| Country | Number of requests | Percentage of requests where some or all information was produced | Number of accounts specified |
|---|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 3 | 0% | 5 |
| Austria | 2 | 0% | 2 |
| Bangladesh | 1 | 0% | 1 |
| Belgium | 1 | 0% | 1 |
| Brazil | 2 | 0% | 2 |
| China | 1 | 0% | 1 |
| France | 2 | 0% | 22 |
| Germany | 3 | 0% | 3 |
| India | 12 | 0% | 14 |
| Italy | 1 | 0% | 1 |
| Japan | 1 | 0% | 1 |
| Macedonia | 1 | 0% | 1 |
| Spain | 1 | 0% | 1 |
| Sri Lanka | 1 | 0% | 1 |
| United States | 45 | 87% | 70 |
| Total | 77 | 51% | 126 |
**Includes information provided when a valid MLAT request has been made.
| Subpoenas | Court orders | Search warrants | Wiretap orders | Pen Register orders | Emergency requests |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 71% | 18% | 9% | 0% | 0% | 2% |
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.
Spain
- A police department in Spain provided a court order requesting detailed information for a site due to the “disclosure of information about public officials and insults.” No valid legal process was provided.
Italy
- A police department in Italy requested detailed information for a site in order to identify the “site administrator’s connections.” They provided no additional explanation and no valid legal process.
China
- A police department in China requested detailed information for a site they believed to be the original source of content that was subsequently disseminated elsewhere online. The reason for their request was “for the purpose of prevention & detection of crime.” No valid legal process was provided.
Transparency Report 