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

431–440 of 447 posts

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

#431

Post by dredmorbius »

Nasrudith wrote: post #331
dredmorbius wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abu…

At a pragmatic level, rights exist for any entity capable of, whether by individual or collective action, claiming and defending them.

The notion of innate human rights is a collective claim on rights. It is not the only mechanism for claims to rights.

States' levels of effective control, and hence, access to rights, vary greatly, from near-absolute to wholly impotent.

This approach is based on rights as a pragmatic reality, not a moral ideal.

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

#432

Post by greglindahl »

munk-a wrote: post #428
greglindahl wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It certainly can get more legal than that -- Google (or the target, if they somehow found out) could appeal against the warrant, which would result in another round in the courts.

More optimally Google could decline to collect this information and would thereby be immune to any such requests. When it comes to Gmail they could take an approach like password managers where the user's password is instrumental to decrypt the data and Google lacks any manner to circumvent the encryption - they just choose not to .

I would be all for Google not collecting this info -- that's what I've always done in my startups. Privacy by design is a great thing.

However, my point was that the comment I replied to was factually wrong -- there is legal action Google could choose to take instead of immediately complying.

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

#433

Post by Mirioron »

josefx wrote: post #412
vorpalhex wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hu…

The police already attracts the corrupt and power hungry. This is just how security services work and why their power needs to be checked and there has to be oversight.

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

#434

Post by harry8 »

himinlomax wrote: post #271
harry8 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's clear you have made up your mind without the facts. Note the Tribune's reticence to come to that conclusion based on the actual evidence? I have zero opinion about it. Separate to that this comment has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the parent comment, whether you agree with the parent or not. Rights should exist for everyone, not just everyone you happen to like. Whether this warrant has gone too far as…

Is there anyone, anyone at all, who disputes that he made a false report?

I have little idea and care even less, myself.

The source material, ie article published by the Tribune, was completely unwilling to come to that same conclusion in the story. So to me it seems more likely that it is in dispute on that basis rather than that is is indsiputable due to wholly unsupported comments here.

But again it doesn't matter at ALL. It has zero relevance to this discussion. None. No really.

Rights are especially important when they relate to people you dislike doing things you also dislike. That situation is exactly when you lose your rights. Like maybe think about if that's is what is happening here.

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

#435

Post by munk-a »

greglindahl wrote: post #432
munk-a wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More optimally Google could decline to collect this information and would thereby be immune to any such requests. When it comes to Gmail they could take an approach like password managers where the user's password is instrumental to decrypt the data and Google lacks any manner to circumvent the encryption - they just choose not to .

I would be all for Google not collecting this info -- that's what I've always done in my startups. Privacy by design is a great thing. However, my point was that the comment I replied to was factually wrong -- there is legal action Google could choose to take instead of immediately complying.

I agree and didn't mean to directly go against what you said - but I wanted to make sure it's highlighted and known that Google exposed themselves to this risk voluntarily.

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

#436

Post by [deleted] »

salawat wrote: post #409
skrowl wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

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

#437

Post by jariel »

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…

It's far beyond the issue of the inherent purpose of warrants in the first place, because the material reality of the nature of information has changed dramatically.

Practical justifications have to come face to face with reality, and 'searching one's home for drugs' is a lot different than 'reading all of one's thoughts for the last year'.

We are where we are with warrants, so now we have to address the disproportionate issue that can arise with the online world.

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

#438

Post by tylerl »

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…

To the extent that Google has any of that data, they have it because the user wanted them to retain it. You probably never read your old email drafts, but people would be upset if Google deleted it without them saying to do so.

Everything Google knows about you is available for you to retrieve, delete, and often even change. You totally can selectively edit your location history. It's not a forensic log because that's not the utility users get from it. The fact that courts want to use it as a forensic log is their own damn problem.

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

#440

Post by himinlomax »

harry8 wrote: post #434
himinlomax wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there anyone, anyone at all, who disputes that he made a false report?

I have little idea and care even less, myself. The source material, ie article published by the Tribune, was completely unwilling to come to that same conclusion in the story. So to me it seems more likely that it is in dispute on that basis rather than that is is indsiputable due to wholly unsupported comments here. But again it doesn't matter at ALL. It has zero relevance to this discussion. None. No really. Rights…

It matters in that if no one is contesting the accusations, they are, in fact, facts. That he staged the thing is a fact. Period.
Post reply on HN