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

Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details

dailymail.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 337 posts

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

#261

Post by ineedasername »

vimacs2 wrote: post #189
stjohnswarts wrote: post #171

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…

What does a "radical reorganization" look like in this case?

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

#262

Post by ineedasername »

willis936 wrote: post #236
verisimi wrote: post #184

"Accidental leak reveals US government has secretly hit Google with 'keyword warrants' to identify ANYONE searching certain names, addresses, and phone numbers" This is historical - it is disclosure. Talk about the constitution all you like, but was anyone in any doubt that they were already doing this? That they suck up all the data from media companies to have a mega-graph? That they are running accurate simulation…

I'd like to point out that "technocracy" means society gives decision-making power to the experts.

Yes-- I think "technologically-enabled fascism" is probably more accurate for that sentiment.

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

#263

Post by Thorrez »

bellyfullofbac wrote: post #66
hwers wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a wonderful civil disobedience type idea. If our industry had any guts we'd actually do this.

It would have to be popular for the keyword poisoning to work, but it probably won't get popular with a weird name.. "Yeah in my last project I developed a web app based on BinLaden Framework and IsisDB"..

There's Amphetamine:

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/amphetamine/id937984704

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

#264

Post by pvarangot »

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…

For something like catching a bomber or people that just kidnapped a girl even if this warrant is deemed illegal the cops are probably making a bet that they'll be swimming in better evidence once they nail on a suspect and do regular surveillance.

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

#265

Post by jtmarmon »

Maarten88 wrote: post #233
BobbyJo wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think something everyone should be aware of as well: there is no legal requirement that Google not hand over this data to police. A warrant is needed to force Google to hand over such data, but they don't need anything at all to ask Google nicely . And if Google decides it's in their best interest to comply without a warrant, they are the legal owner of the data, so ...

I wonder if this is true for me as a EU citizen. Per the GDPR, companies can use personal data without consent when there is a legal requirement, but I think they can't just hand it out without consent when they just feel like it. Maybe that is where the warrant comes in, to make it plausible that it is required? I guess we'll find out when they arrest the first EU citizen based on this data.

IANAL but the answer appears to be no. Even an actual warrant doesn't count. Legal processing has to be required by the law of an EU member state, US court rulings don't count

See https://gdpr-info.eu/art-6-gdpr/ (6)(1)(c) (6)(3)(a/b) and https://gdpr-info.eu/art-48-gdpr/ (48)

That's not to say I know how a Google would react to a US warrant about an EU citizen (especially given the CLOUD act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_Act) but from what I can tell it's not permitted under GDPR

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

#267

Post by Jensson »

ineedasername wrote: post #261
vimacs2 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What does a "radical reorganization" look like in this case?

Dissolution of the US federation.

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

#268

Post by yaur »

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…

"probable" has a very specific meaning. If the police can construct a query that returns 1-2 results and on average one of those results is the killer than its "probable" otherwise its not.

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

#269

Post by vel0city »

Talanes wrote: post #250
blacksmith_tb wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, generally you need to file a police report to file an insurance claim, so whether or not they do you any good (or even harm), you don't have a lot of alternatives (unless you don't have insurance, in which case you also don't have a lot of alternatives, likely).

I've never been wealthy enough to insure my belongings, so my experience with trying to make police reports for theft have not only felt like a waste of time, the officers I've filled with have directly told me I'm wasting my time (and implied I'm wasting theirs) whenever I have made a report.

In the US, it is common to carry renter's insurance. It covers liability you as a renter might have for damages to the landlord's property such as water, fire, or other kinds of damage. It also usually covers your belongings as well. That coverage usually applies to your belongings regardless of where they are and covers things like theft. Bike get stolen from a bike rack? Backpack get stolen from a car? Usually covered, with deductibles, of course.

A lot of people I know who carry renter's insurance were unaware it covered their stuff like that. YMMV on what is and is not covered though.

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

#270

Post by djhn »

Djrhfbfnsks wrote: post #153
freeflight wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Startpage.com uses Google results, which besides having become kinda useless, have their own issue with censorship [0] [0] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/04/goog-n04.html

Google is also censoring a large list of search terms when used in combination with reddit. For example, you'll get zero results for "site:reddit.com underage".

How did you discover this? Any more examples?
Post reply on HN