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

381–390 of 447 posts

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

#381

Post by vonmoltke »

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #365
marcinzm wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> which is personal information under GDPR Not exactly; it's up to the judges to decide whether IP addresses count as personal information as defined by the GDPR (in my opinion they're not, but I can see why one would think differently), so the flaw isn't as much inherent to the GDPR as to the fact that people just don't understand the internet.

Recital 30 specifically calls out IP addresses: https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-30/

While the wording of the Recital leaves some ambiguity as to whether an IP is automatically Personal Data under the GDPR, its specific call-out would make arguing that it is not difficult. This would particularly be the interpretation of American lawyers, who tend to assume that no connection is too tenuous to be held against their client by a shrewd prosecutor or regulator and will thus advise their client to treat all IPs in all situations as Personal Data.

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

#382

Post by buboard »

drevil-v2 wrote: post #81
Mirioron wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree with you if our legal systems were built for that, but our legal systems are built to deal with a society that has privacy. People unknowingly commit crimes, or implicate themselves in crimes, all the time, because there are too many ways to do that. No reasonable person can be expected to avoid committing crimes when the government itself can't even keep track of the number of criminal laws there are.[…

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?

Our internet communications are way more intimate than physical or telephone or bank record searches of the past (which was the scope of the law when these things were legislated). These search and seizure laws have been grandfathered in unreasonably imho. A person's google searches are literally his thoughtstream, they are private expression that doesn't incite anything, and there is no reason why anyone would judge people by their thoughs. Police used to need torture to get this kind of data, it shouldn't be handed to them on a platter. imho it's very different

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

#383

Post by buboard »

unishark wrote: post #311
buboard wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whose safety is threatened by that law?

The scandal would be about everyone's safety being threatened when the cops' time is diverted by false reports for political agendas.

while no doubt this is grounds for jail time or fines, do you think a search of this depth is warranted? And how is that not wasting way more police time?

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

#385

Post by syshum »

ip26 wrote: post #127
roenxi wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

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.

>>is a warrant that is perfectly within the powers of a judge to grant.

Not under the 4th amendment of the US Consitution they don't, they have the power to grant a warrant for a Specific thing to be searched pursuant to probable cause a specific crime has been committed

General Search warrants are and should remain unconstitutional

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

#386

Post by khawkins »

iamnothere wrote: post #369
ekianjo wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We're already all criminals, with many people inadvertently committing multiple felonies (yes, felonies) every day: https://kottke.org/13/06/you-commit-three-felonies-a-day This becomes terrifying when you realize the implications for quashing dissent. An inconvenient activist is an easy target for the legal system.

I had the misfortune of looking through your link, finding it to be a waste of time. The "committing three felonies a day" is the title of a book, the Amazon reviews claim it to be extreme hyperbole and just a series of case studies where the process of the law was admittedly abused.

The other anecdote in that link is the story of Joseph P. Nacchio, a CEO who was convicted for cashing out over $50 million in stock when the price was around $40, only for the price to drop all the way to $2 a year later. The NSA involvement was a failed bid by his defense to make it seem like his trading was legitimate.

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

#387

Post by tjoff »

vonmoltke wrote: post #381
DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which is personal information under GDPR Not exactly; it's up to the judges to decide whether IP addresses count as personal information as defined by the GDPR (in my opinion they're not, but I can see why one would think differently), so the flaw isn't as much inherent to the GDPR as to the fact that people just don't understand the internet.

Recital 30 specifically calls out IP addresses: https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-30/ While the wording of the Recital leaves some ambiguity as to whether an IP is automatically Personal Data under the GDPR, its specific call-out would make arguing that it is not difficult. This would particularly be the interpretation of American lawyers, who tend to assume that no connection is too tenuous to be held against their c…

It depends on the context. An ISP can trivially map an IP to a person.

So can Amazon/whoever if they saved the IP alongside other customer information.

But a naked ip->person lookup would require a warrant.

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

#389

Post by t34543 »

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.…

I met with someone from a privacy focused search engine and a line from his deck stuck with me: “you tell your search engine things you wouldn’t tell your friends or spouse”

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

#390

Post by ComputerGuru »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #264
stiray wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 As a legacy of this, the US government doesn't count Jews in the census. (And, to preserve nondiscrimination values, doesn't count other religious denominations either.) Interestingly, the census does enthusiastically collect race data on everyone. This is logically in…

It’s hard to understand how things that are harmless today can be prosecuted tomorrow. Imagine a drugstore keeping a list of its customers who have diabetes... or AIDS.
Post reply on HN