71–80 of 85 posts
What could Google have done better? (Specifically in regards to this case. And assuming they pushed back on orders like this, like they claim to do.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Push back more on the request? The 4th amendment includes this part: "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" Describing what you want as " all e-mails " is exactly the type of description this part of the amendment is meant to prevent. It's way too broad.
> It's way too broad. No way would that be considered an over-broad warrant. If, e.g., you suspected someone of financial fraud, it would be totally okay to get a warrant for the contents of all the filing cabinets in his office.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google has a legal team whose full-time job is pushing back on these requests. At some point, they have to either obey the law, or go to prison themselves. Get off your high horse. It feels like some people won't be satisfied unless Google says "well, our existence has many benefits, but it also makes it slightly easier for the government to spy on people, so we're closing up shop".
Google has a legal team whose full-time job is pushing back on these requests. At some point, they have to either obey the law, or go to prison themselves. Get off your high horse. Google has a business model whose entire premise is to push the envelope on privacy and to collect as much as possible and hold it forever--to make a few extra pennies per user. Get off your high horse. Google (and FB) is /are a menace to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Push back more on the request? The 4th amendment includes this part: "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" Describing what you want as " all e-mails " is exactly the type of description this part of the amendment is meant to prevent. It's way too broad.
> It's way too broad. No way would that be considered an over-broad warrant. If, e.g., you suspected someone of financial fraud, it would be totally okay to get a warrant for the contents of all the filing cabinets in his office.
I've never owned a gmail account but have sent to plenty. Gmail is like the 21st century party landline but only a relative few people can listen in. > Because I talked to Julian Assange, all information held by Google relating to my user account with them can be handed over to US prosecutors—not just the contents of my conversations with Julian. There it is: If you have online contact with someone that's of interest…
"There it is: If you have online contact with someone that's of interest, there's a chance all of your info will be of interest also." Aside from the obvious chilling effect this has, how do you know if the people you speak to will become "persons of interest" later? Anyone you speak to now could be a high-profile activist in a year. That means that anyone could be the subject of this sort of surveillance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's way too broad. No way would that be considered an over-broad warrant. If, e.g., you suspected someone of financial fraud, it would be totally okay to get a warrant for the contents of all the filing cabinets in his office.
But I think "filing cabinets in the office" is a lot more specific. I think an equivalent would be "emails that contain the phrase X", or emails from these addresses, et cetera.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google has a legal team whose full-time job is pushing back on these requests. At some point, they have to either obey the law, or go to prison themselves. Get off your high horse. Google has a business model whose entire premise is to push the envelope on privacy and to collect as much as possible and hold it forever--to make a few extra pennies per user. Get off your high horse. Google (and FB) is /are a menace to…
How can they collect private data on you personally if you don't use their product?
How can NSA collect data if you don't use your phone, email or browse the internet?
See Google's reach, especially via Analytics, Adsense, G+, Youtube etc. Yeah, we agree that people should think for using so many products from any one company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is worth noting that they often choose to do this the "loud" way, but the FBI has been granted warrants to pick people's locks and copy their hard drives without leaving traces. Alarm monitoring companies are also subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, so that won't help you either.
It is also worth noting that the problem here is how easily the FBI can access your mail from GMail. Sneaking into a house requires sending agents into the field, watching a person to make sure they are not going to walk in on you, being very careful not to leave a trace or wind up on a security camera they set up, etc. The FBI only has so many people it can dedicate to these sorts of activities. They are not going t…
We need a new Wiretap Act to apply to non-voice communications.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is also worth noting that the problem here is how easily the FBI can access your mail from GMail. Sneaking into a house requires sending agents into the field, watching a person to make sure they are not going to walk in on you, being very careful not to leave a trace or wind up on a security camera they set up, etc. The FBI only has so many people it can dedicate to these sorts of activities. They are not going t…
Relying on inefficiency as protection against the government is rarely a good bet. We've already seen a dramatic increase in national security spending; they will obtain the resources they need. We need a new Wiretap Act to apply to non-voice communications.
The real problem is that we have allowed the government to become far too efficient over the past few decades.
Why for heaven's sake does anyone who does anything that might piss of a government use GMail or any hosted mail provider? This is far beyond me.
" 'Thankfully, neither of us use our Google accounts for anything remotely sensitive,' McCarthy wrote on his blog on Friday."