Bit of an issue with the statement...
Stanton said the huge number of requests arose not because of Section 313, which limited the warrantless supply of data to 20 agencies, but Section 280, which allowed other bodies to request data under various kinds of court orders.
That section, he said, "places carriers in a difficult position. When a council in Tasmania says 'we want data under Section 280, and we have the right', what does the carrier do?"
Stanton added that judging the legitimacy of a request isn't in the scope of most telcos and service providers.
"So you have a barrage of requests coming in from all manner of entities, which may or may not be legitimate requests."
I have an issue with that in that the legislation is said to state that data can be requested under various kinds of court orders. Therefore the start point for your ability to ascertain validity is "is there a court order and if so show me". A scan of that court order should then be registered against the data returned thereby documenting what occurred to cover their arse. After all, a court order is a court order. I would not expect them to question the court order (although they likely could appeal it if their pockets were as deep as Apple's) as the shitty legislation and poor implementation by practitioners is hardly their fault. If a technophobe judge sees fit to sign off on a data trawl there's not much you can do.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
