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

101–110 of 198 posts

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

#101

Post by bumbada »

icarus_gh wrote: post #38

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 al…

I don't believe you understand the concept of "tenuous".

I have worked in China, China is a totalitarian communist State. There are no tenuous connections between the CCP and Chinese companies, companies ARE the CCP.

For example if you go around China you will see children with a red badge around the neck. This badge represents that the kid is a good student and the kid is forced to wear it.

In China the best students automatically enter the CCP, there is a spy apparatus that controls them once people travel abroad from friends and relatives. If they do something abroad against the CCP they take retaliation against their families.

If you want to create a company in China, you must enter the CCP. How tenuous is that?

People that have not lived there just can't understand what totalitarian means, there is no rule of Law and not free press. The "dictator for life" Xi Jinping can kill anyone in China with no consequences, and he regularly kills competitors or threats to his power.

Having said that, people in charge in the US or the financial elite would love the world becoming their own totalitarian regime, just like China but on the entire world. They lobby for that every day.

Those guys really love power, because they have power, they want more, they want it all like the song says.

It is really nothing new. Just like the Romans wanted to conquer Cartage to own the entire world. Philip II of Spain wanted the same thing conquering Britain, later it was Napoleon, and then Hitler and Stalin.

Now it is the US who would love to conquer China and Russia if they could. Also China would love to expand by force if they could.

The only reason they don't is because nuclear weapons.

The price of liberty for normal people is eternal vigilance.

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

#102

Post by BobbyJo »

stickfigure wrote: post #57
icarus_gh wrote: post #38

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 al…

Courts in the US are generally quite independent of the political process. Abuse of the court system is prosecuted fairly heavily. This is "rule of law". On the other hand, courts in China do whatever the CCP tells them. These are not equivalent.

Also, on a technical level, let's not equate a government apparatus that both controls and records anything and everything you do online, with a government asking a private company to identify people who searched the name of a girl who was murdered.

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

#104

Post by rbobby »

jfk13 wrote: post #86
rbobby wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...".

I get "how to dispose of a broken tv", and "best place to buy a used car". And your point was...?

No body/bury = good

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

#105

Post by skinnymuch »

shadowgovt wrote: post #46
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…

Eric Schmidt, as Google CEO, had a habit of saying unpopular but true things. When he responded to a question about how people interact with Google with "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," he wasn't so much offering self-criticism as a warning regarding the overall societal trend, of which Google was merely a part. The context is often left o…

Schmidt had some incident where some info about him was posted. He was really upset. Pretty sure he threatened or did do legal action. Coming from his position of power.

Doesn’t make what he said untrue. Just funnier.

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

#106

Post by 2snakes »

ziddoap wrote: post #74
Mikeb85 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a significant difference between tracking by default and tracking only when issued a court order. Is there? Either your data is on their server or it isn't. As if they can't give data created before a court order to a government after a court order...

I can't believe I have to argue that there is a difference between always tracking everything by default and only turning on tracking once a warrant arrives. In one case, you track everything. In the other case, you don't track everything. But you have the ability to turn on logging when required (like, for example, with a warrant). > As if they can't give data created before a court order This is surprisingly simple…

It seems to me there are privacy knock-on effects. How long does the logging need to be on? If you turn on logging, does it turn on logging for all? (Seems likely yes) Therefore one warrant can put all other privacy-desiring users at risk...

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

#107

Post by a_large_rat00 »

hnfong wrote: post #87
a_large_rat00 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is this judicial fantasyland you live in with apolitical judges and independent laws? They're written, passed, judged, and enforced by heavily partisan actors, now more than ever. You're kidding yourself, and no one else, if you think the US judicial system is politically independent.

Given that judiciary being subservient to the Party is an intentional feature in China, no competent western system would do "worse" in judicial independence than China. The GP is literally always correct in relativistic terms. If that makes people in the West feel more comfortable with the government, I guess I could say good for them? :)

The Supreme Court itself is a partisan institution, now more than ever, and every reading of the Constitution has been subject to partisan biases since forever. That's not to say we have no checks and balances, just that they are not independent. More like interdependent and part of a vicious cycle; biased legislators appoint biased judges who exonerate biased executives who reward biased legislators. I think the cycles of the last few years have made that abundantly clear, but any cursory reading of US history should reveal this is not a new pattern. It's just how the system has always worked, our folklore notwithstanding.

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

#108

Post by a_large_rat00 »

hnfong wrote: post #89
a_large_rat00 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One can be against heavy-handed authoritarianism both at home and abroad, while still seeing the (quite distinct) shades of gray between the US security apparatus and the CCP, or between the CCP and North Korea, or between the US and the EU. Different governments and processes give different weights to due process and human rights vs bureaucratic efficiency and national security. It should not be controversial to say…

> It should not be controversial to say that the CCP is more heavy-handed when it comes to government reach into private lives I'm not so sure that is true. If anything the US agencies seem to be quite a bit more technologically advanced, and I'd bet they sit on more undisclosed zero days than the CCP. You're definitely correct in the difference in ideological values, and this difference might make up for the technol…

Can you explain/rephrase? Are you just talking about surveillance in particular? If so, I apologize for not being clearer... I meant heavy-handed as in forced disappearances, labor camps, censorship, behavioral modification, etc. (or in the US, forced reproduction/sterilization, manipulation of educational curricula, etc.)

China's recent attempts to curb the influences of their Big Tech and online gaming sectors come to mind, vs the fuck-all we've done with ours over the past couple decades. Soon Facebook is going to become a supranational organization that can drive new laws just by enraging enough people through algorithmic manipulation... our watchdogs are whimpering puppies against that kind of power. Our government is way weaker in terms of its ability to regulate business or personal behavior.

And for the common person, sure, our government might know everything we're doing (they all do, these days), but by and large it does not really care. The data it collects is often so disorganized even its own agencies don't know how to share it with each other, much less use it to systematically oppress -- for now. Our discourse and dissent is THRIVING, free speech is alive and well, and we have so much freedom we've self-organized into alternate reality bubbles, absent state guidance and with a deliberate disregard of expert opinion. China doesn't allow its society to fracture like that. Ours has no choice but to allow it to happen, and our elites encourage that sort of fragmentation because it makes for easier power-mongering at the top when the commoners are divided against each other.

The Chinese are oppressed by a heavy-handed, paternal government. Americans are oppressed by a government so weak that capital, charisma, and convenience govern our society, not our supposed laws or values. Other developed countries, democratic or not, tend to fall in between those extremes, from the UK & Australia closer to us (weaker gov) to the Canada & EU (stronger govs) to the Nordic and Asian democracies (stronger yet), yet China's is way way way stronger than all of those.

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

#109

Post by jart »

a_large_rat00 wrote: post #76
icarus_gh wrote: post #38

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 al…

One can be against heavy-handed authoritarianism both at home and abroad, while still seeing the (quite distinct) shades of gray between the US security apparatus and the CCP, or between the CCP and North Korea, or between the US and the EU. Different governments and processes give different weights to due process and human rights vs bureaucratic efficiency and national security. It should not be controversial to say…

The cultural gap is because America's political leadership is mostly lawyers and China's is mostly scientists and engineers. So people hailing from the latter background tend to think along more utilitarian and technical lines.

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

#110

Post by ziddoap »

2snakes wrote: post #106
ziddoap wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't believe I have to argue that there is a difference between always tracking everything by default and only turning on tracking once a warrant arrives. In one case, you track everything. In the other case, you don't track everything. But you have the ability to turn on logging when required (like, for example, with a warrant). > As if they can't give data created before a court order This is surprisingly simple…

It seems to me there are privacy knock-on effects. How long does the logging need to be on? If you turn on logging, does it turn on logging for all? (Seems likely yes) Therefore one warrant can put all other privacy-desiring users at risk...

>How long does the logging need to be on?

This would depend on the warrant.

>If you turn on logging, does it turn on logging for all? (Seems likely yes)

No, the warrant must have a specific (non-drag-net) scope. Broadly scoped warrants are fought to reduce the scope to something specific (reduced time-frame, reduced users, etc.). This is common, even with Google/FB. I'm not sure why you assume yes.

>Therefore one warrant can put all other privacy-desiring users at risk...

No, not really.

Post reply on HN