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

151–160 of 198 posts

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

#151

Post by repiret »

derekja wrote: post #132
repiret wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libraries track books individually. If you and I each check out a copy of War and Peace, and you turn yours in on time but I don’t, they know who to pester. I think there’s a continuum from the cops being able to say “we found this here book at a crime scene, who had it checked out?”, which should clearly be allowed, to “the security footage shows a copy of War and Peace with the libraries sticker on it in the crooks…

I hope you forgot a “not” in your last example!

Indeed!

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

#152

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

lsiebert wrote: post #147
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #140

As sad as it is to admit it, it is not surprising to me. Worse, given the nature of my job, it is almost a given that some of my searches and queries are a part of an undesirable list somewhere. It is a problem. I am not trying to diminish it. But the real problem is that general population has zero to no issue with it. They barely comprehend the scope of what is happening. I am not sure it registers at all. Last tim…

I suspect there may be some bias in your data gathering, because that's not what's reflected in the statistical surveys I've seen. "Americans are concerned about how much data is being collected about them, and many feel their information is less secure than it used to be. The majority of Americans say they are at least somewhat concerned about how much data is collected about them by both companies (79%) and the gov…

It is possible. My social circle is relatively small and may not be representative of the zeitgeist. But despite the data shown, the question is what an average American is doing. While there is interest in non-google, non-apple devices, those are still niche markets with some technical knowhow necessary.

Apart from that, both Apple and Google are doing rather well. I certainly did not see a decrease in sales of various panopticon enabling devices. Far from it. Amazon joined the fray and along with other players convinced people to install wiretaps in their own homes. There is an actual joke about it so I am not sure if it is a question of social proof or cognitive dissonance.

I agree there is an improvement, but I am not as optimistic it since I don't see it affecting profits.

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

#153

Post by C19is20 »

ur-whale wrote: post #137
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…

> 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 Wow. So, people like you actually do exist. This is both scary and sad.

Wow. So people like you actually do exist.* This is both scarier and sadder.

*ie not already realising that people like them actually do exist.

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

#154

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

WriterGuy2021 wrote: post #150
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #140

As sad as it is to admit it, it is not surprising to me. Worse, given the nature of my job, it is almost a given that some of my searches and queries are a part of an undesirable list somewhere. It is a problem. I am not trying to diminish it. But the real problem is that general population has zero to no issue with it. They barely comprehend the scope of what is happening. I am not sure it registers at all. Last tim…

The general population is highly domesticated. The defining aspect of domestication is the surrender of one's capacity to do violence in exchange for peaceful symbiosis. The domesticated are accustomed to filling rigid roles in society -- a society they believe to be benevolent and infinitely stable. Those of us that are not so domesticated, we wild ones, we who intimately comprehend history because we understand the…

I think I disagree in several different ways.

I am personally highly domesticated. I accept that without society there are a lot of things I would not be able to do ( engaging with random strangers on HN come to mind -- in a lot of ways, it is pleasure and a privilege to have time to engage in an intellectual discussion ).

But I disagree with your definition that the defining aspect of domestication is surrendering one's capacity to do violence. You may be applying the meaning of the word as that referring to a farm animal, but, if you permit the pun, we are not on animal farm. We live in an odd 1984 dystopia, where we hashtag about room 101, but we are not on animal farm yet. In that sense, we are not domesticated.

You could argue, a lot of us have been lulled by the comforts of the lazy life, but meaning is somewhat different from the one proposed by you.

To your point about violence, I want to note that no one really surrenders it. If US news are any indication, it is, at best, temporarily suspended.

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

#155

Post by Gentil »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #140

As sad as it is to admit it, it is not surprising to me. Worse, given the nature of my job, it is almost a given that some of my searches and queries are a part of an undesirable list somewhere. It is a problem. I am not trying to diminish it. But the real problem is that general population has zero to no issue with it. They barely comprehend the scope of what is happening. I am not sure it registers at all. Last tim…

Sir, I would ask your wife if it is OK to share all the usernames and passwords of all websites she has signed up to a stranger. And if she says NO, ask her if she wont share what she know are in her field of view, how can she be sure about the things/data she don't know about knowing big corps put money over your interest at first?

Also - https://www.privacytools.io/

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

#156

Post by withinboredom »

repiret wrote: post #130
withinboredom wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

Libraries track books individually. If you and I each check out a copy of War and Peace, and you turn yours in on time but I don’t, they know who to pester. I think there’s a continuum from the cops being able to say “we found this here book at a crime scene, who had it checked out?”, which should clearly be allowed, to “the security footage shows a copy of War and Peace with the libraries sticker on it in the crooks…

> If you and I each check out a copy of War and Peace, and you turn yours in on time but I don’t, they know who to pester.

They track checkouts. But back in the day, we could switch checkout cards in the cover of the book and return them and the library would never know the difference. With modern computers and barcodes, I do believe the individual books are tracked.

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

#157

Post by sjg007 »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #140

As sad as it is to admit it, it is not surprising to me. Worse, given the nature of my job, it is almost a given that some of my searches and queries are a part of an undesirable list somewhere. It is a problem. I am not trying to diminish it. But the real problem is that general population has zero to no issue with it. They barely comprehend the scope of what is happening. I am not sure it registers at all. Last tim…

I think tht even today with the internet it takes a good detective to sort through all of the evidence. There are easy answers and there are the correct answers, in between truth. With AI it will only get more difficult. You have shot spotters, license plate reader and gps with no warranty.

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

#158

Post by midnightGhost »

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.

DuckDuckGo does save users search history. It is stated in their privacy policy:

"We also save searches, but again, not in a personally identifiable way, as we do not store IP addresses or unique User agent strings. We use aggregate, non-personal search data to improve things like misspellings."

Startpage's privacy policy states they do not save search history:

"We don't record your search queries

When you search, your query is automatically stripped of unnecessary metadata including your IP address and other identifying information. We send the anonymized search query to Google and return the search results to you. We don’t log your searches.

To prevent abuse such as robotic high-volume querying, we anonymously determine the frequency of popular search keywords as a part of our anti-abuse measures, while protecting your privacy."

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

#159

Post by Uke »

Gentil wrote: post #155
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #140

As sad as it is to admit it, it is not surprising to me. Worse, given the nature of my job, it is almost a given that some of my searches and queries are a part of an undesirable list somewhere. It is a problem. I am not trying to diminish it. But the real problem is that general population has zero to no issue with it. They barely comprehend the scope of what is happening. I am not sure it registers at all. Last tim…

Sir, I would ask your wife if it is OK to share all the usernames and passwords of all websites she has signed up to a stranger. And if she says NO, ask her if she wont share what she know are in her field of view, how can she be sure about the things/data she don't know about knowing big corps put money over your interest at first? Also - https://www.privacytools.io/

hm, i think that page needs to be updated. They suggest protonmail for email and it has been shown, that they will do ip-logs etc.
Post reply on HN