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

111–120 of 337 posts

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

#111

Post by ampdepolymerase »

tyre wrote: post #77
toolz wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's difficult to win in an SEC governed market that is corrupt by design. You'd need a competitive advantage large enough to bridge the SECs designed corruption in the market.

What does this even mean? That it’s difficult to make your stock go up because the SEC has rigged the market? Read through Tesla’s history with the SEC, specifically Musk being immature and committing securities fraud on Twitter. They’ve fined him and the company, and there is no love lost between the two, but TSLA is still going up.

You forget the other company he manages.

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

#112

Post by Mountain_Skies »

t-writescode wrote: post #104

I recall reading stories about librarians actively refusing to give, effectively, exactly the same information back in the day. How we have fallen.

Same with video rental information after Robert Bork's rental history was leaked and all of Congress realized the same thing could happen to any of them, regardless of party. If the Patriot Act didn't kill it off, the wording of the law along with the switch to streaming likely has rendered it mostly ineffective.

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

#113

Post by baud147258 »

literallyaduck wrote: post #2

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

I'm not really sure it's a idea that's usable, I mean the results of the framework would end up below results on actual explosions, so it'd be a PITA to search for information... I remember one tool called Beaver that was part of a deployement, really annoying to track down the documentation and existing issues

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

#114

Post by 0des »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #50
cogman10 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can look up terrorism incidents in the US [1]. Far right extremism is far more likely the reason for terrorism in the US vs far left extremism. In recent years, 115 far right attacks vs 19 far left (from 2008 -> 2016). And that's with adding another category for Islamic terrorism (63) (which, in and of itself would be far right terrorism.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

well I mean generally far right terrorism isn't described or charged as terrorism is it? So it seems unlikely that they would track a white kid in case they turned in to a far right terrorist, because the narrative is that's not a problem. Incompatible narratives should be resolved in one direction or another.

Didn't the mostly white population of protestors at the capitol get threatened with terrorism charges or something of that nature?

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

#115

Post by Mountain_Skies »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #13
hellojesus wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's the point. It gives the government an easy in to collect more data on any and all of these users, regardless of whether it is pertinent to a specific case.

Exactly. Gotta start collecting danger on every teenager who downloads the anarchist cookbook on the off chance they become a far right truck bomber in the next 20yr. Yet every time something happens it seems like the suspect was on law enforcement's radar and they did nothing. Odd. Oh well, I'm sure a bigger data haystack to find needles in will solve that. /s

Or more likely, any teenager who grows up to be an inconvenient political figure that the establishment at the time (which might or might not be ideologically different than the current establishment) wants to get rid of.

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

#116

Post by tyingq »

tehjoker wrote: post #46
dmoy wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean yea, everything you do at work in a defense contractor is keylogged. They don't need to ask Google, they know what you're doing on their network.

He said he did it from home though. I always wondered if he was making it up or not, but this was the Bush era (not that that much has changed).

I'm assuming he landed somewhere after the search that his bosses had logs for, like maybe a bio page on some .mil domain. Back in the 2000's, you still got a referrer header that included not just "google.com", but also the search query parameters.

So if you followed https://www.google.com/search?q=my+asshole+boss+joe+schmoe to get to the .mil hosted bio page, they got to see that.

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

#117

Post by Spivak »

iammisc wrote: post #107
gowld wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you link to info about that?

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-04/biden-... > The president knows this. He told the press that his administration had surveyed the opinions of constitutional scholars, and that most thought an extension would be unlawful. Yet under political pressure from the left, Biden nevertheless ultimately decided to issue the extension. In other words: SCOTUS wrote words clearly indicating a ban would be ill…

Seems like a good political move though, now the courts actually have to make the administration stop and get all the negative heat from putting people on the street. I mean the supreme law of the land let an order they believed was unconstitutional stand because of their personal moral imperatives and empathy toward renters. Is it really that crazy to shoot your shot and see if they do it again? Like the whole situation is nuts — “I think this is unconstitutional but I’m not going to say so because the law is gonna expire soon.” If that’s really the case then you could rule the other way with a clear conscience since it’s only a few days. Taking a bet that it was a bluff with little downsides if your wrong seems like a no brainer.

And the administration gets to say they did all they could and it’s up to congress now.

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

#118

Post by greenail »

It would suck if you were interested in the Polish efforts to decrypt enigma and you searched for 'bombe' but you get redirected via the spelling correction feature into government surveillance. How likely would a spelling correction get you swept up in this?

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

#119

Post by JumpCrisscross »

iammisc wrote: post #106
themitigating wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide a source?

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-04/biden-... > The president knows this. He told the press that his administration had surveyed the opinions of constitutional scholars, and that most thought an extension would be unlawful. Yet under political pressure from the left, Biden nevertheless ultimately decided to issue the extension. In other words: SCOTUS wrote words clearly indicating a ban would be ill…

> SCOTUS wrote words clearly indicating a ban would be illegal. By a technicality (expiration date), they didn't issue an explicit ruling. Biden did it anyway, while admitting he knew it was illegal.

SCOTUS said the moratorium exceeded the CDC's legal authority, but declined to strike it down given it was soon expiring [1]. (They also strongly suggested that if POTUS tried renewing, they would strike it down.) POTUS tried renewing. SCOTUS struck it down.

None of this is properly construed as POTUS ignoring SCOTUS. When SCOTUS struck down the law, POTUS obliged.

[1] https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/divided-court-leaves-evic...

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

#120

Post by alexpw »

jdgoesmarching wrote: post #102
Maximus9000 wrote: post #95

Is there a better source on this? Daily Mail is terrible: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/

The Daily Mail is terrible, but so is Media Bias fact check. Their methodology is a joke regardless of your politics.

Which alternative to MBFC is preferred? AllSides or AdFontesMedia or?
Post reply on HN