Has IIPM committed perjury?
Warning: This email has been judicially notarized and has been tagged to validate receipt and response
Be warned, your telephone numbers, physical addresses thereon, login details, network access mechanisms have all been documented, notarized and legally ratified through google and blogspot.com, thus ensuring that any arrest warrants can be served and implemented on you within one day.Now, giving the IIPM blokes the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume that they were telling the truth about the judicial notarisation. However, as a TechMag article by Thejesh GN says, the second statement does not seem very likely. For, as Thejesh notes, Google's privacy statement precludes such a disclosure. Google's privacy statement says they will only release your information if:
Now Google cannot possibly have had Gaurav's and Varna's permission to give their account information to IIPM. Nor could there have been a legal requirement, because a no court would issue the requisite subpoena on such flimsy grounds. And we can be sure that Google did not have a good faith belief that releasing the data was necessary to preserve anyone's rights, property or safety.
· We (Google) have your consent.
Therefore, the IIPM are clearly lying about having obtained Gaurav and Varna's details through Google. So, the question is, isn't lying (and telling verifiable lies, at that) on a judicially notarised email perjury?
(Technorati tag: IIPM)