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

Google Search Technique Used by Police Draws New Legal Challenge

bnnbloomberg.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 21 posts

Re: Google Search Technique Used by Police Draws New Legal Challenge

#11

Post by prepend »

iakh wrote: post #7
jqpabc123 wrote: post #5

IMO, the real underlying issue is the fact that Google has this sort of personalized info in their possession. Remember when the corporate line was that your personal data and search history was all anonymized? Clearly not true.

IP addresses are not people

In this case they clearly are as the IP address was traced to a particular person.

I think it’s more accurate to say “IP addresses are not always people” but they frequently are identifiers and enough to be useful in these cases. So it’s a bit of an odd statement to make regarding a case where the ip address literally uniquely identified someone.

It’s like saying “fingerprints aren’t people” in a case about fingerprints linking to an individual.

Re: Google Search Technique Used by Police Draws New Legal Challenge

#12

Post by jqpabc123 »

gruez wrote: post #6
jqpabc123 wrote: post #5

IMO, the real underlying issue is the fact that Google has this sort of personalized info in their possession. Remember when the corporate line was that your personal data and search history was all anonymized? Clearly not true.

>Remember when the corporate line was that your personal data and search history was all anonymized? Clearly not true. When was this ever claimed?

https://policies.google.com/technologies/anonymization?hl=en...

Re: Google Search Technique Used by Police Draws New Legal Challenge

#13

Post by dataflow »

jqpabc123 wrote: post #12
gruez wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Remember when the corporate line was that your personal data and search history was all anonymized? Clearly not true. When was this ever claimed?

https://policies.google.com/technologies/anonymization?hl=en...

Er that page is describing how anonymization happens, not where or when it happens.

Re: Google Search Technique Used by Police Draws New Legal Challenge

#14

Post by jqpabc123 »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #10
colejohnson66 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are when correlated with a timestamp and logs from an ISP

That may correlate to a given host, device, or customer connection, but none of those are natural persons. Who had control of said device on that connection? Was a child using it? Remote-execution malware or a botnet? Was a criminal hacking their home WiFi? You absolutely cannot map an IP address to a person, without additional forensic evidence that usually entails some non-technical circumstances as well.

You absolutely cannot map an IP address to a person

Maybe you can't ... but people sitting on jury do this all the time.

Re: Google Search Technique Used by Police Draws New Legal Challenge

#15

Post by NoZebra120vClip »

jqpabc123 wrote: post #14
NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may correlate to a given host, device, or customer connection, but none of those are natural persons. Who had control of said device on that connection? Was a child using it? Remote-execution malware or a botnet? Was a criminal hacking their home WiFi? You absolutely cannot map an IP address to a person, without additional forensic evidence that usually entails some non-technical circumstances as well.

You absolutely cannot map an IP address to a person Maybe you can't ... but people sitting on jury do this all the time.

Please don't misquote me.

Re: Google Search Technique Used by Police Draws New Legal Challenge

#16

Post by jqpabc123 »

dataflow wrote: post #13
jqpabc123 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://policies.google.com/technologies/anonymization?hl=en...

Er that page is describing how anonymization happens, not where or when it happens.

Or better yet, can you prove that it ever happens at all? I know I can't.

But the mere fact that they took the time to describe how does tend to corroborate that they did claim to do it.

Re: Google Search Technique Used by Police Draws New Legal Challenge

#17

Post by dataflow »

jqpabc123 wrote: post #16
dataflow wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Er that page is describing how anonymization happens, not where or when it happens.

Or better yet, can you prove that it ever happens at all? I know I can't. But the mere fact that they took the time to describe how does tend to corroborate that they did claim to do it.

I'm not sure what you expect for "proof" but elsewhere they specifically give some examples of where they do it: https://safety.google/privacy/data/

> To offer features like place busyness in Maps, we apply an advanced anonymization technology called differential privacy that adds noise to your information so it can’t be used to personally identify you.

Re: Google Search Technique Used by Police Draws New Legal Challenge

#18

Post by gremlinunderway »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #10
colejohnson66 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are when correlated with a timestamp and logs from an ISP

That may correlate to a given host, device, or customer connection, but none of those are natural persons. Who had control of said device on that connection? Was a child using it? Remote-execution malware or a botnet? Was a criminal hacking their home WiFi? You absolutely cannot map an IP address to a person, without additional forensic evidence that usually entails some non-technical circumstances as well.

This is a pedantic and pointless distinction given the fact that the law regularly does in fact map IP addresses to people without additional forensic evidence. People are successfully convicted on the basis of an IP correlation to a device owned by an individual.

Juries aren't going to care about this distinction because the CSI effect makes it seem like anything technical is basically an immutable fingerprint.

Re: Google Search Technique Used by Police Draws New Legal Challenge

#19

Post by jqpabc123 »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #15
jqpabc123 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You absolutely cannot map an IP address to a person Maybe you can't ... but people sitting on jury do this all the time.

Please don't misquote me.

I didn't and everyone can easily see that by looking above.

Re: Google Search Technique Used by Police Draws New Legal Challenge

#20

Post by NoZebra120vClip »

jqpabc123 wrote: post #19
NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't misquote me.

I didn't and everyone can easily see that by looking above.

If you didn't, then your point is entirely invalid, isn't it.
Post reply on HN