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

241–250 of 447 posts

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

#241

Post by ekianjo »

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…

Extrapolating completely outside of the scope of the current case being discussed is not very helpful.

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

#242

Post by jariel »

roenxi wrote: post #122
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?

If you add all those records together you get a fraction of the information you get from someone's Google history. We're talking records like search history, live GPS data and emails. That is a completely different level of scrutiny. So the difference is seeing something through a window with curtains vs. having a camera installed in the room. In principle, not so different. In practice there really is no comparison.…

"If you add all those records together you get a fraction of the information you get from someone's Google history."

With 'Google Home' etc. it changes everything. Door locks, home cameras, audio recordings etc. etc..

Can the argument you had with your wife, totally irrelevant to the case, wherein you got angry and called her a big 'B' be used against you in court as demonstration of your character?

The time is now to be concerned about 'police state'. I think we can mostly have our cake and eat it too. Proportionality matters on all sides.

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

#243

Post by lucb1e »

As I understand it, in summary: someone filed a police report, the police suspect the person staged the incident being reported (so now they're a suspect themselves) and subpoenas their data.

Okay? This is news, how? Should I know the person that allegedly staged it, or is it new that a judge approves a search warrant that allows time-limited access to a suspect's data? Does it matter that they're an actor? (An overloaded term that makes the title quite unclear)

And a little meta: should we change the link to something everyone can actually read or do we want to keep this discussion limited to people from certain continents?

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

#245

Post by DarkWiiPlayer »

"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."

It's 2020 and american websites still go the "We'd rather block you alltogether than tell you what we do with your data" route.

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

#246

Post by aledalgrande »

For all people writing "is this different from physical documents?" the answer is yes. You have to think a little bit further than tomorrow. This is the perfect step for a totalitarian police government like China.

You don't want the government to control your money with taxes and your health with social insurance, so why do you want it to control every aspect of your private life?

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

#247

Post by aledalgrande »

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #245

"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." It's 2020 and american websites still go the "We'd rather block you alltogether than te…

lol just checked when GDPR was announced... 2016

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

#249

Post by rtyturtu »

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #245

"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." It's 2020 and american websites still go the "We'd rather block you alltogether than te…

Maybe geolocked sites shouldnt be posted on HN unless OP provides screenshoot or tldr of contet there

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

#250

Post by salzig »

rtyturtu wrote: post #249
DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #245

"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." It's 2020 and american websites still go the "We'd rather block you alltogether than te…

Maybe geolocked sites shouldnt be posted on HN unless OP provides screenshoot or tldr of contet there

I support this thought.
Post reply on HN