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

31–40 of 198 posts

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

#31

Post by CountDrewku »

annoyingnoob wrote: post #7

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…

I've been de-googling my life as much as possible the last year. I think it's impossible to completely be rid of it but at least I feel I'm doing something.

Moving important email to protonmail. I only use firefox and duckduckgo browsers. Pretty much exclusively using duckduckgo for search. I've installed a PiHole on my home network. I've switched to an iPhone... although I considering some custom android ROM now. Using Apple Maps.

I wish there was a YouTube alternative that was up to par.

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

#32

Post by celsoazevedo »

panarky wrote: post #28
goalieca wrote: 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

That was caused by Microsoft (DDG uses Bing search results):

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jun/04/microsoft...

Don't get me wrong, it doesn't make them look good, but the problem was the with the source of their results, not them censoring "tank man".

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

#33

Post by kwhitefoot »

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…

Why would a library have records of who borrowed what?

The old manual system in the UK worked on a system where your library card was a sort of envelope into which the book's card was placed and then it was placed in a tray in chronological order. When you returned the book you got your card back and there was no trace.

The library would only be able to say who had the book at the moment when they were asked not for times in the past.

See https://www.1900s.org.uk/1940s50s-library-systems.htm

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

#34

Post by ziml77 »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #15

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.

I got the same impression from the title.

The request is limited to searches for a couple specific people over a short timeframe. They had legitimate reason for it. There's no issue here.

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

#35

Post by mdoms »

annoyingnoob wrote: post #7

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…

Do you have any evidence that the same government orders were not given to DuckDuckGo? Or that they wouldn't be if DDG had any kind of meaningful market share?

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

#36

Post by rstat1 »

annoyingnoob wrote: post #7

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…

You say that as if DuckDuckGo is completely immune to the same sorts of warrants.

They're all the same, serving you ads based on your search terms.

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

#37

Post by tzs »

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?)

Historically, I don't think there was much concern in the US over library records. Before library records were computerized it was often easy for anyone to find out who had checked out a given book and when.

A typical system might work like this. Inside each book there was a pocket attached to the back of the front cover, and in that pocket was a card.

When you checked out the book, your name and library card number and when the book was due were added to the card, below the entries for previous checkouts, and the card was filed somewhere. A card showing the due date was placed in the pocket and you could then leave with the book.

When you returned the book the checkout record card was put back in and the book re-shelved.

Want to know who has checked out a book before? Just walk into the library and look at the checkout card. No need for a warrant, and no need to even ask a librarian for the records.

Eventually the card would fill up and they'd have to start a new one. I don't know if they kept the old ones or not. Since storing them would take space, I'd guess they were probably thrown away (perhaps after recording some stats on how frequently the book was checked out, because those might be useful in the future when deciding on changes to their collection). If they were thrown away, I don't know if they would have taken care to destroy them or just toss them in the garbage.

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

#38

Post by icarus_gh »

As a person neither leaning East nor West who is an avid HN reader it's always interesting to read the comments under such topics where the collusion between US private companies come up. Comparing it to the reactions when tenous connections between Chinese companies and the CCP are characterised as a threat to freedom and human rights.

It reminds me to be wary of my own biases. Because from where I stand they are all two sides of the same coin.

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

#39

Post by stickfigure »

annoyingnoob wrote: post #26
lmilcin wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It still detracts from the conversation and invites distracting meta-threads like this one (and yes, I'm contributing). It's really better to let your original point stand on its own.

Don't be disheartened by a few downvotes in the short period while a comment is still editable. You may get many more upvotes as time goes on. Or not, but don't take it personally either way.

There are also people like me that upvote interesting comments even if we disagree with them (especially if they are unfairly negative). Meta-commentary on votes tends makes them much less interesting.

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

#40

Post by judge2020 »

rstat1 wrote: post #36
annoyingnoob wrote: post #7

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…

You say that as if DuckDuckGo is completely immune to the same sorts of warrants. They're all the same, serving you ads based on your search terms.

Yes. I think people forget that personalization is not used for ads in Google Search - it's always ads for what you're searching for. Your data is only used for things like YT Ads and banner ads via Adsense-enabled sites.
Post reply on HN