same topic from Oct 8th: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24719416
Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
211–220 of 337 posts
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another Trump presidency will be the end of democracy in the USA. He will install cronies at the top of the military leadership and do exactly what Erdoğan did in Turkey. It's as sure a thing as the sun rising. He will not depend on a bunch of untrained rabble to take over the Capitol next time.
The only objection I have to this post that I have is the notion that there was a democracy there to begin with. Before Julius Caesar attempted (unsuccessfully) to monopolise power in the Old Republic, there was already a ever widening chasm between the farmers that made up the bulk of Roman citizenry and the people in the Senate. All Caesar had to do was harness this growing discontent of the masses through his fake…
> The only objection I have to this post that I have is the notion that there was a democracy there to begin with.
Sure, it's probably pointless to try to argue that there was some specific point where it changed from "is a democracy" to "isn't a democracy," or to try to argue that it's "55% a democracy now." The actual point is whether there are important institutions that have weakened or failed, whether there is indication that this will continue, and what the consequences will be.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#213Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#214The only sensible solution is to name JS and CSS frameworks using the keyword list.
Reminds me when the trigger keywords for Echelon[1] leaked on the internet [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON [2] https://www.theregister.com/2001/05/31/what_are_those_words/
That's back when people still wore DeCSS on tshirts.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look at it this way, if a car is involved in a drive-by shooting the police can't get a warrant to search every single home that has the same year/make/model of car registered to with that address. For a legal warrant you have to have probable cause that a specific person committed a crime. You can't just search everybody and see what sticks, that's blatantly unconstitutional.
> For a legal warrant you have to have probable cause that a specific person committed a crime. You can't just search everybody and see what sticks, that's blatantly unconstitutional. Sure, though it’s worth noting that nothing prohibits the police from walking down the street and asking people. Those people don’t have to talk to the police, but… Google will fight warrants like this. AT&T doesn’t. Other companies hav…
>Google will fight warrants like this.
They are already complying. It's right there in the article.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me when the trigger keywords for Echelon[1] leaked on the internet [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON [2] https://www.theregister.com/2001/05/31/what_are_those_words/
> Glock 26 - a ceramic handgun that can't be detected by airport scanners (a reader informs us that the Glock 26 is only partly ceramic, the bullets are metal and is can be detected at airports - so we should really shift this one into the X-file list) They pulled this directly from "Die Hard", the Glock 26 is just a cut-down Glock 19, with a big fat metal slide being integral to the gun's functionality.
... and if I recall, the Die Hard quote was about a "Glock 7", which does not and has never existed.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correction: the suspect was holding an object resembling an improvised explosive device when he was fatally shot.
Correction: the police forces that intervened reported how the suspect was holding an object resembling an improvised explosive device when he was fatally shot.
Nah, can't say they were fatally shot by the police. Instead, you gotta word is as "They died from their injuries after being in a shooting involving police".
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#218Reminds me in the movie Se7en, the detectives get the library records of people who have read certain books.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me when the trigger keywords for Echelon[1] leaked on the internet [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON [2] https://www.theregister.com/2001/05/31/what_are_those_words/
That's back when people still wore DeCSS on tshirts.
I had one of those shirts.
Unfortunately even in my circle of nerd friends, I was the only tech nerd. Everyone else was either an anime nerd or a M:TG nerd.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look at it this way, if a car is involved in a drive-by shooting the police can't get a warrant to search every single home that has the same year/make/model of car registered to with that address. For a legal warrant you have to have probable cause that a specific person committed a crime. You can't just search everybody and see what sticks, that's blatantly unconstitutional.
> For a legal warrant you have to have probable cause that a specific person committed a crime. You can't just search everybody and see what sticks, that's blatantly unconstitutional. Sure, though it’s worth noting that nothing prohibits the police from walking down the street and asking people. Those people don’t have to talk to the police, but… Google will fight warrants like this. AT&T doesn’t. Other companies hav…
I think something everyone should be aware of as well: there is no legal requirement that Google not hand over this data to police. A warrant is needed to force Google to hand over such data, but they don't need anything at all to ask Google nicely. And if Google decides it's in their best interest to comply without a warrant, they are the legal owner of the data, so ...