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

331–340 of 447 posts

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

#331

Post by Nasrudith »

dredmorbius wrote: post #193
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?

Scale. 40, or even 20 years ago, the State might have been able to note a record of phone calls, postal correspondence (look up "postal covers"), some financial purchases, periodicals subscriptions, and with a great deal of effort, some of my travels and movements, mostly limited to specific port entries and exits, and air travel. But unavailable would have been: dictionary queries, encyclopedia queries, books read,…

Sorry to go off on one irrelevant point but I feel it is highly important to say this at every opportunity: states don't have rights. It is an absurdity and a mockery of human rights to claim such a concept and legitimize fiefdoms over real people. So called rights in their case would be entitlement to powers for power's sake.

Anyway to get to your main body I agree and note what makes the scale bad ultimately is abuse potential for it. For a fantastic example being able to look up details of everyone but only 500 years or more ago wouldn't be abusable for instance because everyone is long dead and it wouldn't be viable to try to change ownership based on it because it already diverged for several generations. Even if you could backtrace they couldn't be reconciled very effectively.

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

#332

Post by lm28469 »

ben174 wrote: post #267
beachy wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you believe is most inconvenient about GDPR compliance?

For the user, having a pop up on every single site explaining what a cookie is.

Oh wow, cry me a river. If that's the price we have to pay for enforceable privacy laws I'm all in.

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

#333

Post by lm28469 »

throwno wrote: post #298
martin_a wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You only need those pop-ups if you are using cookies which are not "technical cookies". If you are using tracking technology based on cookies or anything that collects information specific to a user, you will need to show the cookie banner and give an opt-in. Otherwise tracking/analytics is not allowed. So... Every site you see this banner on has some dead bodies in their cellar and wants you to move on and not take…

If I don't want cookies, "technical" or otherwise, I'll browse incognito mode or block them by some other means. I don't need a European bureaucrat to get involved. Thanks.

> I don't need a European bureaucrat to get involved. Thanks.

My 70 years old grandma or 12 years old cousin do though. Of course as tech people we know how to bypass most of the tracking happening on the web, that's not the case for the average user.

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

#334

Post by aledalgrande »

close04 wrote: post #257
aledalgrande wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol just checked when GDPR was announced... 2016

Even a couple of years before being adopted in 2016, with interested parties being aware that it's coming and an outline of what to expect.

Exactly. Not sure why people are downvoting my statement, it seems quite the ample time to come up with a solution.

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

#335

Post by strathmeyer »

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…

You aren't concerned the government can get all your data after you've pleaded guilty to something? Because I'm concerned people can't identify what a bribe is.

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

#336

Post by MattConfluence »

marcinzm wrote: post #315
asutekku wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean you shouldn’t store any personal information in the logs to begin with.

Most places would log the IP (for spam prevention, security tracking, etc) which is personal information under GDPR.

Yes, but if you are logging the IP for spam prevention, security tracking, etc, then you are in the clear per Article 6, section 1, point f [1]. However, you can't also use the IP for fingerprinting, ad targeting, etc, without acquiring informed consent, per section 1, point a.

You can put the IP in your security logs because that is necessary to secure the service. Just have a routine to scrub the logs once they are too old to be useful anymore.

You can't put the IP in your shadow profile database and sell it to shady marketing companies, unless the user has explicitly agreed to that.

The question isn't only whether something is personal information or not, it is also a question of what you intend to do with the data.

[1] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-6-gdpr/

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

#337

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

hamhand wrote: post #314
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…

I read in a Chinese programmer forum that they just mark it as deleted when you delete photos,it seems to be a common practice, not sure about google.

It is common practice.

It's not how it works at Google.

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

#338

Post by tyingq »

aledalgrande wrote: post #334
close04 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even a couple of years before being adopted in 2016, with interested parties being aware that it's coming and an outline of what to expect.

Exactly. Not sure why people are downvoting my statement, it seems quite the ample time to come up with a solution.

Blocking people is a solution. I don't like it either, but if your target audience is solely the US, I can see why you might decide to do that.

Edit: Agreed... placating people with lies doesn't help.

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

#339

Post by tyingq »

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…

Is there some line you don't want it to cross? As tech progresses, there will be increasingly more about everything you do that gets logged.
Post reply on HN