Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google keyword warrants give U.S. government data on search users

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 198 posts

Re: Google keyword warrants give U.S. government data on search users

#11

Post by jeffbee »

AlbertCory wrote: post #4

What I don't know, even though I was in the same building with the people who handled these orders in Google Legal, is: If you clear your Google history (as you should), can they still respond to an order like this with your name? What if you did the search from Brave or Safari, where you were not logged into Google?

I doubt that deleting your search history would trigger a re-write of search logs. After all your history is your data, but search logs are their data. I believe it is their published policy to remove the last octet (or 80 bits, for IPv6) from client addresses in logs after 9 months and to rewrite logs without cookies after 18 months. This probably tells us more about the fact that 18-month-old search logs are not very useful for search quality than it does about privacy.

I'm pretty sure the relevant distinction is between "Data that expires after a specific period of time" and "Information retained until you remove it" in their privacy policies.

I don't see why using Brave or whatever would influence the contents of their server logs.

Re: Google keyword warrants give U.S. government data on search users

#12

Post by farmerstan »

On one hand I totally believe that our privacy needs to be protected companies that facilitate government surveillance should be boycotted.

On the other hand, the fact that no one can find Brian Laundrie indicates to be that generally government is incompetent and can’t mask all these things together to do anything really useful.

Re: Google keyword warrants give U.S. government data on search users

#14

Post by rbobby »

randombits0 wrote: post #2

From my perspective, this ability was generally assumed to be true but confirmation is interesting. Heck, it’s even a running stand-up joke. “Ask your wife if you can look up something on her phone. Google “How to kill your husband” and hand it back to her. Congrats, you’re safe for another month!

> safe for the another month

Not so fast there buddy. Best check what autocompletes for "how to dispose of a b..." and "best place to b...".

Re: Google keyword warrants give U.S. government data on search users

#15

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

Argh. Clickbait article header. The header sounds like a "blanket trawl," which, I suspect, would require an NSA-grade computer to manage (which they have, so it's not beyond belief).

They were sending warrants to people that searched for particular names, addresses, etc.

Not news. We all know this has been going on for many years. It's fairly standard, in many "capital crime" cases.

Re: Google keyword warrants give U.S. government data on search users

#16

Post by Kim_Bruning »

wongarsu wrote: post #3

In principle I don't have a problem with the police getting a warrant to find out who searched for a specific name or place in a constrained time frame. It's a bit like the police asking the library who checked out a specific book. The problem is that this could obviously be used with keywords that target a wide group of people, e.g. finding everyone who plans to attend a protest. If we continue to allow keyword warr…

I always thought that it was generally accepted that if people tried to get hold of your library-loan records; that that was a red line. You can't call a place a free country if the police can ask for your library information.

For instance: In the Netherlands, libraries tend(ed) to destroy your loaned-book information ~ when the books were returned. (They seem to have since picked up some data-mining habits?)

Re: Google keyword warrants give U.S. government data on search users

#17

Post by AlbertCory »

spzx wrote: post #6
AlbertCory wrote: post #4

What I don't know, even though I was in the same building with the people who handled these orders in Google Legal, is: If you clear your Google history (as you should), can they still respond to an order like this with your name? What if you did the search from Brave or Safari, where you were not logged into Google?

>If you clear your Google history Also what if you are logged into Google, but your Google search history was always switched off? >What if you did the search from Brave or Safari, where you were not logged into Google? Relevant quote from the article: >In Wisconsin, the government was hopeful Google could also provide “CookieIDs” belonging to any users who made the searches. These CookieIDs “are identifiers that are…

CookieIDs are specific to one browser, are they not?

As for the argument that they can still find it: The laws usually allow for the company to decline on the grounds that complying would be an "undue burden." In other words, if their usual method is to run some program they wrote to handle the common case, and this time they'd have to write a new program, they might claim that's an undue burden.

Might. If they feel like it.

Re: Google keyword warrants give U.S. government data on search users

#18

Post by annoyingnoob »

farmerstan wrote: post #12

On one hand I totally believe that our privacy needs to be protected companies that facilitate government surveillance should be boycotted. On the other hand, the fact that no one can find Brian Laundrie indicates to be that generally government is incompetent and can’t mask all these things together to do anything really useful.

How does the internet collect data (and share it) about someone offline (presumably in the wilderness)?

Re: Google keyword warrants give U.S. government data on search users

#19

Post by jeffbee »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #16
wongarsu wrote: post #3

In principle I don't have a problem with the police getting a warrant to find out who searched for a specific name or place in a constrained time frame. It's a bit like the police asking the library who checked out a specific book. The problem is that this could obviously be used with keywords that target a wide group of people, e.g. finding everyone who plans to attend a protest. If we continue to allow keyword warr…

I always thought that it was generally accepted that if people tried to get hold of your library-loan records; that that was a red line. You can't call a place a free country if the police can ask for your library information. For instance: In the Netherlands, libraries tend(ed) to destroy your loaned-book information ~ when the books were returned. (They seem to have since picked up some data-mining habits?)

That's certainly not a bright line in any American jurisdiction. Courts can and do order the production of library loan records. In general an American court can order the disclosure of any record maintained anywhere by anyone for any purpose. There are no records that are private and privileged against a court order, with a few narrow exceptions. The police can't order someone to produce anything; they need a court order to do it.

Re: Google keyword warrants give U.S. government data on search users

#20

Post by mywittyname »

ufmace wrote: post #10

Interesting to confirm that this has actually been done. I wonder if there's really any process around it. It doesn't seem so bad to do it for something super-specific, like the home address of the victim of a crime, in the timeframe that the crime was committed, where you expect to get under 10 individuals. What's more worrying is how broad could this get? Are there any actual legal limits, or does Google just give…

> where you expect to get under 10 individuals.

Maybe. If this person was, for example, online dating, a member of a popular club, had a YT/TikTok channel, or shared a name with someone who does or is otherwise notable, this could be a big list.

How would you feel being suspected in a murder case because you searched for a d-list celeb who shares a name with the victim?

Post reply on HN