Live data from Hacker News

Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details

dailymail.co.uk

191–200 of 337 posts

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

#191

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…

You'd think so. But for 20 years plus justices at all levels have been very happy signing off secret warrants, ultra wide warrants, back dates warrants and other bs. It seems the judiciary don't (want to) understand computers well enough. They just accept government claims of necessity.

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

#192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another Trump presidency will be the end of democracy in the USA. He will install cronies at the top of the military leadership and do exactly what Erdoğan did in Turkey. It's as sure a thing as the sun rising. He will not depend on a bunch of untrained rabble to take over the Capitol next time.

The only objection I have to this post that I have is the notion that there was a democracy there to begin with. Before Julius Caesar attempted (unsuccessfully) to monopolise power in the Old Republic, there was already a ever widening chasm between the farmers that made up the bulk of Roman citizenry and the people in the Senate. All Caesar had to do was harness this growing discontent of the masses through his fake…

Wasn't there a history of political violence and rabble rousing in Rome for a century or two before Rome? I thought the Imperium cleaned up a lot of the problems that Rome had for a while, at the cost of the democracy (which was really a plutocracy, until populism become more effective).

I could be wrong, since it's been some years.

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

#193
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, that seems a whole different problem that should really be addressed. In the Netherlands the police are the politest people one could ever meet. It takes very few complaints about politeness or excess force to lose the job. Ofc on the flip side they are also highly incompetent, have no tools, get to see just about ever crook released, are under paid and are very unprofessional. But polite, woah!

Cute attempt at establishing a completely made up dichotomy but generally the politeness of a police force is correlated with how effective it is, not inversely.

There's a pretty broad statement. Evidence?

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

#194
While folks are right to point out this should be expected since Snowden, I think it's worth acknowledging that the cozy relationship between government and tech companies dates a bit further back. Enabling this kind of trakcing was the stated goal behind research grants from the same three-letter-agencies during Google's foundational years.

https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-ci...

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

#196
post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Or I'll stop calling the police, especially if that first invasive experience doesn't end with my belongings returned. Oh my sweet summer child. Calling the police is never about getting the belongings back. Calling the police is only about striking the perpetrator with violence, hoping that it would equalize the karma levels.

I'm beginning to see that now. Its just like the aggressive down voting shootin from the hip. People here cant even entertain the technical challenge of it - eventho the problem is [apparently] assumed to be impossible. I knew US police had a bad rep but I never imagined the service to be this worthless. I often think we need to bring back something like monks who selflessly deliver a service in exchange for an isola…

The police in my hometown consist of:

* A dude who managed solid D grades throughout elementary and middle school despite a good & supportive family life & voluntarily chose to hold himself back a grade (8th grade) to "have a better chance of a football career to get into the NFL"

* A dude who, for as long as I can literally remember, talked about how he was going to be some kickass marine. Talked about it all the time, for years. He was also a solid D (even in shop class) student & football player. Not only did he fail, to my knowledge, in every metric required to be a marine - he managed to fail, which I truly didn't know was possible, every metric required to be an army grunt - except presumably the physical requirements. It wouldn't be hard for me to imagine him failing a cardio requirement tho.

This dude couldn't get in the lowest levels of our fucking army. I really only thought you could be disqualified for things like admitting to drugs or having felonies, but he managed to fuck up some test of intelligence they require.

* & several generations of people who are similar fuckups like these two.

Now, what do people like this on a police force manage to get up to?

Last month, there was a domestic violence call somewhere in the town. By the time the cops got there, dude was out on the curb, in his car, with his kid (wife had said he had a gun and threatened her with it, he did not have a gun)

Police haphazardly blocked him into the curb with their cruisers, and surrounded him with their guns out, in a crossfire with themselves. Proceeded to scream absolutely incoherent shit at the dude, while he's in the turned off & parked car with his hands clearly visible on the wheel - kid in the back seat, for about 10 minutes. Dude finally decides nothing good is going to come out of this & decides to attempt to leave. Turns car on, very slowly tries to turn out of how they'd blocked him in, and very slightly bumps a cruisers bumper (nobody was in the cruiser)

One cop then randomly decides to shoot. Keep in mind, I earlier mentioned the cops put themselves in their own crossfire. I have absolutely no fucking idea how, but one cop shot the other cop in the shoulder. This was the very first bullet fired by anybody, and as stated, the perp didn't even have a gun.

Cop yells out he's hit, and then all cops present go fish in a fucking barrel on the car, with the child in it, to the tune of 67 bullets IIRC.

The local news &, as you can assume, all Facebook groups, report that the man opened fire on police, and that the cops had then killed him. All comment sections swarmed with the local painkiller addicted retirement community saying "good, he should be dead" - and that reporting is now unchallengeable canon in their dementia ridden but still able to vote minds.

There's still an ongoing investigation by the state as to how the chucklefuck cop managed to go full retard enough to blast his buddy, but having gone on so long I'm sure it's going to end up as another "we've investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing"

The service isn't "worthless"

It's downright fucking dangerous to anything and everything around it, like the person legally in the crosswalk, who was hit at 120mph+ by a cop SUV and turned into mostly red mist, no significant body parts to be found, by one of the squadrons of cops responding to the aforementioned call.

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

#197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The court doesn't, or at least shouldn't, make law.

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

#198
post #94
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Spend even just a couple hours researching dark pools and naked shorts and it becomes blindingly obvious the SEC exists to do anything but protect consumers. The twitter outrage over elon's comments are nothing more than a woefully uninformed public hoping to remove the tip without addressing the iceburg underneath. If every one of your competition doesn't have to play by the rules, you'll find it hard to beat them p…

I know all about dark pools and naked shorts and I have no idea what you're talking about. Be specific. Give details.

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

#199

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…

Hey got a sec? check our this cute dog https://google.com/search?q=bomb

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

#200

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…

Look at it this way, if a car is involved in a drive-by shooting the police can't get a warrant to search every single home that has the same year/make/model of car registered to with that address. For a legal warrant you have to have probable cause that a specific person committed a crime. You can't just search everybody and see what sticks, that's blatantly unconstitutional.

On the other hand, if a specific type of nail is used as shrapnel in a homemade bomb, investigators can go around to all hardware stores in the area and get security camera footage of customers who recently bought large quantities of that type of nail.

This isn't a hypothetical situation - according to the LA Times, it's how they ended up cracking the Austin bombing case that involved the Google warrant [1]:

> Trying to find the buyer of the nails, officials “went to every hardware store” in the area to find customers who had made large purchases, and they struck gold with a Home Depot store in the Austin suburb of Round Rock, McCaul said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times.

> “The fatal mistake that led law enforcement to him — because he was pretty good at evading surveillance cameras — was when he walked into Home Depot,” McCaul said. Investigators obtained surveillance video of Conditt walking into the store in a wig and walking back out to a vehicle with a license plate connected to his name.

So I think there's a little more nuance here. Certainly matching a list of generic terms seems too broad. But a warrant for specific keywords that was limited to a specific city and time frame might be analogous to going to all the hardware stores in the city and pulling security footage?

[1] https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-austin-bombings-suspect...

Post reply on HN