Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by circularfoyers » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 8:28 PM UTC

beebeepka wrote: post #65

nbzso wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardened Firefox and https://searx.me/ are great to.:)

How does one harden Firefox? What's there beyond Tor browser and/or noscript?

https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js There are hundreds of settings that can be configured to harden Firefox. A lot were upstreamed from the Tor Browser via the Tor Uplift project. The afforementioned user.js is well documented and the most well maintained that I'm aware of.

This is one of the leading reasons why I think Firefox is a better browser than competitors because they don't allow this level of customization without hacking on the source code, like say Brave does. However not even Brave or Ungoogled Chromium is hardened as much as Firefox is with this user.js.

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

#132

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 8:29 PM UTC

iammisc wrote: post #127

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

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

#133

Post by coolspot » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 8:29 PM UTC

baud147258 wrote: post #110

adolph wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real life: This bullet killed Vicki Weaver, who was standing behind the door in the cabin where Harris entered.[108] Vicki was holding the Weavers' 10-month-old baby Elisheba. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge

I've seen the same terms ("the bullet killed") used to describe the recent death of Halyna Hutchins on set of Alec Baldwin's film

OP’s quote misses context.

Vicky Weaver was killed through a door by a sniper firing at someone else.

A sentence before the quoted one attributes the bullet to the sniper.

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

#134

Post by Lendal » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 8:29 PM UTC

tyingq wrote: post #78

I'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".

The article does say "specific addresses and phone numbers." So if a legal warrant can be issued for police to stake out a specific address, or wiretap a specific phone number, why would it be worse to have another legal warrant for asking Google for information about searches for that same address or phone number?

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

#135

Post by CoastalCoder » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 8:29 PM UTC

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…

Neither am I a constitutional scholar, but I'm less optimistic about this being ruled illegal.

But it's for a somewhat meta-reason: there have been numerous cases where something strikes me as blatantly unconstitutional, but the SCOTUS has allowed it anyway.

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

#136

Post by mattkrause » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 8:31 PM UTC

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…

Is doing something that the Supreme Court may later overturn--and bear in mind it was a close decision--actually "illegal"?

I could certainly see the argument that it's ill-advised, and indeed, it was struck down a few weeks later. However, I don't think concurring opinions are binding and you could imagine certain fact patterns that might have changed Kavanaugh's mind: Congress agrees on a similar extension, but there's a short gap before it comes into effect, the situation worsens dramatically, the extension is much more narrowly tailored, etc.

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

#137

Post by amelius » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 8:32 PM UTC

How does that work for EU residents?

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

#138

Post by bduerst » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 8:33 PM UTC

thegabez wrote: post #29

Brave and Brave search have been great.

IIRC, Brave Search is a skin for Bing and Google search engines. These fed orders went out to Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo.

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

#139

Post by UIUC_06 » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 8:33 PM UTC

onetimemanytime wrote: post #41

tehwebguy wrote: post #23

Maybe 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.

>> Maybe the correct response to unconstitutional, secret warrants is to refuse to comply, maybe even refuse to respond? Ummmm, no. Correct response is courts and then comply. Pichai would lose his job in a minute.

You are ignoring the fact that Tim Cook fought the government on the San Bernardino shooter, and still has his job.

The Board is not going to fire Pichai over this, provided he appears to be fighting through the courts rather than practicing outright defiance.

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

#140

Post by nathias » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 8:35 PM UTC

Of course they do, I'm more interested in why all other nation states are okay with having the US spy on their citizens. Does that make Google noncompliant with EU law or is there a convenient privacy policy exception for the 'good guys'?