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

231–240 of 447 posts

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

#231

Post by ClumsyPilot »

Spooky23 wrote: post #40
abbadadda wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Queue the Google alternative posts. This is some terrifying stuff. > 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.

It should be queue the reduce use of electronic communications posts. This isn’t a phenomenon unique to Google. Google just attracts attention because of the broad scope of what they do.

And live how? Anything you use these days leaves a trail. You could be carrying a basic feature phone with nothing but email, use duck duck go, and still get hit by this.

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

#232

Post by globuous »

unishark wrote: post #228
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #218

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.

I can't read it from the US either due to having an adblocker. And even if you allow ads the paywall appears after viewing one story per day. Google the title. Others news sites have it.

I'm in the same case, it this the story ?

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/jussie-smollett-chicag...

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

#233

Post by nullc »

throwGuardian wrote: post #202
nullc wrote: post #201

The courts and law enforcement aren't the issue here. Google is. Why do they even have this data-- deleted material, browsing histories, the content of voice calls? Why did they store it in the first place? Google can't keep all of its own internal secrets private. The fact that information on you can be extracted via a targeted court order shouldn't be your greatest concern: The fact that they possess it means that…

Because their business model relies on your personal data? The question is not why Google has your data, it's why you chose to continue using Google despite the awareness of such a scenario happening. As someone else commented, this article should be circulated far and wide, and people need to be educated on privacy friendly alternatives like ProtonMail. Lastly, the courts and law enforcement are a problem if they kn…

> Protections against unlawful search and seizure and right to privacy are guaranteed by the Constitution

US courts have pretty consistently ruled that you don't have much expectation of privacy for material you handed over to someone else. To the extent that its usually available with just an administrative subpoena.

Skipping all forms of due process is probably a step too far-- but a direct court order? After all, if Google can commercially exploit your data including handing it over to partners-- why should a court order result in less access?

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

#234

Post by unishark »

nullc wrote: post #201

The courts and law enforcement aren't the issue here. Google is. Why do they even have this data-- deleted material, browsing histories, the content of voice calls? Why did they store it in the first place? Google can't keep all of its own internal secrets private. The fact that information on you can be extracted via a targeted court order shouldn't be your greatest concern: The fact that they possess it means that…

Because you can sell targeted ad space for a lot more money.

Also they allow people to opt out of tracking, which is probably how they kept the govt off their backs thus far. But of course few people are aware and savvy enough to opt out of systems which allow it, which is why many want to change organ donation to an opt-out system rather than opt-in for example.

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

#235

Post by unishark »

globuous wrote: post #232
unishark wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't read it from the US either due to having an adblocker. And even if you allow ads the paywall appears after viewing one story per day. Google the title. Others news sites have it.

I'm in the same case, it this the story ? https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/jussie-smollett-chicag...

Yeah that's it. The OP removed the name from the headline for some reason.

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

#236

Post by globuous »

stiray wrote: post #215
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…

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 fundamenta…

Maybe, do you have a source you could share please ? I often read this argument around but have not verified it. I've also heard some records produced under Napoleon were used.

But this was a real crazy time. Hypothetical scenario (in the sense that I have not verified it, but I do think it's a very likely scenario to have happened): There were medical records of people with physical conditions before 1933 (so they could be treated) that were used under the Nazi regime to persecute them. Does that mean it that hospitals and doctors maintaining a list of medical records to treat their patients efficiently was a bad idea ?

I don't have the answer to this, I just wanted to point out that this is a delicate issue that society needs to figure out fairly quickly if they want to have an influence its outcome.

I wonder what godwin would have thought about all this :)

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

#237

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#238

Post by ekianjo »

cookiecaper wrote: post #152
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?

It's way different because big tech cos acquire and retain far more data about individuals than anyone ever expected to be available. 10-ish years ago, it wasn't possible to retroactively subpoena a year of minute-by-minute location history, because unless you had an ankle monitor, that data didn't exist. You couldn't get a letter-by-letter log of every term typed into a search engine or a log of the amount of time s…

Well you can also view things a different way. It will be a lot harder for real criminals to get away with anything in the future.

Now it becomes scary only if the authorities decide to go amok and make criminals of us all, but assuming it goes this way without anyone pushing back is not too realistic.

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

#240

Post by aledalgrande »

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…

Can't wait for an AI that does that after a subpoena. Given these terabytes of personal data, find all infractions. Palantir working on it?

Also imagine just how much more power law firms on the plaintiff side would have if they want to find something wrong with the defendant's profile. Which, if there is power misuse, like in current society, is bad.

Post reply on HN