Google keyword warrants give U.S. government data on search users • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by shadowgovt » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 10:19 PM UTC

_yoqn wrote: post #88

shadowgovt wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Privacy is generally agreed to be a human right. And privacy means that you can do or say something and have a right to have it not be known or made public. If someone with access to you data exposes it, it's a violation of privacy. So no, the old argument of "if you don't want it known, don't do it" is fallacious and dangerous.

> Privacy is generally agreed to be a human right.

Correct, but not a universal, constant, perpetual one like life and liberty. It is situational and context-specific; for example, it is not assumed you have a right to privacy regarding what you shout in the public square.

The still open question is the scope (perpetuity and breadth) of that right regarding things like the information you query on a publicly-accessible third-party search service... Does it look more like the privacy around what you do in your own bedroom or around what you do in the public square. And we have precedent that pokes at this topic... One's banking affairs, for example, are relatively private, but the state has a vested interest (taxation and investigation of a crime) in acquiring that information in special circumstances, and banks can and will divulge their copy of that information upon due legal request from the state.

I think it's hard to build a case that you have the same right to privacy as a bedroom right regarding information that you have queried in a third-party's database over a public network. It certainly seems like the jury is still out on the topic (and has been for two or three decades now, at least).

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

#112

Post by stickfigure » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 10:26 PM UTC

a_large_rat00 wrote: post #107

hnfong wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cyc…

If you don't think life appointment makes someone politically independent, I have to wonder what possible office would qualify. Divine monarch? Fürher?

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

#113

Post by Mikeb85 » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 10:47 PM UTC

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…

https://protonmail.com/security-details

They literally claim they're "unable" to give data to 3rd parties.

Another claim is that they have secure features for activists and journalists.

The trust is broken...

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

#114

Post by _yoqn » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 10:54 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #111

_yoqn wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Privacy is generally agreed to be a human right. And privacy means that you can do or say something and have a right to have it not be known or made public. If someone with access to you data exposes it, it's a violation of privacy. So no, the old argument of "if you don't want it known, don't do it" is fallacious and dangerous.

> Privacy is generally agreed to be a human right. Correct, but not a universal, constant, perpetual one like life and liberty. It is situational and context-specific; for example, it is not assumed you have a right to privacy regarding what you shout in the public square. The still open question is the scope (perpetuity and breadth) of that right regarding things like the information you query on a publicly-accessib…

I do agree with you that privacy as a concept is variable, as with many other notions. I wasn't thinking with the right to privacy as a bulwark against a state's legal jurisprudence.

For example say a disgruntled ex-lover posts private medical information on someone else and this gets indexed by Google. Obviously this is a breach of privacy. I would extend that to any private information, and the person should have the ability to remove that private information.

I think it has also been made more and more clear that platforms should not perpetually and forever host information about individuals against their wishes. People change, and this should be reflected in the public square. In the old days, your shouts only existed in the memory of those that were there. Now they are as fresh as the day they were posted.

The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 12 states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

The key is "protection of the law" and this is why I think that privacy should be regulated by government which extends its authority into "private" companies. Clearly that function is needed. However, I am constantly hearing the opposite case being made, that government should use its power to dig up information on law-abiding citizens as they could be doing something illegal.

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

#115

Post by ALittleLight » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 11:08 PM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #97

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…

> It's a bit like the police asking the library who checked out a specific book. And you have no problem with this? Government and police looking into and judging you based on what you read is one step away from policing wrongthink. You can't learn anything deemed dangerous anymore without being arrested. Can't look up how a bomb or sarin gas works without SWAT coming down on you because you're obviously a terrorist.…

I think the library warranty thing depends. If the government wants to find out who checked out the Communist Manifesto so they can jail them for thought crime - that's bad. If the police want to know who checked out this specific copy of Harry Potter because they found it at the scene of a murder, that's good.

Sure, I might've just dropped my copy of Harry Potter near a murder as I innocently passed by. And yeah, I might've been looking up the victim's name and address in Google purely out of curiosity right before they got murdered. Neither the Google search nor the book are dispositive but they fit into a broader context which could be used to convict or exonerate me.

Ultimately we need laws or judges to set reasonable limits on powers that could be used for good to make sure they aren't also overused for ill.

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

#116

Post by withinboredom » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 11:09 PM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #97

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…

> It's a bit like the police asking the library who checked out a specific book. And you have no problem with this? Government and police looking into and judging you based on what you read is one step away from policing wrongthink. You can't learn anything deemed dangerous anymore without being arrested. Can't look up how a bomb or sarin gas works without SWAT coming down on you because you're obviously a terrorist.…

They said “specific” book, which I take to mean “we found this book at a crime scene, can you tell us who checked it out?” Not, “I want to know everyone who checked out war and peace this year.”

But after thinking about it, I think they meant the former and you meant the latter. But to the library, it’s the exact same thing. A library doesn’t (traditionally) track each and every book, so if it’s a popular book, it could have been checked out by any number of people.

I think this is fine, as long as courts work to keep the scope small and laws allow people to do whatever they want without hindering freedom.

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

#117

Post by panarky » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 11:10 PM UTC

celsoazevedo wrote: post #32

panarky wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

No thanks, I prefer a search engine that doesn't implement Chinese censorship when I'm not in China.

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

#118

Post by a_large_rat00 » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 11:11 PM UTC

jart wrote: post #109

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…

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.

Wish we had some scientists and engineers in there! Mostly we just have assholes.

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

#119

Post by a_large_rat00 » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 11:15 PM UTC

stickfigure wrote: post #112

a_large_rat00 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cyc…

If you don't think life appointment makes someone politically independent, I have to wonder what possible office would qualify. Divine monarch? Fürher?

Does your ideology radically change over your life? Why would theirs? They judge with their own biases, and are often out of touch with public sentiment. They're just people, and in case of at least one, a rapist with powerful friends.

A bigger court elected by the people could help solve that problem. Not lifetime appointments with zero accountability. The Supremes are just another fascist and anti democratic institution, like the electoral college or the party apparatuses.

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

#120

Post by a1369209993 » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 11:15 PM UTC

Nasrudith wrote: post #92

_yoqn wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Privacy is generally agreed to be a human right. And privacy means that you can do or say something and have a right to have it not be known or made public. If someone with access to you data exposes it, it's a violation of privacy. So no, the old argument of "if you don't want it known, don't do it" is fallacious and dangerous.

Doesn't the added context change it from a moral argument to a pragmatic one about opsec as it were? Morally not locking your door doesn't mean you should be robbed. Practically it means you are more likely to be robbed.

Well, no, because that's not what it says. The qualitatively different statement "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't tell Google about it." is probably true, but... well, qualitatively different.

(If the problem with the original isn't obvious to you, try specific cases like "If you don't want people to know you're gay, maybe you shouldn't be being gay.".)