In September 2024, Amandla Thomas-Johnson, then a Ph.D. candidate in the U.S. on a student visa, briefly attended a pro-Palestinian protest. By April 2025, **ICE** had sent **Google** an administrative subpoena requesting his data. The following month, Google handed over Thomas-Johnson's information to ICE, allegedly breaking a nearly decade-long promise to notify users before sharing their data with law enforcement. ### EFF Demands Investigation The **Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)** has filed complaints with the California and New York Attorneys General, calling for an investigation into **Google** for deceptive trade practices. The EFF argues that Google broke its promise to notify users before handing over their data to law enforcement. ### Thomas-Johnson's Experience Amandla Thomas-Johnson recounts his experience with U.S. immigration authorities, stating that he believed his ordeal was over when he left the country for Canada. However, weeks later, while in Geneva, Switzerland, he received an email from Google informing him that his account data had already been handed over to the Department of Homeland Security. Thomas-Johnson notes that he had expected to receive advance notice, similar to an associate who was given the opportunity to challenge subpoenas before data was disclosed. However, in his case, Google had already disclosed his data without any prior warning or opportunity to contest it. ### Google's Broken Promise According to Thomas-Johnson, **Google**'s own policies state that it will notify users before their data is handed over in response to legal processes, including administrative subpoenas. This notification is intended to provide users with a chance to challenge the request. In his case, this safeguard was bypassed, and his data was handed over without warning at the request of an administration targeting students engaged in protected political speech. The subpoena, obtained later by his lawyer at the **Electronic Frontier Foundation**, focused on subscriber information such as IP addresses, physical addresses, and session times. While seemingly innocuous, Thomas-Johnson argues that these fragments can form a detailed and invasive surveillance profile, revealing location, living arrangements, and communication patterns. ### State Power and Private Data Thomas-Johnson's experience highlights the potential for law enforcement to target individuals and the role technology companies play in facilitating these investigations through their massive data stores. He emphasizes the combination of state power, corporate data, and algorithmic inference, which can be difficult to detect and challenge. The consequences of this experience are not abstract, as Thomas-Johnson expresses concerns about potential scrutiny, travel safety, and accountability.