Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details

dailymail.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 337 posts

Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details

#241

Post by xxpor »

rpmisms wrote: post #235
Spivak wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're about 850 years too late on that front. Common Law has been a thing since Henry the Second and we just ggyG'd the whole UK legal system and edited from there. You can't really avoid this either without throwing out judicial precedent because "knowing how the court will rule on subsequent cases" is basically the same as law.

> You can't really avoid this either without throwing out judicial precedent because "knowing how the court will rule on subsequent cases" is basically the same as law. But that's not law. That's consistent interpretation of law. Very different.

You're confusing statutes and the law. They're not the same thing. Just like a regulation isn't a statute, but it is the law.

Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details

#242

Post by Consultant32452 »

RattleyCooper wrote: post #103
AlbertCory wrote: post #60

I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but I would bet SCOTUS rules this kind of warrant illegal. Google certainly has the resources to take the case that far. AFAIK a warrant usually is tied to a specific person or a specific crime. In other words, if an explosion killed Harry McHarryface, then it would be constitutional to ask for names of people who searched for Harry. Or if the fertilizer used in the bomb was shown to…

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.

I can imagine a scenario where the warrant is for searches that you would not believe a human would naturally make on their own. I think SCOTUS would allow that.

Scenario: Hello fellow criminals. Instead of point to point communication, we will make random posts/pages that have our combination of words on them. So if you want to read our communication, do a google search for the exact quote "purple antelope shoe couch can squirrel."

Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details

#243

Post by Stupulous »

wayoutthere wrote: post #231
vimacs2 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I actually think the American experiment needs to end. What we have was never democracy nor was it meant to be. America was simply a playground for European nobles to send their second and third sons off to either make a fortune or die; then those surviving second and third sons decided to form a government that their families couldn’t claim as their own. We need a new American experiment that is actually government…

Slavery existing at the time this country was founded does not make it a founding principle. The only constitutional component of slavery was intended to reduce the power of slave states, and most of the country abolished slavery by 1804.

Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details

#244

Post by armSixtyFour »

astkaasa wrote: post #218

Reminds me in the movie Se7en, the detectives get the library records of people who have read certain books.

That's not just something from the movies though. Part of the patriot act compels libraries to provide information about who is checking out what books. SF public library has a page dedicated to how they will comply to those demands but also cannot inform people who's records they provide:

https://sfpl.org/about-us/confidentiality-and-usa-patriot-ac...

Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details

#245

Post by night862 »

AlbertCory wrote: post #60

I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but I would bet SCOTUS rules this kind of warrant illegal. Google certainly has the resources to take the case that far. AFAIK a warrant usually is tied to a specific person or a specific crime. In other words, if an explosion killed Harry McHarryface, then it would be constitutional to ask for names of people who searched for Harry. Or if the fertilizer used in the bomb was shown to…

There's a big problem insofar as you need to have legal standing in order to bring the malfeasance to court (implying you must be able to demonstrate this has been used)

This is so difficult, more or less impossible. Prosecutors and LE will likely not bring forward a criminal case based on this sort of unlawful search, as the discovery would detonate the case if brought before a mildly competent defense. The defense would have a really great speaking season following the court proceedings if they were to catch such a windfall.

I speculate that these sort of illegal searches are conducted regularly, and serve to fuel parallel construction.

In the OP article, it says that LE "did not need to use these search warrants to find the bomber" whose picture is inline, instead they correlated his "unique pink construction gloves" to some home depot footage of his purchase, linking his identity to the purchase with video evidence.

I think it is very possible for parallel construction to provide the required leads to locate this video footage. The search warrants can be as illegal as the day is long, but their effect may remain invisible so long as it generates a lead which is not obviously poisoned fruit.

Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details

#246

Post by SavantIdiot »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #219
SavantIdiot wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, that was pre Ice-Age expansion, before it all went to hell. ;-)

Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details

#248

Post by eftychis »

night862 wrote: post #245
AlbertCory wrote: post #60

I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but I would bet SCOTUS rules this kind of warrant illegal. Google certainly has the resources to take the case that far. AFAIK a warrant usually is tied to a specific person or a specific crime. In other words, if an explosion killed Harry McHarryface, then it would be constitutional to ask for names of people who searched for Harry. Or if the fertilizer used in the bomb was shown to…

There's a big problem insofar as you need to have legal standing in order to bring the malfeasance to court (implying you must be able to demonstrate this has been used) This is so difficult, more or less impossible. Prosecutors and LE will likely not bring forward a criminal case based on this sort of unlawful search, as the discovery would detonate the case if brought before a mildly competent defense. The defense…

Starting replying then saw your comment. Just wanted to note you are spot on in my opinion. It will be hard to showcase parallel construction and I am not sure how some ngo of some sort can pursue this at court.

Honestly, my feeling is the moment judges and congress felt OK with actions even pondering such acts we had a fundamental democratic problem in our hands.

As they say if you put a cop car on someone's tail they are going to get a ticket.

Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details

#249

Post by dang »

s5300 wrote: post #196
6510 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm beginning to see that now. Its just like the aggressive down voting shootin from the hip. People here cant even entertain the technical challenge of it - eventho the problem is [apparently] assumed to be impossible. I knew US police had a bad rep but I never imagined the service to be this worthless. I often think we need to bring back something like monks who selflessly deliver a service in exchange for an isola…

The police in my hometown consist of: * A dude who managed solid D grades throughout elementary and middle school despite a good & supportive family life & voluntarily chose to hold himself back a grade (8th grade) to "have a better chance of a football career to get into the NFL" * A dude who, for as long as I can literally remember, talked about how he was going to be some kickass marine. Talked about it all the ti…

Can you please make your substantive points without fulminating and name-calling? That's in the site guidelines. I realize you're talking about an important life-and-death issue/incident and that this material is highly activating. But internet snark and putdowns don't help—they just degrade things further and evoke worse from others.

We could especially do without "the local painkiller addicted retirement community" saying and "their dementia ridden but still able to vote minds". That's a slur, and those are not welcome here, regardless of how wrong other people are or you feel they are.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details

#250

Post by Talanes »

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #177
Talanes wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Well, generally you need to file a police report to file an insurance claim, so whether or not they do you any good (or even harm), you don't have a lot of alternatives (unless you don't have insurance, in which case you also don't have a lot of alternatives, likely).

I've never been wealthy enough to insure my belongings, so my experience with trying to make police reports for theft have not only felt like a waste of time, the officers I've filled with have directly told me I'm wasting my time (and implied I'm wasting theirs) whenever I have made a report.
Post reply on HN