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

211–220 of 447 posts

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

#211

Post by crocodiletears »

Mauricio_ wrote: post #186
crocodiletears wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ha…

It's 3am so I'll read the article tomorrow. In the mean time: I think it would be trivially easy to verify: just take a rooted phone and log accesses to the microphone. Somebody would've found that it's being activated when it shouldn't by now. >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.…

No worries, I look forward to your response. I honestly doubt either of us will be able to fully convince the other of our conviction, but it'll be worth the exercise to refine my position.

That's actually a pretty good idea. When I'm in a position to get a rootable handset, and have the time to audit my apps, I'll have to try it.

With respect to your second point, it's quite possible. But I don't actually see much diversity of ads to begin with (typically tracking closely with my purchase and search history) so anomalies stick out like a sore thumb. But I'll be the first to admit that I spend a lot of time trying to figure out why I see what ads when, and I may at times overfit my explanations.

I'll never be able to prove the assumptions I make.

It is a phenomenon I've seen reported in the media, and it tracks with how I percieve my own experiences, as well as the experiences of my friends.

If it made no financial sense, I'd dismiss it. Likewise if I saw a study that convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt, I would dismiss it. If there were legislation with teeth in my market to prevent it, I'd dismiss it.

But with the ubiquity of voice recognition, and the financial incentives at play, I just don't see a reason companies wouldn't leverage the tech for the purposes of superior ad targeting, and profiling, when they already go so far as to record our screens.

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

#212

Post by russler23 »

russler23 wrote: post #134
brigandish wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was no chance of that happening Mens rea is the guilty mind required for something to be a crime. Intent matters as much as outcome or chance of outcome in the judgement of whether a crime has occurred, and explains the use of "sought" in the comment you replied to.

Well, it hadn’t even entered my mind that increasing racial tensions could be a crime, so that didn’t make it through my legal framework. Why did it occur to you?

I guess I’d call it an appeal to racial sympathy more than anything else. If Chicago wants to charge him with filing a false report, they can go right ahead, but I’m pretty sure they don’t need his personal records to establish that.

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

#213

Post by throwGuardian »

onetimemanytime wrote: post #210
throwGuardian wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no problems with search and seizure that is backed by irrefutable "probable cause". But one year?!! Why not his entire life? The courts are stretching common sense definitions of "cause", and simply fishing for anything to nail him As for Google, while I agree with you, the reality is that their business model relies on personal data, and we're none the wiser continuing to use them despite this knowledge. How…

They said one year because its better to have more than less. Court /lawyers should've or should push back.

The entire premise of our Justice/legal system is not to nail someone at all costs, but to do it within the bounds of the law. More is obviously good for the state, but not the legal, ethical, moral way to go.

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

#214

Post by modo_mario »

chrisco255 wrote: post #161
viggity wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which all seem like notable things to encounter when doing an investigation like that and to not drop when encountered? 'Let's look if money was sent from x to y. Get bank and tax statements. Well (it didn't come from x but) it sure as hell wasn't taxed'

It's not like this was brought up as part of a single court case if not related which would make it a relevant precedent here.

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

#215

Post by stiray »

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…

Ok, lets look in context. In 1920 records were kept about beeing a jew. It was perfectly ok, no harm done, some record no one cared about. In 1942 those records became mortal, sponsored by state. Should we talk about anti-gay laws? One day it is fine, second day you can get prisoned.

No one should keep such records as society is changing and not always to best. This is one of the reasons, privacy is one of fundamental human rights. And is blatantly violated for the profit.

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

#216

Post by Dylan16807 »

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.

There's lots of stuff that nobody should be able to access. Especially things that never should have been stored in the first place.

It's bad that one signature from a judge can unlock all of that.

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

#218

Post by bryanrasmussen »

Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.

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

#219

Post by unishark »

ComodoHacker wrote: post #174

From 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…

That was only 10k wasn't it. The story above says the city is suing him for 130k.

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

#220

Post by cm2187 »

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.

You gave up your privacy when you gave all that data to google, not when the state requested it from google.
Post reply on HN