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

161–170 of 447 posts

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

#161

Post by chrisco255 »

viggity wrote: post #147
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They (the State prosecutors) With a warrant they convinced a court to issue. This is totally different from e.g. dragnet surveillance.

Exactly this. I've seen cases where a prosecutor has gotten a John Doe warrant to send to cell companies that effectively asked for the IDs of all phones that were present the closest cell tower at the times of multiple robberies (eg "give me all phones that were present at ABC tower on Monday at 1pm, DEF tower on Tuesday at 4pm, AND GHI tower on Thursday at 10am). Which obviously only the robber is likely to show up…

They did this very thing to associates of Trump in the course of the Mueller investigation. Unrelated tax issues, failing to register as a foreign agent and other charges were brought against certain individuals for things they did years before they joined the Trump campaign. Whatever your thoughts are on this, there is already established precedent for it.

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

#162

Post by titzer »

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…

What a sweeping authoritarian view on human rights. I'm sorry but this really raises my hackles. The state absolute does not have every right to collect and gather evidence to build a case with such a sweeping dragnet. There is a reason that search warrants have to be specific and evidence of even obvious other crimes is not admissible.

There is nothing pragmatic about being totally ignorant of Fourth Amendment protections that have been eeked out, injustice after injustice, over two centuries.

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

#163

Post by greenyoda »

wolco wrote: post #117
dx87 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> At anytime a judge could order your information

For a judge to issue a warrant, a prosecutor or cop has to swear that they have probable cause to believe that you've committed a specific crime. Judges can't just write warrants arbitrarily. (Of course, this process can be abused, but it's still pretty far from a judge being able to authorize pulling the data of random people.)

The Fourth Amendment says: "... no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

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

#164

Post by titzer »

robocat wrote: post #41

On the flip side of the loss of privacy: location and similar data can be used as a solid alibi if you are accused incorrectly. How many people have been silently tagged as innocent because of their data stored? That said, ersonally I find the loss of privacy abhorrent, especially because I have fuck all rights in the US (not a citizen, so the US government and US corporations can abuse my personal information with v…

> location and similar data can be used as a solid alibi if you are accused incorrectly.

Except you don't control them and could be faked and used to frame you. The power imbalance here is absolutely astonishing.

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

#165

Post by partisan »

kempbellt wrote: post #157
ip26 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is basically a warrant to ruffle through someone's life Which, for what it's worth, is a warrant that is perfectly within the powers of a judge to grant.

"You went 61 in a 60. Here's a ticket. Also, because you broke the law once and I'm in a pedantic mood, I'm issuing a warrant to go through all of your GPS history for the past two years. Oh look, 1 year ago you went 36 in a 35. Another ticket for you. 2 years ago you jaywalked. Another ticket." At what point do we want the legal system to no longer have the power to scrutinize an individual's history? I don't believ…

It’s not the same thing. He is suing the city of Chicago for “malicious prosecution”. As part of that lawsuit, the city must attempt to show that the prosecution was not malicious.

That’s different than stating that you would like to browse through someone’s history for the purpose of finding crimes where they may not exist.

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

#166

Post by matheusmoreira »

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) have every right to collect and gather evidence to build the case.

They should have the right to do it. Actually doing it should be as difficult as humanly possible. It should not be as easy as sending a letter to Google and getting a suspect's entire life records in return.

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

#167

Post by russler23 »

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 implications being that the courts are corrupt?

You don’t have to be corrupt to be ineffective. Have you been following patent rulings? Or FISA?

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

#169

Post by protomyth »

cronix wrote: post #52
crocodiletears wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree on your last point. Whether it's Google, Microsoft, your ISP, a databroker, a webscraper, an unscrupulous app developer, or even your TV, I think it's safe to assume that one day or the next, every piece of content you produce, or topic you discuss will leak its way onto a major adcorp's servers. I can hardly think of anyone I know that can't attest to the experience of discussing something as a non-sequit…

The other week I was out in a National Forest hiking. I was about 6 miles from the nearest Forest Service road. I took a break and sat there eating a sandwich and looked up to see a camera mounted on a tree about 4 feet from me. I imagine some hunter put it there. I'm just saying that even out in the middle of nowhere, not near any paved roads, there are still cameras watching and recording.

If it's for the purpose our wildlife people are going to try to do, it is for animal count and trail tracking.

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

#170

Post by keiferski »

The deeper problem is that old laws are being used to deal with new behaviors. This inadequacy will continue to grow as human beings and computers slowly merge over the next century or two, where at some point, “your Google data” will be more-and-more equivalent to “all of your thoughts.”

Those who say that this is justified because warrants were obtained seem to miss the point that state’s ability and desire to gather information has grown exponentially over time. And that’s why we need data protection laws, alternatives to Google, and other privacy measures.

The philosophical concept of embodied cognition is a good place to start on this issue:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/embodied-cognition/

Post reply on HN