Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

chicagotribune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 447 posts

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#71

Post by ohithereyou »

hnuser123456 wrote: post #53
drevil-v2 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

State has a duty to prosecute law breakers. This is a load bearing wall of civil society. Everywhere. Making sweeping general statements is good for riling up the mobs but I would implore HN readers to be more pragmatic about these things. Look at the context. This person sought to ignite racial tensions for personal gain. He was given a sweetheart deal. The State is going after him and those protected him. They (the…

The media seeks to ignite racial tensions for personal gains all the time, shouldn't we prosecute them too?

This is yet another reason why for profit media should be taxed like cigarettes and liquor. People like it, it's bad for them, and it costs money to undo the damage it causes.

Plow the money into courses on basic reasoning, civics, and grants to non-profit, independent media so that the people benefit when for profit media pushes a war for profit or racial divison for more ad revenue.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#72

Post by keanzu »

drevil-v2 wrote: post #20
0xADADA wrote: post #3

I (and we should all) act as if this could happen to anyone. Essentially that the state can deputize any company to snitch on the digital ephemera that constitutes our daily lives, but especially those that we are deeply engaged: Google, Facebook, Lyft, Amazon. As such, we should not self-censor, but instead disengage from these proxy-cops and move to more distributed spaces.

State has a duty to prosecute law breakers. This is a load bearing wall of civil society. Everywhere. Making sweeping general statements is good for riling up the mobs but I would implore HN readers to be more pragmatic about these things. Look at the context. This person sought to ignite racial tensions for personal gain. He was given a sweetheart deal. The State is going after him and those protected him. They (the…

I don't see how the context of his alleged crime (he's not been found guilty of anything) is relevant. Beyond a felony/misdemeanor the means available to the state to build a case/prosecute should be identical regardless of the specific crime alleged.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#73

Post by throwno »

buboard wrote: post #16

at what point does this projection of judicial power against individuals in the name of safety (whose safety? whats really at stake here even?) become terrorism?

What if it comes out that he was coordinating with the Harris campaign to help get her anti-lynching bill passed which had been dead before the incident due to extremely low rates of lynching in modern America? They attended protests together and were at least familiar if not friends.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#74

Post by jcims »

drevil-v2 wrote: post #20
0xADADA wrote: post #3

I (and we should all) act as if this could happen to anyone. Essentially that the state can deputize any company to snitch on the digital ephemera that constitutes our daily lives, but especially those that we are deeply engaged: Google, Facebook, Lyft, Amazon. As such, we should not self-censor, but instead disengage from these proxy-cops and move to more distributed spaces.

State has a duty to prosecute law breakers. This is a load bearing wall of civil society. Everywhere. Making sweeping general statements is good for riling up the mobs but I would implore HN readers to be more pragmatic about these things. Look at the context. This person sought to ignite racial tensions for personal gain. He was given a sweetheart deal. The State is going after him and those protected him. They (the…

Doesn’t seem like the issue is with the state, it’s that we’re entrusting third parties with enough information to paint an incredibly intimate portrait of our personalities and proclivities. This in turn is available to the state at essentially zero cost, which may then be leveraged heavily to ensure compliance.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#75

Post by bitexploder »

drevil-v2 wrote: post #20
0xADADA wrote: post #3

I (and we should all) act as if this could happen to anyone. Essentially that the state can deputize any company to snitch on the digital ephemera that constitutes our daily lives, but especially those that we are deeply engaged: Google, Facebook, Lyft, Amazon. As such, we should not self-censor, but instead disengage from these proxy-cops and move to more distributed spaces.

State has a duty to prosecute law breakers. This is a load bearing wall of civil society. Everywhere. Making sweeping general statements is good for riling up the mobs but I would implore HN readers to be more pragmatic about these things. Look at the context. This person sought to ignite racial tensions for personal gain. He was given a sweetheart deal. The State is going after him and those protected him. They (the…

This is all fine in theory. But why this guy? With limited prosecutorial resources, why are they doubling down on this guy? That is what I am always suspicious of.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#76

Post by hiram112 »

> not just emails but also drafted and deleted messages; any files in their Google Drive cloud storage services; any Google Voice texts, calls and contacts; search and web browsing history; and location data.

I've always assumed my email, Drive, Voice info, calls, contact lists, etc would be obtainable by a warrant.

But I wonder if Google would turn over things like browsing and search history, even if you never browsed while logged in to Google or searched, and also had explicitly turned off storing of this data in your Google privacy settings.

There is no doubt in my mind that Google, through the use of 3rd party trackers from "partners", analytics, and correlation can easily match my non-logged in web history and searches with the same computer and IP used when I log into Gmail or Maps.

Supposedly they don't tie this global "advertising profile" to your real identifying Google account, at least for the data provided to advertisers, but I would think it'd be trivial for Google to collect it all - every web page visited and for how long, every search you've made - and turn over the vast majority of it to the government, upon request.

In other words, Google probably does know nearly everything you do online, logged in or not, at this point.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#77

Post by Gigablah »

guelo wrote: post #22
buboard wrote: post #16

at what point does this projection of judicial power against individuals in the name of safety (whose safety? whats really at stake here even?) become terrorism?

A bit of an aside. Terrorism is a useless word now besides its propaganda value. The USA just declares whoever they don't like to be a terrorist, like how they just did to Iran's army, and now apparently they can legally assassinate any Iranian soldier. What's funny is Iran wants in on this propaganda game now, they designated the US army as terrorists.

> What's funny is Iran wants in on this propaganda game now

Now? You might be missing some context on the whole Middle East conflict.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#78

Post by JumpCrisscross »

drevil-v2 wrote: post #20
0xADADA wrote: post #3

I (and we should all) act as if this could happen to anyone. Essentially that the state can deputize any company to snitch on the digital ephemera that constitutes our daily lives, but especially those that we are deeply engaged: Google, Facebook, Lyft, Amazon. As such, we should not self-censor, but instead disengage from these proxy-cops and move to more distributed spaces.

State has a duty to prosecute law breakers. This is a load bearing wall of civil society. Everywhere. Making sweeping general statements is good for riling up the mobs but I would implore HN readers to be more pragmatic about these things. Look at the context. This person sought to ignite racial tensions for personal gain. He was given a sweetheart deal. The State is going after him and those protected him. They (the…

> They (the State prosecutors)

With a warrant they convinced a court to issue. This is totally different from e.g. dragnet surveillance.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#79

Post by drevil-v2 »

nilkn wrote: post #60
drevil-v2 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

State has a duty to prosecute law breakers. This is a load bearing wall of civil society. Everywhere. Making sweeping general statements is good for riling up the mobs but I would implore HN readers to be more pragmatic about these things. Look at the context. This person sought to ignite racial tensions for personal gain. He was given a sweetheart deal. The State is going after him and those protected him. They (the…

He allegedly did something quite bad, and if guilty I’d like him to face justice. But if the cost of convicting him is setting a precedent that effectively strips hundreds of millions of people of their privacy and subjects us all to an unofficial form of state surveillance, then let him walk.

The State has always been able to look up phone records, bank records, land records, criminal records, medical records etc etc as in order to pursue justice and prosecute.

This is a necessary "evil". We give up some freedoms so that we have a civilisation and an orderly society.

And this isn't setting up any precedent that is egregious. This is on the front page of Chicago Tribune newspaper and on the front page of HN. This is not some shady in the shadows invasion of privacy.

Those things do happen and I think we should preserve our outrage for those moments. Otherwise it just becomes background noise to be constantly and without context offended.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#80

Post by throwno »

ohithereyou wrote: post #71
hnuser123456 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The media seeks to ignite racial tensions for personal gains all the time, shouldn't we prosecute them too?

This is yet another reason why for profit media should be taxed like cigarettes and liquor. People like it, it's bad for them, and it costs money to undo the damage it causes. Plow the money into courses on basic reasoning, civics, and grants to non-profit, independent media so that the people benefit when for profit media pushes a war for profit or racial divison for more ad revenue.

NY Times was so sad that WW3 didn't pop off this morning. Better luck next time, assholes.
Post reply on HN