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

#161

Post by mattkrause » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 9:00 PM UTC

RattleyCooper wrote: post #108

gowld wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you link to info about that?

At least with the eviction moratorium, it was ruled unconstitutional by scotus and biden doubled down and enacted a new illegal eviction moratorium. Seems like they are kind of picking and choosing what rules they'll follow, and which rights they think people deserve

No, it wasn't.

The Court originally declined to vacate the stay in a 5-4 decision. The fifth vote was from Kavanaugh, who wrote that he thought the stay should be vacated, but wasn't voting to do so because the moratorium was about to expire anyway. That concurrence is certainly informative, but doesn't override his actual vote to maintain the stay.

The second moratorium was quickly overturned, with Kavanaugh voting this time in accordance with his opinion. In any case, the administration did actually follow that ruling.

This is taken directly from the actual decision (the first round is discussed on page 4): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf

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

#162

Post by mindslight » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 9:00 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #75

mindslight wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without backing up your assertion, we're just talking past one another. Google the entity relies upon USG's system of laws for what it can and cannot do. Without Google (et al), USG would have a much harder time gathering information on citizens. That's symbiosis. There is real downside to Google if it decided to go against USG's de facto interests, even if it technically has the de jure ability to do so. What is the…

> Google the entity relies upon USG's system of laws for what it can and cannot do You've defined symbiosis in a way that incorporates every person, company--and hell protected species--that touches American law. That makes the term useless for purposes of discussion.

Eh, kind of. I agree I could have done a better job. I was trying to quickly summarize this distinction -

A corporation literally cannot exist without a government charter.

Google is able to collect all this surveillance data with impunity due to the state. Google is able to wash its hands of responsibility for the results of its actions due to the state. Google is able to force its workers to be loyal (eg not embezzle for themselves or competitors) due to the state. Google wouldn't have such outsized financial resources without the state printing reams of fiat money.

Heading off the common retort that a private person can do whatever a corporation can do - the relevant issue is scale. It's simply impractical for an individual or a simple group of individuals to scale up to the level of a large corporation.

And yes, this definition does end up catching any corporation as an intrinsic organ of the state. While jarring (because in the US power flows both ways), this is still a fundamental truth. For example if you attempt to set up an LLC or corporation that operates at odds with government policy (eg selling drugs), you'll find out how quickly a corporate veil will be discarded. Actions that are at odds with government policy are defined criminally, and thus all corporate activity is inherently government chartered.

Of course all of this is only useful as a lemma to reach another conclusion. But that's what I was doing - why would Google ever choose to rock the boat? It's not impossible (cf Apple), it's just that there would need to be some explicit incentive for Google beyond mere citizens' hope.

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

#163

Post by zic » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 9:01 PM UTC

colbyhub wrote: post #24

I made the switch from DDG to Startpage.com the day when Bing/DDG censored "tank man" results on the anniversary of Tiananmen Square, haven't looked back. I do miss the !bangs, so I have a browser shortcut to access those when I need them.

I find it interesting that to this day, a search for the phrase “Bing/DDG censored 'tank man' results on the anniversary of Tiananmen Square“ returns very few results in DDG, but several pages in Google.

I would not cite this as an example of why to use one search engine over another. It's a good example of why to use more than one search engine.

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

#164

Post by wayoutthere » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 9:01 PM UTC

iammisc wrote: post #62

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…

Does the current administration follow SCOTUS rulings? Edit: why am I being downvotes? The president explicitly stated his plan to ignore another SCOTUS ruling

Yeah the SCOTUS has basically no legitimacy left at both the federal and state level. States are routinely ignoring Supreme Court rulings and have for years, and federal agencies don’t listen to them either anymore.

The rule of law in the US is on life support right now. Another Trump presidency will kick the patient out the window.

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

#165

Post by jahewson » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 9:02 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.

No this is Kavanaugh trying to have his cake and eat it by saying one thing and doing another. He ducked out of making a ruling and Biden forced him to do so.

The court doesn’t get to make law by threatening to make law. They have to actually do it.

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

#166

Post by onetimemanytime » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 9:02 PM UTC

UIUC_06 wrote: post #139

onetimemanytime wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

you can fight until the case is still in the courts. Then, it is over. That's what I meant.

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

#167

Post by brobdingnagians » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 9:05 PM UTC

wayoutthere wrote: post #164

iammisc wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the current administration follow SCOTUS rulings? Edit: why am I being downvotes? The president explicitly stated his plan to ignore another SCOTUS ruling

Yeah the SCOTUS has basically no legitimacy left at both the federal and state level. States are routinely ignoring Supreme Court rulings and have for years, and federal agencies don’t listen to them either anymore. The rule of law in the US is on life support right now. Another Trump presidency will kick the patient out the window.

We are in another Trump presidency for all practical purposes. Increasing surveillance, rule by executive order, no respect for the press, no transparency, business as usual, threatening other countries. Not much has changed.

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

#168

Post by mywittyname » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 9:12 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.

This kind of thing happens all the time though. The most salient instances being when states enact abortion restrictions that are known to be unconstitutional and were historically subject to injunctions and ruled against.

There isn't a mechanism to stop unconstitutional laws from being passed or left on the books.

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

#169

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 9:14 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…

[deleted]

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

#170

Post by stjohnswarts » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 9:20 PM UTC

iammisc wrote: post #62

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…

Does the current administration follow SCOTUS rulings? Edit: why am I being downvotes? The president explicitly stated his plan to ignore another SCOTUS ruling

The President is basically the head of law enforcement in the federal government. Police organizations in the USA have a long history of pushing the limits of what is Constitutional. After all, they just want to get their job done and leave it up to the judiciary to decide what is Constitutional.