Die US-Regierung könne "auf außerhalb der USA gespeicherte Daten zugreifen". Der Konzern habe schon viele solche Abfragen erhalten, schreibt ein Sprecher des Unternehmens.
-- Rough, sorry: --
The US government is able to to access 'data stored outside the USA'. The company already got a large number of these requests, comments a spokesperson of the corporation.
--
Put like this, next to each other, is a strong indicator (yeah, it's still on the edge) that they did, in fact, already comply in the past.
First part is 'would/could/in theory' style, but the following sentence says they got these requests in the past and 'diese' (these) builds a rather strong link to the sentence before.
So - I'm not 100% sure, but let's error on the side of caution: They did it in the past.
I assume that WW would have used a much stronger phrasing, had the "Google spokesperson" actually said that. And a Google spokesperson is obviously careful when talking to the press.
Yes, it's not unlikely that they did -- but Softpedia is blatantly misquoting here. They base their writing solely on the WW article, and that one doesn't include anything to back up the claim.
Die US-Regierung könne "auf außerhalb der USA gespeicherte Daten zugreifen". Der Konzern habe schon viele solche Abfragen erhalten, schreibt ein Sprecher des Unternehmens.
-- Rough, sorry: --
The US government is able to to access 'data stored outside the USA'. The company already got a large number of these requests, comments a spokesperson of the corporation.
--
Put like this, next to each other, is a strong indicator (yeah, it's still on the edge) that they did, in fact, already comply in the past.
First part is 'would/could/in theory' style, but the following sentence says they got these requests in the past and 'diese' (these) builds a rather strong link to the sentence before.
So - I'm not 100% sure, but let's error on the side of caution: They did it in the past.