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

411–420 of 447 posts

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

#411

Post by shadowgovt »

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.

However, Google creates cold backups of "hot data" that last for much longer than deleted data. Depending on the breadth of a warrant, data that was "hot deleted" and removed from servers could still be available on cold backups of the system made before the data was deleted. Unless we have evidence that deletion of hot data implies Google has a method to swiftly and reliably knock out that data in all its cold backups (including offsites).

This is, hypothetically, possible if they encrypt all data on-disk with a per-data-item key and the key itself is never backed up; if deletion deletes the hot key, the cold backups are now just noise and it doesn't matter if Google deletes them.

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

#412

Post by josefx »

vorpalhex wrote: post #342
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.

Only a police state can totally stop crime entirely. As the state is more aggressive in prosecuting crimes, it limits human rights more and more. Just like security and usability are tradeoffs, so is this.

> Only a police state can totally stop crime entirely.

Only if that involves a complete overhaul of the police itself. Currently we have body cams that just fail at convenient times, policemen stalking their ex girlfriends and whistle blowers that get the short end of the stick. Giving the police more and more power is more likely to reach a turning point where it inherently starts to attract the corrupt and power hungry, increasing the abuse well above what we already see.

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

#413

Post by andrei_says_ »

I imagine that for pretty much each and every one of us, a full year of data will yield something actionable by law enforcement or at least by traffic law enforcement. Who didn’t speed once (even while flowing with the rest of traffic)?

If we include dhs, then who, knowingly or unknowingly (go ahead and prove that) did not spend a few moments in proximity with persons of interest?

“Give me six sentences written by the most honest of men and I’ll find a reason to hang them” is more relevant than ever and I’m just imagining how much more can be found in the full surveillance trail of google services.

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

#414

Post by Mauricio_ »

crocodiletears wrote: post #211
Mauricio_ wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 3am so I'll read the article tomorrow. In the mean time: I think it would be trivially easy to verify: just take a rooted phone and log accesses to the microphone. Somebody would've found that it's being activated when it shouldn't by now. >I'll admit that it's quite likely that advertising algorithms are sophisticated enough to anticipate our needs based on previous behaviours with uncanny precision and timing.…

No worries, I look forward to your response. I honestly doubt either of us will be able to fully convince the other of our conviction, but it'll be worth the exercise to refine my position. That's actually a pretty good idea. When I'm in a position to get a rootable handset, and have the time to audit my apps, I'll have to try it. With respect to your second point, it's quite possible. But I don't actually see much d…

Most articles (like the one you linked or ) conclude that it's technically possible, but found no evidence of the microphone being used when it shouldn't.

>That's actually a pretty good idea. When I'm in a position to get a rootable handset,

I meant easy for any security researcher, to the point where one would've found something by now. But if you have assistant or siri on your phone then the microphone is always on, so it wouldn't really be trivially easy to test.

https://www.consumerreports.org/smartphones/is-your-smartpho...

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

#416

Post by salawat »

skrowl wrote: post #394
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…

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.

It also specifies that the warrant must be specific in describing the list of things to be turned over, and specifically prohibits overly broad warrants without cause.

Never mind that that Amendment technically has nada to do with this, because technically speaking, 4th Amendment for the person in question stopped applying due to Third Party Doctrine.

This is purely a procedural issue between Google and the government.

Read that and take it in for a minute. You're only as secure in information about yourself as you can say that you alone are the chief facilitator of your day-to-day activity, and that where you aren't, those who are hold government to the proper standard of access.

Furthermore, I"m fairly sure that Google has far more detailed information hoovered up with regards to everyday people than they wish to go on the public record as having. If this were a fishing expedition, and they handed over replication tracks for 2 months for instance. That would become verified public knowledge that they collect that information, and store it in queryable form.

Google is acting very shrewdly to disclose as little about their true data collection capabilities as possible. Likely because of the backlash that would occur if people were aware of just what they were sitting on.

There was a Jeffrey Deaver book that somewhat touched on the dangers of sitting on reams of correlable data, even if measures were in place to ensure none could be written down or physically exfiltrated from the building. The Broken Window I believe it was.

Either way, it should disturb everyone that the government has essentially got a one-stop-shop for just about all the detail about what you're thinking about, all enabled thanks to the requisite tracking for ad targeting.

Heck, If I had more spare time, I'd start building my own search indexer. The balance between personal privacy and government access to reams of metadata about your every day life can't be reconciled with Third Party Doctrine. Period.

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

#417

Post by stickfigure »

tremon wrote: post #275
stickfigure wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm missing something. In this case, the state is expecting evidence to exist in the form of incriminating email communication between Smollett and his manager, and possibly additional people. From the public evidence so far, it sure seems like a reasonable expectation! I'm a pretty hardcore civil libertarian, and I'm having a hard time faulting the judge here. What else do you expect?

I would expect a warrant for just the e-mail exchanges between Smollet and his manager (and perhaps other digital communication methods), not for his entire life.

I hear you, but that doesn't seem like how anything works in our legal system. When warrants are issued for cellphone records, text messages, financial records, etc, they don't have so narrow a scope.

The state has probable cause to believe there is evidence of criminal behavior in your . Therefore the warrant gives them access to it in order to look for that (previously specified) criminal behavior. In this case everyone expects to find a smoking gun in his email - either talking to his manager or talking to someone else. That seems like probable cause to me.

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

#418

Post by ComodoHacker »

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.

I mean bail not returned.

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

#419

Post by iamnothere »

khawkins wrote: post #386
iamnothere wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wh…

> a series of case studies where the process of the law was admittedly abused

This is exactly the point. The way the law is written gives prosecutors too much leeway to convict, and if you become a problem in the eyes of the powerful, they can "throw the book at you".

> 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.

You left out how the government canceled their contracts with Qwest after Nacchio refused to give them access to phone records, which impacted the company's health. There were certainly other problems at Qwest, of course, but given the lax prosecution of many others involved in such scandals, it certainly feels like this is an example of this process in action.

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

#420

Post by anon73044 »

unishark wrote: post #219
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…

That was only 10k wasn't it. The story above says the city is suing him for 130k.

Forfeiting a bond usually means you have to pay the full amount. $100k in his case.
Post reply on HN