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

111–120 of 447 posts

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

#111

Post by buboard »

perl4ever wrote: post #99
buboard wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

90% of javascript is minimized/obfuscated. Imagine a society where 0.01% understands the law. Now imagine it calling itself “democracy”

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

#112

Post by dreamcompiler »

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…

You're completely missing the point. Whatever Smollett did or didn't do is immaterial. What is material is that Google, Facebook, etc are now single points of privacy failure that make abuse by law enforcement much easier than it used to be. This case may or may not be an example of said abuse, but the potential is clearly there. The solution is to retake control of our digital lives from these companies.

In a democracy the job of the police must be difficult.

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

#113

Post by wolco »

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.

For political reasons of course. The prosecutors are elected. They must pick cases that encourage votes.

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

#114

Post by harry8 »

ars wrote: post #32
paxys wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scariest part is that this amount of data access can be very effectively weaponized to build a strong case against anyone . All of us are inadvertently breaking some law or the other all the time. If the government doesn't like you for any reason they are one court order away from blackmailing you or putting you away.

> they are one court order away The implication being that the courts are corrupt? If that's the case I think you have way worse things to worry about than "data access", the courts have much greater powers than that.

The scale of it is what is of most interest.

If the court gave a similar order to retrive similar amounts of physical (eg paper) information from your house, and anyone you happened to correspnd with it would be extremely notable and expensive as well as creating dramatic television pictures. Some of that is a deterrant to its abuse.

"Google, fetch" the scale, ease and speed of that is worrying. How is its abuse to be stopped?

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

#115

Post by drevil-v2 »

bilbo0s wrote: post #90
drevil-v2 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 H…

> Those things do happen and I think we should preserve our outrage for those moments That creates an almost arbitrary, "this fits my worldview so I'll support rights this time" thought process. Like, "Well, this guy's a Nazi so we should trample his rights. But this woman's an abortion activist, so we should be sure to protect hers." How do you propose we prevent ideological blindness in the protection of rights? Sh…

I would argue that there are no rights being "trampled" here at all.

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

#116

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#117

Post by wolco »

dx87 wrote: post #104
Dylan16807 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> State has a duty to prosecute law breakers. This is a load bearing wall of civil society. Everywhere. That doesn't mean there should be enormous databases of everything people do for the state to access at will.

What does that have to do with the case being discussed? A judge issued search warrants for information that Google has. Your hyperbole about the government being able to access anyone's information whenever they want isn't helpful to a conversation about privacy.

At anytime a judge could order your information and put a secret gag order. A valid concern. The government seizes domains they deem possible copyright infringement. One judge order could open the floodgates.

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

#118

Post by bitexploder »

keanzu wrote: post #91
bitexploder wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I imagine they have a lot of more serious crimes to pursue. This just seems to be high publicity so it is getting more resources. That means other crimes with high impact victims get de-prioritized. Plus it is Chicago, it is still rather corrupt there. I would mistrust anything with publicity involved until it is proven to be valid.

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

#119

Post by nl »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #101
IggleSniggle wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’m pretty sure this French actor is a household name by now.

Perhaps in some circles.

I'm not in the US and had never heard of him. I did a Facebook search restricted to "Your Friends" and another restricted to "Your Groups and Pages" and there is zero coverage.

I think people are overestimating how well known this guy is.

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

#120

Post by [deleted] »

drevil-v2 wrote: post #79
nilkn wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 H…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN