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

391–400 of 447 posts

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

#391

Post by blackearl »

workthrowaway wrote: post #299
nilkn wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

woah, woah, hold on. don't let him walk?! just use the old way for finding evidence. data gathered by companies like google is mostly permanent, too easy to retrieve, and in one place. that's the real problem. nobody likes doing hard work.

US police are fat and lazy. The days of a skilled gumshoe hitting the streets for information is a romanticized memory. The only time they get their blood pumping is when they get to use some new toys, kicking in a door guns blazing, shooting the family dog, killing innocents at the wrong address.

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

#392

Post by delroth »

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…

Just because law enforcement asks for it doesn't mean Google has it. They might just ask for it because many companies actually do keep that data, but Google provides in its privacy policy some fairly strong guarantees on data deletion. The documentation at https://policies.google.com/technologies/retention?hl=en is a good read to get an idea of what is kept and for how long.

Disclaimer: I work at Google, some of my work relates to privacy infrastructure, but I don't speak for the company.

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

#393

Post by skrowl »

delroth wrote: post #392
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…

Just because law enforcement asks for it doesn't mean Google has it. They might just ask for it because many companies actually do keep that data, but Google provides in its privacy policy some fairly strong guarantees on data deletion. The documentation at https://policies.google.com/technologies/retention?hl=en is a good read to get an idea of what is kept and for how long. Disclaimer: I work at Google, some of my…

This is the correct answer. Often times warrants ask for the moon and stars. You can only hand over what you actually have.

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

#394

Post by skrowl »

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…

The 4th Amendment SPECIFICALLY stops unreasonable searches stating the exception is with a warrant asking for specific things. They had such a warrant in this case.

Just because you hate Google doesn't mean that the warrant is invalid or the search is unreasonable here.

Jussie may have committed a crime. They have the right to investigate.

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

#395

Post by avs733 »

drevil-v2 wrote: post #51
avs733 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes we have seen you know how to make this comment. Another way to look at that 'duty' is to say [The] state has a responsibility to ensure justice for all. That may seem like the same thing but vagueness is at times valuable given that life rarely satisfies the black and white dichotomies many of us would prefer.

What exactly are you saying? That the State should let this one go?

More so that laws are a social construct.

We can have a discussion about how the state should behave without using catastrophic examples to shift debates about principles and policies.

The post I was responding to sees the role of the state as a absolutist binaric executor of often fuzzy laws and rules. The context of this example doesn't have any affect on whether or not that naive belief is a path to a functional and just society.

Whatever happens with Smollett, or the next example, simply doesn't support a belief that every crime should be prosecuted. There was a (hamfisted but entertaining) TNG episode about this for gods sake...

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

#396

Post by GhettoMaestro »

Johnny555 wrote: post #131
Daneel_ wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes the contents almost don't matter. For example, if you saw multiple letters from an oncology department to a household, followed by letters from government departments and a funeral home, it wouldn't be hard to figure out what was going on. It's the exact same problem with phone metadata. The connections can be made to tell the story, and are even easier to manipulate into whatever narrative the prosecution…

Just the same, I would feel a lot less violated if the government had header information for every email I received in the past year, than if they had the full email.

I believe this is a fallacy (not trying to be a dick).

Why? They can accomplish 90% of their high level dragnet-ish surveillance goals via metadata snooping only (today at least)

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

#397

Post by cf141q5325 »

lrem wrote: post #207
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say that very much depends on why you believe the warrant process exists in the first place. I honestly don't know that much about the historical context of search warrants. Do they exist because philosophers of old believed in a right to privacy as an end unto itself? Or do they exist for some more practical reason, like because they were used for extra legal retaliation against enemies of the state, or for inti…

You have just changed my understanding of the world. Thank you.

How? That people think differently about reality and have different motivations and values is not really a new revelation i think? Nor should it surprise anyone that a lot of people believe they are doing the right thing. What changed for you? It seems to be much more interesting then the initial conversation.

What didnt i get?

edit: While it might sound stupid its an honest question. Changing how you think about the world is quite a jump from discussing the origins of warrants. Its a jump i dont understand and I think there is interesting insight to be gained here.

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

#398

Post by at_a_remove »

throwGuardian wrote: post #206
onetimemanytime wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you were a witness or had a document that proved he was/wasn't at x place, you, as an individual, would be forced to testify. Maybe this is way overbroad but odds are that Google knows what happened, either by location data or via a search. I think Google should NOT be able to keep this data so such requests are mute by definition.

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…

The year is due to the possible length of planning. I have heard through some channels that they believe he has been working himself up to it for a while.

In January of 2016, he performed "Strange Fruit." In 2017, he released a music video featuring a fake Trump, "alternative facts," and a noose. I haven't dug into it myself to verify, but I had heard in 2018 he and Kamala Harris were around one another on some kind of anti-hate-crime bill rally. I am less sure on that one.

Now, I am not sure how much actual planning (detailed plotting) went into it, because as hoaxes go, it does not seem especially well-executed. Downtown Chicago as "MAGA Country" is especially far-fetched.

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

#399

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #337
hamhand wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Probably or provably?

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

#400

Post by derp_dee_derp »

cf141q5325 wrote: post #397
lrem wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have just changed my understanding of the world. Thank you.

How? That people think differently about reality and have different motivations and values is not really a new revelation i think? Nor should it surprise anyone that a lot of people believe they are doing the right thing. What changed for you? It seems to be much more interesting then the initial conversation. What didnt i get? edit: While it might sound stupid its an honest question. Changing how you think about the…

warrants' purpose is not to protect privacy, their purpose is to make it difficult for governments to target citizens they don't like.

Or, more generally, warrants are not a positive attribute of an individual, instead they are a negative inhibitor of governments.

Post reply on HN