Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details

Post by stjohnswarts » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 9:23 PM UTC

wayoutthere wrote: post #164

iammisc wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the current administration follow SCOTUS rulings? Edit: why am I being downvotes? The president explicitly stated his plan to ignore another SCOTUS ruling

Yeah the SCOTUS has basically no legitimacy left at both the federal and state level. States are routinely ignoring Supreme Court rulings and have for years, and federal agencies don’t listen to them either anymore. The rule of law in the US is on life support right now. Another Trump presidency will kick the patient out the window.

Post by NullPrefix » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 9:26 PM UTC

Talanes wrote: post #150

6510 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the car was used multiple shootings, the same phone was in that area and the phone was used to search for the victims name every time then we have everything we need but are unwilling to use it? We can probably figure out how to extract such data and cross reference it without making any of it available to random government employees. Say you take pictures of license plates, store the data some place safe and allo…

>Sure, you'd get pretty mad if every time you get robbed the police searches your vehicle but they don't need to break anything and you will get over it. Or I'll stop calling the police, especially if that first invasive experience doesn't end with my belongings returned.

Post by mywittyname » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 9:27 PM UTC

tyingq wrote: post #154

Lendal wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article does say "specific addresses and phone numbers." So if a legal warrant can be issued for police to stake out a specific address, or wiretap a specific phone number, why would it be worse to have another legal warrant for asking Google for information about searches for that same address or phone number?

I suppose because searches sometimes feel partially like thoughts and partially like actions. They also mentioned "names" and not just phone numbers. In any case, names/phone numbers/addresses are often ambiguous, so it's trawling in things that don't feel like probable cause. There's also a screenshot of one warranted search in the article that had no names/addresses/phone numbers. They wanted everyone that searched…

Post by blacksmith_tb » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 9:32 PM UTC

Talanes wrote: post #150

6510 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the car was used multiple shootings, the same phone was in that area and the phone was used to search for the victims name every time then we have everything we need but are unwilling to use it? We can probably figure out how to extract such data and cross reference it without making any of it available to random government employees. Say you take pictures of license plates, store the data some place safe and allo…

>Sure, you'd get pretty mad if every time you get robbed the police searches your vehicle but they don't need to break anything and you will get over it. Or I'll stop calling the police, especially if that first invasive experience doesn't end with my belongings returned.

Post by ajmurmann » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 9:36 PM UTC

literallyaduck wrote: post #2

The only sensible solution is to name JS and CSS frameworks using the keyword list.