Brave and Brave search have been great.
How does Brave search compare to DuckDuckGo, Startpage, and Qwant?
Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
121–130 of 337 posts
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#122Earlier 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…
[deleted]
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#123Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#124I'm confused how anyone would think a keyword warrant was constitutionally ok. Curious what the argument looks like. I don't see how it passes tests for "unreasonable" or "broad".
People who do these things don't think about the constitutionality and are decidedly "ends justify the means".
They do have have to get a judge to sign it though. So presumably the judge at least thinks about the implications.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#125Earlier 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 also said the eviction ban needed to be an act of congress. Congress debated it since then and couldn't come up with something they agreed on, so nothing was passed. So then, on the 2nd go around, Biden is using the CDC to come up with it, again, bypassing the congress which SCOTUS said was the only legal path forward. Congress could grant the CDC the authority to do so, but it hasn't. I think bypassing SCOTUS can only be argued to be intentional on the 2nd round.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-supreme-court-st...
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 situa…
> let a law they believed was unconstitutional
Nobody alleged anything was unconstitutional. The question was whether the CDC exceeded the authority Congress gave it. The Court declined to answer that question when it was first raised. It answered it, definitively, the second time, striking down the moratorium extension.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
This is next level rationalizing. For a president to say in no clear terms that he is going to make a rule he knows is illegal is something else.
At least other administrations justify their attempts to break the law and mount some defense.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#128Maybe the correct response to unconstitutional, secret warrants is to refuse to comply, maybe even refuse to respond? It's not clear to me what would happen next but I can't imagine Pichai would be arrested. Maybe a datacenter would be raided (could FBI even guess where this data might be physically located?) but at least then some public action would have to happen and break the secrecy.
I know a guy that was working for a defense contractor in the 2000s that searched his military ranked boss's name on Google and told me he was told the next day not to do that anymore.
I'll be the part of the story he didn't tell you is more interesting.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#129Maybe the correct response to unconstitutional, secret warrants is to refuse to comply, maybe even refuse to respond? It's not clear to me what would happen next but I can't imagine Pichai would be arrested. Maybe a datacenter would be raided (could FBI even guess where this data might be physically located?) but at least then some public action would have to happen and break the secrecy.
The recent documents made public have shown that google doesn't give a shit about moral integrity. What makes you think that they would put themselves at risk for some kind of non-monetary public good?
According to Forbes (who published the unsealed the docs), nothing is known about whether or not Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo are even complying with the requests, or to what extent if they are.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#130Is there a better source on this? Daily Mail is terrible: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/
mediabiasfactcheck looks pretty terrible too. A quick spot survey of who they think is left, right, and accurate is obviously off. Then when you look at the biased organizations they leverage for they're "fact checking", you can't have much hope for the end results.
How can you trust an information source analysis site built upon untrustworthy information sources?
"fact checking" is just another power center that is easily taken over by those seeking political power.