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

Google broke its promise to me – now ICE has my data

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 830 posts

Re: Google broke its promise to me – now ICE has my data

#221

Post by jmyeet »

eaf7e281 wrote: post #45

I still don't understand. Who gave ICE such power, and who is ordering them to do all this? To me, ICE's actions are similar to those of a private army.

The answer to this is that Google gave ICE this power by complying instead of fighting the subpoena or notifying the subject of the subpoena, both of which they can do according to the ACLU [1].

Willing, optional compliance with the administration is the core problem here.

[1]: https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/app/uploads/drupal/sites...

Re: Google broke its promise to me – now ICE has my data

#222

Post by hypeatei »

FireBeyond wrote: post #205
eurleif wrote: post #104

The linked Google policy states: >We won’t give notice when legally prohibited under the terms of the request. The post states that his lawyer has reviewed the subpoena, but doesn't mention whether or not it contained a non-disclosure order. That's an important detail to address if the claim is that Google acted against its own policy.

Administrative subpoenas are tenuous at best, but in the absence of an actual court order, words from ICE attorneys or officers saying "You are ordered not to disclose the details of this subpoena" have no actual weight in law.

This exactly. It's like everyone is assuming whatever ICE ordered Google to do was completely lawful. Even if this administration was a tightly run ship, when an agency gets a massive funding increase and daily quotas to hit like ICE did, all bets are off and you should never give them the benefit of the doubt. Obviously when the DHS secretary is calling American protesters domestic terrorists, cosplaying as a cop, and spending $200M+ on ads that feature herself, then you definitely give maximum scrutiny to everything that agency is doing/did.

Re: Google broke its promise to me – now ICE has my data

#223

Post by FireBeyond »

pjc50 wrote: post #199
rootusrootus wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which immigration laws are they enforcing in this case? And are you also going to suggest that the Constitution does not protect foreign nationals inside the US?

> And are you also going to suggest that the Constitution does not protect foreign nationals inside the US? I thought it was settled constitutional law that it doesn't? Moreover, during the war on terror, it was established that the president can freely order the murder of non Americans outside the US.

Not even remotely. Citizens may be granted additional protections from some things, but the Constitution applies to all persons inside the US.

Re: Google broke its promise to me – now ICE has my data

#225

Post by wat10000 »

malux85 wrote: post #15

I feel bad for both sides in this. Google can be put under so much pressure by the government, they are basically forced to do what they says; yes they can fight it, but if the government wants something badly, they will get it, they have powers (especially under the very broad definition of 'national security') to just get automatic compliance, using the same powers they can silence the companies from publishing any…

I don't! For one thing, Google is not a person and has no feelings. Individuals within Google decided to comply. And none of those individuals would face any significant consequences for not complying. The US government, even now, has an extremely good track record of treating companies separate from their employees.

The US is not in a full blown authoritarian regime. Big companies aren't failing to resist because they fear dire consequences. They're doing it because they don't care. If they think caving to the administration will result in $1 in additional profit compared to fighting it, that's what they'll do.

Big corporations are paperclip maximizers but for money. Treat them like you'd treat an AI that's single-mindedly focused on making number go up.

Re: Google broke its promise to me – now ICE has my data

#226

Post by dmoy »

vel0city wrote: post #165
hn_acc1 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm seeing it in a lot of younger tech people. We had a NASA presentation at work about air quality and that forest fires are one of our biggest problems in CA. TWO separate people (from maybe 20-25 attending) brought up "do you think that if we managed our forests better, this could help?" (clearly talking about the crazy "raking the forests" Trump rhetoric). It blows my mind how "intelligent" people can be this stu…

While Trump's "raking the forest" take is clearly uninformed and unintelligent, there's a substantial kernel of truth to longstanding forest management policies making some of these wildfires worse than what they could have been. We've been artificially suppressing fires far too long in a lot of these places, for example. Not that this is the only factor in play here on a lot of these fires, and once again I do agree…

The federal vs state conflict over prescribed burns doesn't help much either. In states with a much lower % of national forest or blm land or whatever, you get a much larger amount of prescribed burns.

In the west coast, the state vs federal friction reduces how much of that happens, and there's more uncontrolled growth happening. And there's not always a lot that e.g. CA government can do about it if it's federal land.

For example, Minnesota (intentionally) burns like 50% more acreage than California on an annual basis, despite being like half the size. But CA also is like half federal land, MN is like 5% or something.

Re: Google broke its promise to me – now ICE has my data

#227

Post by ExpertAdvisor01 »

notrealyme123 wrote: post #101
traderj0e wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those countries are interested in free speech, not even this particular kind of speech, especially Germany.

They don't sack you from the street and put you in a Camp. At least not anymore. Say what you want about especially Germany, but there you don't get sued by the president for billions if he doesn't like your opinion.

It's worse in Germany. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwachkopf-Aff%C3%A4re

Re: Google broke its promise to me – now ICE has my data

#228

Post by ExpertAdvisor01 »

traderj0e wrote: post #115
notrealyme123 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't sack you from the street and put you in a Camp. At least not anymore. Say what you want about especially Germany, but there you don't get sued by the president for billions if he doesn't like your opinion.

Germany will literally fine you for viewpoints, including criticism of Israel. What happens if you don't pay?

Also you can't insult anyone especially politicians (which Americans like to do ) in Germany as it is a crime . https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwachkopf-Aff%C3%A4re

Re: Google broke its promise to me – now ICE has my data

#229

Post by Ardren »

titanomachy wrote: post #203
Ardren wrote: post #191

> While ICE “requested” that Google not notify Thomas Johnson, the request was not enforceable or mandated by a court Sounds like Google stopped caring. But... Why on earth do the people filing an administrative subpoena not have to notify the interested parties too? Why is it Google's responsibility? If they didn't tell you, would you ever find out?

What do you mean? Eventually notifying him seems like the one thing Google did right here.

On a scale of 1-10, Yeah, I'd give them a 1-2 for notifying him after the fact.

The problem is they tell user that they'll inform you right away and give them a chance to challenge the subpoena.

A quick search shows that they've done in the past and people have been able to get the subpoena's withdrawn.

https://thefulcrum.us/rule-of-law/us-administrative-subpoena...

Re: Google broke its promise to me – now ICE has my data

#230

Post by nathanmills »

metrix wrote: post #215
pjc50 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What they meant is "freedom to say slurs", not "freedom of LGBT books in school libraries"

Being trans, I feel this so much. On a side note, it was interesting after Trump was elected where some of my co-workers wanted to use old pronouns after some laws changed _in meetings_ and I realized the only thing stopping them was the awkwardness it would have been for _them_ in that situation

[flagged]
Post reply on HN