Live data from Hacker News

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

forbes.com

21–30 of 198 posts

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

#21

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!

Yeah, honestly, this kind of thing slightly terrifies me. I know I have definitely Googled for totally random things that, when taken out of context, would look pretty bad. I remember once watching a show where someone was knocked out with chloroform, and I googled something like "Does chloroform really work?" or "Can you really knock someone out with chloroform?"

I turned to my partner and joked "You better not be huffing any chloroform in the near future."

That's the light side of it, but the scary side of it, and why these sort of "fishing expeditions" are so dangerous, is that statistically it's probably the case that if you're keywords are pretty specific (googling a person's name or address in a very time limited window), that 90-95% of the time if someone popped up they were doing something suspicious - but that means 5-10% of the time you'd get a false positive. Given revelations of people who have been released fro death row for rather flimsy evidence, I don't have confidence that the authorities would do much besides try to find someone guilty once they got a hit.

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

#22
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Hmm, this appears to be a relatively new power.

https://www.propublica.org/article/remember-when-the-patriot...

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

#23

Don't want to be swept up in a dragnet? Don't want to be a suspect based on normal everyday activities? Then you better not use Google, try DuckDuckGo or another private search engine. Edit: downvote all you want. dealing with google is like talking to the police, whatever you say/do will be used against you. in googles case for advertising/influencing you or by the government using the google gold mine. you can spar…

> Edit: downvote all you want.

Complaining about being downvoted is shunned upon on HN and is unlikely to cause people to stop downvoting. It brings nothing interesting to discussion and actually reduces density of interesting things.

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

#24
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Hmm, this appears to be a relatively new power. https://www.propublica.org/article/remember-when-the-patriot...

No, American courts can order the production of any kind of records, and always have done so. Law enforcement goes to the court, shows "probable cause" regarding a current case, swears to the facts of the case, and the court orders some third party to produce the information. The third party is obligated to comply or contest. This is the legal process to which people are due in the phrase "due process of law".

The Section 215 powers you refer to move jurisdiction of certain matters from one court to another. That's perhaps not great but the main effect of it is giving law enforcement a more secret venue in which to seek warrants.

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

#25
If you haven't already, you've been able to "auto-delete" the data Google keeps on you for a while now. I think Google should be turning this on by default for everyone, but, if you are not doing this, a little more detail may be found at https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/automatically....

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

#26
post #23

Don't want to be swept up in a dragnet? Don't want to be a suspect based on normal everyday activities? Then you better not use Google, try DuckDuckGo or another private search engine. Edit: downvote all you want. dealing with google is like talking to the police, whatever you say/do will be used against you. in googles case for advertising/influencing you or by the government using the google gold mine. you can spar…

> Edit: downvote all you want. Complaining about being downvoted is shunned upon on HN and is unlikely to cause people to stop downvoting. It brings nothing interesting to discussion and actually reduces density of interesting things.

You only posted a piece of my edit. I did also clarify my point. Was not meant as a complaint as much as a clarification and invitation for discussion. Wish more down votes would comment.

My style tends to be terse/short and perhaps I don't always make my point well.

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

#27
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, this appears to be a relatively new power. https://www.propublica.org/article/remember-when-the-patriot...

No, American courts can order the production of any kind of records, and always have done so. Law enforcement goes to the court, shows "probable cause" regarding a current case, swears to the facts of the case, and the court orders some third party to produce the information. The third party is obligated to comply or contest. This is the legal process to which people are due in the phrase "due process of law". The Se…

It seems you are right. And other countries have long done similar or worse.

I always thought that in the west you had a freedom of thought and could pursue whatever direction of research you wished without consequence. After all, without freedom of thought, you can't really have proper freedom of conscience, let alone freedom of speech.

I'm slightly disturbed that apparently it's not quite that simple. Today I'm one of the (un)lucky 10000 I guess. https://xkcd.com/1053/

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

#28
post #8

DuckDuckGo famously does not save your search history but the way things are going I fear that one day such a thing will be mandated.

DDG famously blocked people in countries that aren't China from searching for topics that China censors.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27394925

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

#29

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!

> Google “How to kill your husband” and hand it back to her. Congrats, you’re safe for another month!

Sure, google's search results suck nowadays, but she could always just go to the library.

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

#30

Don't want to be swept up in a dragnet? Don't want to be a suspect based on normal everyday activities? Then you better not use Google, try DuckDuckGo or another private search engine. Edit: downvote all you want. dealing with google is like talking to the police, whatever you say/do will be used against you. in googles case for advertising/influencing you or by the government using the google gold mine. you can spar…

Would not using Google or Facebook be considered suspicious at some point?
Post reply on HN