"Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries"
Does anyone have an alternative source for this story please?
Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
171–180 of 447 posts
Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
#172When convenience comes back to bite you in the ass. I’m interested to see if and what Google releases and if there would be any different if Apple was asked to release the same information. Does the “Ad” company have more data on an individual versus the “privacy” company? Or does it actually depend on the user opting in to give this data to said company?
From what I can tell in the news, Apple will share data if ordered to -- “WE GAVE THEM ALL OF THE DATA IN OUR POSSESSION,” SAYS APPLE from (https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/7/21054836/fbi-iphone-unlock...)
The iPhone unlocking for the mass shooter was slightly different -- FBI wanted them to create a new tool (that did not exist) to unlock an existing phone.
Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
#173> 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 brow…
[deleted]
Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
#174From linked article[0]:
>— Cook County prosecutors drop all charges against Smollett, calling it an “appropriate resolution to this case.”
>“After reviewing all of the facts and circumstances of the case, including Mr. Smollett’s volunteer service in the community and agreement to forfeit his bond to the City of Chicago, we believe this outcome is a just disposition and appropriate resolution to this case,” the statement said.
WTF? Since when bribe constitutes a ground for dropping charges?
0. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-met-cb-jussi...
Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
#175"Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries" Does anyone have an alternative source for this story please?
Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
#176From linked article[0]: >— Cook County prosecutors drop all charges against Smollett, calling it an “appropriate resolution to this case.” >“After reviewing all of the facts and circumstances of the case, including Mr. Smollett’s volunteer service in the community and agreement to forfeit his bond to the City of Chicago, we believe this outcome is a just disposition and appropriate resolution to this case,” the state…
Money has always been the only reliable way to stay out of jail. Usually you have to give it to lawyers, so it looks like they're just cutting out the middleman.
Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 Warr…
Why makes probable cause against you in some direct or indirect way?
You worked here and had access to x
you fit a profile or someone you know
you are an enemy of the state
Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
#178Earlier 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…
>I can hardly think of anyone I know that can't attest to the experience of discussing something as a non-sequitur, only to receive ads about it shortly thereafter. No way in hell that's true. Things are bad enough, you don't need to make stuff up.
I'm working from my personal experience. If you've never had something similar happen, then good for you.
I'll admit that it's quite likely that advertising algorithms are sophisticated enough to anticipate our needs based on previous behaviours with uncanny precision and timing.
But I don't trust to that, given the proliferation of cheaply made gimmick apps which contain embedded third party ad libraries.
Since I have no way to verify either way, and my experiences are echoed by my social circle, I personally think it best to assume the worst of my device.
I will mention that a recent study* concluded that most apps with microphone permissions will not unduly access do so. This has been taken by articles I've read to dispel the urban legend of the listening phone.
But, given that the tests lasted 5000 random user events (at ~16mins), on a more or less clean device, and as the study says
"…we did not use pre-configured text inputs, which vary across apps and require substantial manual effort; instead, we relied on random interactions. Accordingly, we miss some events that only human in teractions trigger, e.g., in apps that require login."
I don't think it can be taken as an authoritative final answer. Especially given that the devices had no pre-existing identities apps to latch onto and inform about.
The study also looked principally at network traffic, with a focus on detecting conventional media formats. This is fine for detecting the transfer of visual content, and audio. But it doesn't account for the device itself listening for keywords, and reporting them, or partially resident models, which would perform their first few operations on-device, before transfering their outputs for final processing server-side (mentioned in their study's limitations section).
*https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/07/06/is-your-smartphone-...
EDITED for formatting, flow, to acknowledge parent's experience, and to remove a few points made redundant later in the post.
Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
#179I (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…
> Look at the context.
The context is extremely partisan twisting of the justice system on all sides. Normally DA's have complete discretion to drop charges as they see fit. Because of the partisan outrage a Republican special prosecutor has been appointed to overrule the prosecutor and now he's on a witch hunt going through a year of Google records trying to find everything incriminating, this is a farce and high level corruption
Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
#180Use duckduckgo people!