Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

chicagotribune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 447 posts

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#191

Post by nl »

burfog wrote: post #155
nl wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The title is "Jussie Smollett investigation: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of the actor’s data as part of special prosecutor probe" which seems to include the the actor's name? But then again, we all know why that is. I don't know who Jussie Smollett is (other than this story) and I'm completely in the dark what this is supposed to be implying. Maybe you are seeing headline optimisation? Is that what t…

It intersects with our upcoming presidential election. Two of the candidates (Cory Booker and Kamala Harris) were trying to pass an anti-lynching bill, as if lynching wasn't already illegal many times over, and then very conveniently Jussie Smollett has his fake lynching. He's an actor. He knows both of those political candidates. He'd be perfect for the job. Kim Foxx (with connections to both candidates as well as t…

Interesting.

But surely a fake report as obvious as this appears to be would be obvious to catch? I guess you are probably right about his motives, but he seems spectacularly dumb.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#192

Post by [deleted] »

drevil-v2 wrote: post #20
0xADADA wrote: post #3

I (and we should all) act as if this could happen to anyone. Essentially that the state can deputize any company to snitch on the digital ephemera that constitutes our daily lives, but especially those that we are deeply engaged: Google, Facebook, Lyft, Amazon. As such, we should not self-censor, but instead disengage from these proxy-cops and move to more distributed spaces.

State has a duty to prosecute law breakers. This is a load bearing wall of civil society. Everywhere. Making sweeping general statements is good for riling up the mobs but I would implore HN readers to be more pragmatic about these things. Look at the context. This person sought to ignite racial tensions for personal gain. He was given a sweetheart deal. The State is going after him and those protected him. They (the…

[deleted]

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#193

Post by dredmorbius »

drevil-v2 wrote: post #81
Mirioron wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree with you if our legal systems were built for that, but our legal systems are built to deal with a society that has privacy. People unknowingly commit crimes, or implicate themselves in crimes, all the time, because there are too many ways to do that. No reasonable person can be expected to avoid committing crimes when the government itself can't even keep track of the number of criminal laws there are.[…

I wrote this comment elsewhere below but it still applies The State has always been able to look up phone records, bank records, land records, criminal records, medical records etc etc as in order to pursue justice and prosecute. How is this any different?

Scale.

40, or even 20 years ago, the State might have been able to note a record of phone calls, postal correspondence (look up "postal covers"), some financial purchases, periodicals subscriptions, and with a great deal of effort, some of my travels and movements, mostly limited to specific port entries and exits, and air travel.

But unavailable would have been: dictionary queries, encyclopedia queries, books read, specific magazine articles read, the contents of virtually all conversations, detailed movement and location history, social associations, detailed purchase history, and more.

Today, mobile devices report location to a precision of inches at a frequency of minutes. Any random query of momentary interest can create a permanent record. As a HN submission earlier today notes, simply casually perusing a document -- clicking a link -- can result in having your home raided and all electronic devices confiscated and held for a year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21992491

The scope and scale of intrusiveness is absolutely unprecedented.

Yes, the State has some rights and powers. It also has a tremendous responsibility, which it increasingly seems to fail to excercise appropriately.

And I say this regardless of specific country or jurisdiction -- the story linked above comes from Germany, and instances readily come to mind from the UK, US, Japan, China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere.

The corruption of absolute power is not bounded by culture, constitution, or ideology.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#194

Post by jacquesm »

drevil-v2 wrote: post #20
0xADADA wrote: post #3

I (and we should all) act as if this could happen to anyone. Essentially that the state can deputize any company to snitch on the digital ephemera that constitutes our daily lives, but especially those that we are deeply engaged: Google, Facebook, Lyft, Amazon. As such, we should not self-censor, but instead disengage from these proxy-cops and move to more distributed spaces.

State has a duty to prosecute law breakers. This is a load bearing wall of civil society. Everywhere. Making sweeping general statements is good for riling up the mobs but I would implore HN readers to be more pragmatic about these things. Look at the context. This person sought to ignite racial tensions for personal gain. He was given a sweetheart deal. The State is going after him and those protected him. They (the…

They do. But I'm not in your jurisdiction. And this could happen to me too. And my company.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#196

Post by dredmorbius »

keanzu wrote: post #35
m0zg wrote: post #18

I (rhetorically) wonder why the title does not contain the "actor's" name. But then again, we all know why that is.

Full title -> Jussie Smollett investigation: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of the actor’s data as part of special prosecutor probe Too long for HN? Unknown. The title reads fine in the Chicago Tribune.

HN's subject limit is 80 characters. TRONC's head runs 133.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#197

Post by anigbrowl »

drevil-v2 wrote: post #98
analog31 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my view, the state has to ask a court to approve the purpose of each request, based on a reasonable hypothesis about what might be found. How this seems different is the lack of any limitation on the kind of content that can be turned over. And in my view, that was a mistake on the judge's part for approving such a sweeping request. For instance if I were accused of committing a crime against X, then I suppose tha…

How do you propose that works? Someone at Google searches for the information? An algorithm or an actual Google employee? If it is a human being then what about your privacy then? What if the Jussie and his manager were using codewords to disguise intent? A search algorithm would not be able to recognise that but a human being can easily infer meaning and intent from the context. What then? There are no easy answers.

If you don't have enough evidence to specify the particular thing you are searching for, too bad. That limitation is written into the Constitution.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#198

Post by throwGuardian »

I believe Smollette staged this, but the state should not be allowed to simply get a year's worth of his personal data without cause. This tantamounts to unlawful search and seizure and a gross violation of his right to privacy, both guaranteed by the Constitution.

As much as I disapprove of Smolette, we cannot let the state overstep it's boundaries and jurisdiction. They'll have to prove it while being compliant with the Constitution

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#199

Post by goatinaboat »

Mauricio_ wrote: post #137
crocodiletears wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree on your last point. Whether it's Google, Microsoft, your ISP, a databroker, a webscraper, an unscrupulous app developer, or even your TV, I think it's safe to assume that one day or the next, every piece of content you produce, or topic you discuss will leak its way onto a major adcorp's servers. I can hardly think of anyone I know that can't attest to the experience of discussing something as a non-sequit…

>I can hardly think of anyone I know that can't attest to the experience of discussing something as a non-sequitur, only to receive ads about it shortly thereafter. No way in hell that's true. Things are bad enough, you don't need to make stuff up.

The day before yesterday a work colleague asked me if I had read a particular book, the next day Amazon emailed me to recommend that book. Could be coincidence but what are the chances?

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#200

Post by jedilance »

mathemancer wrote: post #175
sjcsjc wrote: post #171

"Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries" Does anyone have an alternative source for this story please?

Archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20200109053829/https://www.chica...

Thank you.
Post reply on HN