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

91–100 of 447 posts

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

#91

Post by keanzu »

bitexploder wrote: post #75
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…

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.

Why not this guy? Possibly because he generated a little too much infamy and now the public wants blood. Or maybe the prosecutor believes in the defendant's guilt and thinks they can make a strong case. Maybe a mix of both.

Perhaps you'd prefer the prosecutor look at some other case but then the exact same question could be asked - why that guy?

So why not this guy?

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

#92

Post by m0zg »

nkurz wrote: post #65
m0zg wrote: post #18

I (rhetorically) wonder why the title does not contain the "actor's" name. But then again, we all know why that is.

I chose to shorten the title in the way that I did because I hoped it would help focus the discussion on the civil liberties and surveillance aspects rather than on the specifics of Smollet's case. Happily, based on the comments so far, this seems to have worked. I also worried that if I used his name, it would be flagged as off-topic before any useful discussion could happen. Does this explanation this match your as…

I would have preferred "Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of Juissie Smollett's data". It would be more informative, but it'd further damage the liberal narrative that Jussie was "attacked by the right" and "Trump supporters are racist". If you were to run a poll, I bet a non-trivial percentage of people still believes Jussie was attacked - people do not read retractions, and once the truth came out, this was swept under the rug within a week.

And you're right, if you did mention his name it's likely that your submission would be flagged and dismissed out of hand, just like this comment will be. So you chose to self-censor instead.

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

#93

Post by keanzu »

ars wrote: post #83
keanzu wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if user data were seized, it would be impossible to decipher because of ProtonMail's encryption. Unlike Gmail or Outlook, email you send with ProtonMail is encrypted before it's sent to the ProtonMail servers.

Then they would seize his phone and use that to decrypt the email. Or order him to turn over his own email.

> Or order him to turn over his own email.

Which they could have done in this case. So why subpoena Google?

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

#94

Post by IggleSniggle »

m0zg wrote: post #18

I (rhetorically) wonder why the title does not contain the "actor's" name. But then again, we all know why that is.

I'm actually NOT sure why. I assume it's because we are unlikely to recognize the actor by name, so they are labeled by their profession? Or is there some other reason? Not being rhetorical. I don't know who Jesse Smollett is.

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

#95

Post by perl4ever »

Spooky23 wrote: post #70
perl4ever wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, people do typically put papers in the custody of a third party. Always have. Pretty much every paper that is involved in discovery is classified by the "custodian". Also of course, all the digital information, but traditionally it's paper. If you use and/or have a dispute with a lawyer, a doctor, a contractor, an accountant, whatever, they're going to have papers pertaining to you.

I’m talking about an individual, not a business scenario. Your papers in your custody in your home are only accessible via warrant, as opposed to your online stuff that requires as little as an administrative subpoena. Your doctor and attorney are unique in that professional relationship is legally privileged.

I'm just saying the fact that everything in the legal business is classified by "custodian", without any more context, kind of indicates that the default is not to assume ownership in the manner you're suggesting. Like, when something is legally disputed, there's a good chance people are hiding things, giving them to others, intermingling evidence with other things, etc. The system couldn't work if it assumed that everybody followed the rules. No, I'm not a lawyer, but come on.

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

#96

Post by lostmyoldone »

m0zg wrote: post #84
nl wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The title is "Jussie Smollett investigation: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of the actor’s data as part of special prosecutor probe" which seems to include the the actor's name? But then again, we all know why that is. I don't know who Jussie Smollett is (other than this story) and I'm completely in the dark what this is supposed to be implying. Maybe you are seeing headline optimisation? Is that what t…

Unless you lived in a cave in Afghanistan for the entirety of 2019 there's no way you don't know what I'm "implying".

There's folk from all over the world here, I don't have a clue either. I could probably Google a bit and figure it out. However, I still. believe that legibility of arguments or opinion is the responsibility of the author, not the reader.

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

#97

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

Spooky23 wrote: post #37
keanzu wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quality of the record keeping is vastly higher. Imagine a subpoena for every paper mail you sent in a year. You can't get that from the US Postal service.

USPS has been storing images of all envelopes delivered for many years now. Prior to that, it was possible to have that information manually logged. If you corresponded with people in a Warsaw Pact country in the 1960s, that mail was recorded and sometimes opened.

>USPS has been storing images of all envelopes delivered for many years now.

If this was of any doubt at all - they’ve made this accessible over email. If you enable “informed delivery” you get an email of the scan before it hits your mail box.

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

#98

Post by drevil-v2 »

analog31 wrote: post #88
drevil-v2 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote this comment elsewhere below but it still applies 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. How is this any different?

In my view, the state has to ask a court to approve the purpose of each request, based on a reasonable hypothesis about what might be found. How this seems different is the lack of any limitation on the kind of content that can be turned over. And in my view, that was a mistake on the judge's part for approving such a sweeping request. For instance if I were accused of committing a crime against X, then I suppose tha…

How do you propose that works? Someone at Google searches for the information? An algorithm or an actual Google employee? If it is a human being then what about your privacy then?

What if the Jussie and his manager were using codewords to disguise intent? A search algorithm would not be able to recognise that but a human being can easily infer meaning and intent from the context. What then?

There are no easy answers.

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

#99

Post by perl4ever »

buboard wrote: post #82
perl4ever wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not civil, but people basically have no idea how courts work and that discovery is a thing. So "spectacularly ignorant" might be a better alternative to "lunatic", but that isn't polite either. It's kind of like how Matt Levine was making fun of Carlos Ghosn today for saying "I was brutally taken from my world as I knew it". ``Yes, right, that perfectly and exactly describes the experience of every single person…

> but people basically have no idea how courts work and that discovery is a thing are you saying that courts have become so opaque and inaccessible to voters that they exert their power as an impenetrable cabal ? Or that people need a PhD to assess whether the law or its enforcement is good or bad?

The courts aren't any more opaque and inaccessible than, say, javascript.

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

#100

Post by nl »

m0zg wrote: post #84
nl wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The title is "Jussie Smollett investigation: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of the actor’s data as part of special prosecutor probe" which seems to include the the actor's name? But then again, we all know why that is. I don't know who Jussie Smollett is (other than this story) and I'm completely in the dark what this is supposed to be implying. Maybe you are seeing headline optimisation? Is that what t…

Unless you lived in a cave in Afghanistan for the entirety of 2019 there's no way you don't know what I'm "implying".

I'm in Australia.

I really don't! I assume it is some culture war thing, but I've never heard of this guy.

And even with that assumption I still don't know if you think it's a left or right wing conspiracy to keep his name out if it?

His identity just seems kind of irrelevant to the discussion happening here.

Post reply on HN