared third party agent, and relate to a number of different websites.
Trademark
Our staff carefully reviews each trademark complaint we receive, for accuracy and validity, before content is removed. Each notice may cover more than one site and/or piece of content. Some notices identify dozens of allegedly infringing materials. In the future, we’ll aim to provide more specific data on the number of sites affected and items removed.
We forward substantive trademark complaints to users, regardless of whether or not we decide to remove content.
You can learn more about how to correctly submit a trademark complaint here.
| Month | Number of notices received | Number of notices where some or all content was removed | Percentage of requests where some or all content was removed |
|---|---|---|---|
| July | 24 | 5 | 21% |
| August | 18 | 3 | 17% |
| September | 17 | 1 | 6% |
| October | 25 | 2 | 8% |
| November | 23 | 4 | 17% |
| December | 16 | 2 | 13% |
| Total | 123 | 17 | 14% |
Notes
- Unlike the DMCA for copyright infringement, there isn’t a statutory prescribed process for notice/take-down of alleged trademark infringement, nor is there a statutory safe harbor for hosting alleged TM infringement.
- For each report of trademark infringement we receive, we evaluate whether or not the trademark is used in an infringing manner.
- Simply referencing a company, brand, product, or service in a WordPress.com post does not constitute infringement. Anyone is free to use a trademark if it’s necessary to identify a company, brand or product for the purposes of criticism or commentary.
- Most of the infringement allegations we see are from trademark owners attempting to censor a user’s comments or criticisms of their brands or companies. We reject these complaints and forward them on to users so that they can make fully informed decisions regarding the content.
- “Percentage of requests where some or all content was removed” does not include cases where content was removed for violating our Terms of Service. For example, after viewing the site, we may remove it for reasons relating to spam regardless of the validity of the trademark claim.
National Security
The table below summarizes the National Security Requests we received during the six-month periods between January 1, 2010 – Dec 31, 2015. “National Security Requests” include National Security Letters and FISA court orders.
| Six-month period | National Security Requests received | User accounts affected |
|---|---|---|
| 2015: Jul 1 – Dec 31 | None. | None. |
| 2015: Jan 1 – Jun 30 | None. | None. |
| 2014: Jul 1 – Dec 31 | None. | None. |
| 2014: Jan 1 – Jun 30 | None. | None. |
| 2013: Jul 1 – Dec 31 | None. | None. |
| 2013: Jan 1 – Jun 30 | 1-249 | 5-249 |
| 2012: Jul 1 – Dec 31 | 2-249 | 9-249 |
| 2012: Jan 1 – Jun 30 | None. | None. |
| 2011: Jul 1 – Dec 31 | None. | None. |
| 2011: Jan 1 – Jun 30 | None. | None. |
| 2010: Jul 1 – Dec 31 | None. | None. |
| 2010: Jan 1 – Jun 30 | 2-249 | 2-249 |
We are pleased to report that we received no National Security Requests in 2011 and 2014–2015.
For other periods, we don’t think the disclosures allowed by current Justice Department rules allow us to paint a truthful picture. Reporting National Security Requests in bands of 250 obfuscates rather than clarifies the volume of National Security Requests we and other small tech companies receive. While the disclosure regime may work well for larger companies with a high volume of requests (like the ones that worked with the Justice Department to craft these rules), they do not work well for smaller companies like Automattic.
By preventing us from sharing a more precise number of requests, the current disclosure rules diminish the trust that our users place in us and our services. For now, we are disclosing the maximum amount of information allowed by law.
It is our policy to invoke the “reciprocal notice” procedure in 18 U.S.C. § 3511 for any National Security Letters (NSLs) served on Automattic. This process ensures that a court will review all nondisclosure restrictions issued with NSLs we may receive. If and when a nondisclosure restriction is lifted, our policy is to share the contents of the NSL with any affected users (where possible), and publish a redacted version of the NSL.
Based on our correspondence with the U.S. government, we’ve developed a form reciprocal notice request here in Google Docs format. If your company has received an NSL in the past, and you would like the government to review the letter’s nondisclosure requirement, this form may be useful to you.
Automattic Transparency Reports 