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

191–198 of 198 posts

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

#191

Post by a_large_rat01 »

a_large_rat01 wrote: post #190
stickfigure wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a very peculiar view of language if you think that elected officials are less political than ones that are appointed for life.

Lifetime appointments just mean they get to force THEIR politics on the rest of us, instead of being accountable to ours. It doesn't make them magically apolitical. They are partisan hacks appointed by shitty legislators elected by an antiquated electoral system participated in by a disenchanted and uneducated mass. The Supreme Court doesn't have a great track record of being some sort of enlightened wise guru above…

And if we're arguing semantics, there is a tendency for conservatives to label "things done differently than before" as "political" and the status quo as the sane default, which it rarely is to anyone not in line with their ideology. Everything in civic life is political, especially in a democracy as ragged and divided as ours. The more precise question, I think, is not whether some person or institution is "political" (they are, unavoidably, especially if they don't even see their own politics) but whether they are responsive to democratic whims. The Supreme Court by design is way less so, vs the House say. And I'd argue that's a huge part of their problem. Society and needs didn't evolve as quickly when that institution was designed. It simply cannot keep up. 9 old farts who don't understand technology have no place governing the future of 300 million.

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

#192

Post by therealbilly »

It should be clear by now that Google serves the state. The government knows Google collects all this information and they also know Google never deletes this information. Both Google and the government have an ongoing relationship where information is provided on demand. One can easily imagine that the government is very protective of their relationship with Google. They even invested in Google during the early years.

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

#193

Post by panarky »

celsoazevedo wrote: post #187
panarky wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I use DDG outside of China, and its results are sanitized of anything that offends the CCP, I will hold DDG accountable for that. It doesn't matter if under the hood DDG sources search results from somewhere else, DDG is the one serving me censored results. DDG "implemented" censorship. DDG is accountable.

From my point of view, there's a difference between displaying censored results from a 3rd party and implementing censorship . In this case, Microsoft / Bing censored their results and everyone relying on their results passed the censored results along. No doubt this is bad, but we know who did the censoring (Microsoft). DDG? I guess we can blame them for using a bad source and for not double checking stuff like this…

If Google is the only search engine that doesn't implement Chinese censorship outside of China, then that sounds a lot better than alts that censor search results via Bing.

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

#194

Post by ColinHayhurst »

celsoazevedo wrote: post #187
panarky wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I use DDG outside of China, and its results are sanitized of anything that offends the CCP, I will hold DDG accountable for that. It doesn't matter if under the hood DDG sources search results from somewhere else, DDG is the one serving me censored results. DDG "implemented" censorship. DDG is accountable.

From my point of view, there's a difference between displaying censored results from a 3rd party and implementing censorship . In this case, Microsoft / Bing censored their results and everyone relying on their results passed the censored results along. No doubt this is bad, but we know who did the censoring (Microsoft). DDG? I guess we can blame them for using a bad source and for not double checking stuff like this…

Excuse the self promotion but to answer your question there is Gigablast and Mojeek. https://blog.mojeek.com/2021/05/no-tracking-search-how-does-...

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

#195

Post by Syonyk »

tomcam wrote: post #188
WriterGuy2021 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is: your wife doesn't feel responsible for your personal safety. Here's the difference between a domesticated person who expects someone else to protect them, i.e., do their violence for them, and someone that feels responsible for their own safety. Domesticated: works for a major corporation in a big city. Has no guns, no means of personally protecting himself, lives in close proximity to strangers, and if…

> makes a plan to kill everyone he meets. Clarification needed

I assume it's a reference to a James Mattis quote.

> Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.

It refers to a general concept of alertness and awareness about your surroundings, and how you can't tell who might be good or evil until they act, so just assume everyone could be malicious until proven otherwise (or, more practically, until you're out of their sphere of influence).

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

#196

Post by Subsentient »

WriterGuy2021 wrote: post #177
amcoastal wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Domesticated and undomesticated both sound terrible, does your paranoia not allow for an in between state?

There's probably a "domestication gradient" or something like that. I can sense it when I talk to people. Some people are like little children. They haven't thought about their own safety ever. Others are literal wild men who believe every conspiracy theory out there because they are practically traumatized and are always seeking out potential threats. And yes, there are people in between that worry about their own s…

You're an interesting man, if a bit grandiose. I'm currently stoned, so I'll ask a weird question. What about us doomsayers who know in their hearts that it'll all fall apart in the end, but are cognizant that they themselves don't care enough about their safety to do anything differently?

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

#197

Post by cma »

air7 wrote: post #80

> so-called geofence warrants, where investigators ask Google to provide information on anyone within the location of a crime scene at a given time. It's amazing we've become so tethered to our phones that it's just implicitly obvious that your phone's location is the same as your location. Authoritarian governments rejoice! People will voluntarily pay and cling to their tracking devices, no need to track them person…

Basically everyone has an ankle monitor.

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

#198

Post by tomcam »

Syonyk wrote: post #195
tomcam wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> makes a plan to kill everyone he meets. Clarification needed

I assume it's a reference to a James Mattis quote. > Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet. It refers to a general concept of alertness and awareness about your surroundings, and how you can't tell who might be good or evil until they act, so just assume everyone could be malicious until proven otherwise (or, more practically, until you're out of their sphere of influence).

Ah, thanks
Post reply on HN