The subject of the article signed his first and last name and was wondering how the officers tracked him down?

We don’t know his last name, but I think first and last name plus zip code is enough to uniquely identify a great many people.

Why should you be tracked down (with the cooperation of a large tech firm) for sending an email to a public official exhorting them to consider a policy issue?

I would understand this if he had made some sort of threatening communication, but that's not the case. Please explain why you think this is appropriate in any way.

Your comment is confusing. Who are you asking this question to? Parent comment clearly didnt say it was appropriate in any way.

That’s not a subject.

His name is Jon and he seems to be a compassionate American citizen that cares for other people even if they are not having the same passport or skin color. Show some damn respect for the man, he is not a thing and has a name.

In return for a reasonable and simple plea, Jon got targeted by the government that is clearly overreaching in this case.

Everything Jon did was all protected under the First Amendment.

If you do this to an American citizen making use of his rights, you are no better than the guys the D-Boys blew up, shot, stabbed, drowned or ran over with an old Toyota every Friday in Iraq who gathered intel on Iraqi citizens in the shadows and then later were directly responsible for the capture and torture of them and their families, simply because they stood up against the terrorists that were treating their friends and neighbors like dogs.

You seem to be missing the point,which was that google didnt give them Jon’s info, and that it would be trivial to find in other ways.

Google believes an administrative subpoena "compels" them to release customer information? Is that true? I thought that's only for judicial subpoenas.

No, they rejected this one, so obviously that isnt the case.

Administrative subpoenas are enforceable, and are not secretive. They are a routine tool.

See Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling and United States v. Morton Salt Co.

This has been routine and codified for 80 years.