Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data • Hacker News Board

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

#401

Post by thaumasiotes » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 3:53 PM UTC

ComputerGuru wrote: post #390

thaumasiotes wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Having AIDS was stigmatized right from the beginning, because it was obvious right from the beginning that if you had AIDS, you were gay.

(It was also stigmatized because it was a lethal disease that spread by unclear means, but that seems less relevant to the topic at hand.)

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

#402

Post by pbhjpbhj » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 3:55 PM UTC

cronix wrote: post #52

crocodiletears wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree on your last point. Whether it's Google, Microsoft, your ISP, a databroker, a webscraper, an unscrupulous app developer, or even your TV, I think it's safe to assume that one day or the next, every piece of content you produce, or topic you discuss will leak its way onto a major adcorp's servers. I can hardly think of anyone I know that can't attest to the experience of discussing something as a non-sequit…

The other week I was out in a National Forest hiking. I was about 6 miles from the nearest Forest Service road. I took a break and sat there eating a sandwich and looked up to see a camera mounted on a tree about 4 feet from me. I imagine some hunter put it there. I'm just saying that even out in the middle of nowhere, not near any paved roads, there are still cameras watching and recording.

Satellite surveillance, or spy-planes/drones also might record you in the wilderness.

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

#403

Post by jasonlotito » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 4:11 PM UTC

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…

> WTF? Since when bribe constitutes a ground for dropping charges?

You mean fines? I mean, fines have been around forever, and everyone from the President down to the little guy has paid fines to have charges dropped. This is not a modern thing, nor is it rare.

It's more surprising that you are surprised by this.

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

#404

Post by gundmc » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 4:16 PM UTC

This sounds more like a fishing expedition than a typical search warrant. I expect that Google fought or is fighting this request as stated as they have for others in the past.

"And if we believe a request is overly broad, we seek to narrow it -- like when we persuaded a court to drastically limit a U.S. government request for two months' of user search queries."[1]

If they refused to hand over 2 months of search queries, I guarantee they didn't just hand over a full year of all user data.

[1] - https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/7380434...

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

#405

Post by ksdale » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 4:20 PM UTC

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #184

keiferski wrote: post #170

The deeper problem is that old laws are being used to deal with new behaviors. This inadequacy will continue to grow as human beings and computers slowly merge over the next century or two, where at some point, “your Google data” will be more-and-more equivalent to “all of your thoughts.” Those who say that this is justified because warrants were obtained seem to miss the point that state’s ability and desire to gath…

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…

I think you are spot on with your reasons for why these things actually do exist, but I think there is definitely an argument to be made for why they should actually protect privacy instead of merely inhibiting the government.

My version of the argument goes something like this: It's often said that drivers (in the US anyway) are constantly violating minor traffic laws, and that if the police want to pull someone over, all they have to do is follow them for long enough and they will find a legitimate reason to do so.

I believe that this extends far beyond the sphere of traffic. I think we all accidentally break minor laws way more often than we think we do. We all way overestimate how "good" we are.

If it was possible to automatically punish everyone for every violation of the law, we would quickly realize that many laws aren't actually that important, that they can be broken a little bit, constantly, by basically everyone, and society still functions just fine, and that privacy is more important than perfect enforcement of law.

Of course this might lead to a new equilibrium where we perfectly enforce a smaller set of laws.

All this is to say that I think people think they value law enforcement more than privacy, but if they had the full force of the law brought down on them for every minor violation, they would quickly change their mind. In that way, privacy (in the form of the government not having perfect information) is actually quite valuable.

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

#406

Post by unishark » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 4:24 PM UTC

buboard wrote: post #383

unishark wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No I don't think it's a good reason to do such an invasive search.

Though I also don't think they should just drop the investigation if they have evidence there was a real crime committed (the false police report). I sure don't know anyone who committed a felony, got busted, but then was allowed to just walk away because it was a hassle to prosecute them. As for the effort, I'm sure they have some digital forensics tool that will search anything for them these days. Probably just one case among many that one person is working on at this point.

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

#407

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 4:32 PM UTC

jasonlotito wrote: post #403

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…

> WTF? Since when bribe constitutes a ground for dropping charges? You mean fines? I mean, fines have been around forever, and everyone from the President down to the little guy has paid fines to have charges dropped. This is not a modern thing, nor is it rare. It's more surprising that you are surprised by this.

[deleted]

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

#408

Post by cf141q5325 » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 4:32 PM UTC

derp_dee_derp wrote: post #400

cf141q5325 wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I dont get how the purpose of a warrant is relevant to the discussion about the effects of actions. We are faced with the issue, that technological development has created new opportunities for mass surveillance. Some people might think mass surveillance is a good idea, others dont. Both have their reasons, both are convinced they are right. It has been like this for ever, the only thing new is that new opportunities present themself. Everyone thinks they are right, but some think this means they can tell others what to do. You have pushes of authoritarianism and antiauthoritarianism in every society, depending on your moral believes you will either be in favor or against it. So far goes human history.

>In fact, you might not even have a problem with involuntary brain scans, provided they were proven accurate. As long as the rule of law is strong and the materials were used only for a defined and limited purpose, you might think it would be better if the government could compel the true personal perspective of the accused.

Hits it right on the nail how the argument goes, but i dont see how its related to the question of the true original meaning of a warrant. Its a moral question if you think it should be allowed or not. And since we are stuck together, at least some of us, this means its a political question. Do more of us think its good or bad, and can the other side prevent or do it either way? Can we compel the government to stop this? But framing this as a question of constitutional law instead of a moral question misses the point from my perspective. The point isnt if warrants should cover digital age surveillance. Why would anyone care about this who isnt a fundamentalist proponent of the status quo? Its not the dictatorship of the eternal legal code. Which of course would also just another motivation for your morals and thus your actions.

This just sounds like a religious discussion to me. Similar to, what does the bible say about flying planes? Allowed on Sunday? I first thought people in the discussion were just being pedantic, but i dont get how this changes someones view on the world.

To me its just same old same old, this stark difference has to be interesting to figure out.

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

#409

Post by salawat » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

skrowl wrote: post #393

delroth wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is a waste of or an invalid warrant then, as the correct response to a warrant for something you don't have isn't everything you do have, but the null set.

That's still problematic though, because with clever orchestration of multiple warrants, you essentially figure out the "shape" of hidden information anyway, until you can get the request just right.

The idea though is that a judge should get tired of signing warrants for the same person by that point though, as it should not be an automatic process, and should only be being done on a case by case basis as evidence or procedure requires.

In theory at least.

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

#410

Post by shadowgovt » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 4:39 PM UTC

buboard wrote: post #227

throwGuardian wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They could at least encrypt it, storing the key in the user’s devices.

That damages the user-friendliness of their offering, because users with that configuration are always one misplaced key away from losing everything with no way for Google to recover it for them (and yes, users will absolutely blame the company for this failure mode, and companies that do not offer this failure mode tend to succeed in the marketplace).