I'm not as criminal lawyer but are these properly considered warrants or even a search and seizure of the suspect? This is more like a subpoena against a third party not the suspect.Even if the data is considered the suspect's, does a person have reasonable expectation of privacy when he knowingly and voluntarily uses search engines that are built specifically to profile users so that data can be sold or used for ads ?If he was using a VPN may be different story but particularly Google users should by now have no reasonable explanation of privacy.
Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
271–280 of 337 posts
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ti…
Do you have a link to where this happened? A cop going 120mph in response do a domestic incident doesn’t sound normal.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ti…
Do you have a link to where this happened? A cop going 120mph in response do a domestic incident doesn’t sound normal.
I could send it to you personally, but that 100% doxx's myself, something I'm not particularly trying to do.
The article itself doesn't mention the speed anywhere - though this is my first time actually reading it. The reason I'm otherwise aware of the speed is because a family member is on the city council and also the head of our emergency department.
The officer driving died (at the aforementioned emergency room), first time I'm seeing of that. I was aware he was badly injured, but didn't think it was death. The front of the SUV looks just about like what you'd presume 100mph+ does.
> A cop going 120mph in response do a domestic incident doesn’t sound normal.
This is part of the point I'm trying to make. It's a common feature amongst small towns, especially in the MidWest, of cops being complete and utter menaces to society. He hit two other cars as well, fortunately no passengers were injured. None of which had to happen, all of which happened because of a cop wanting to go hero mode and break laws for a measly domestic call he wasn't even needed at. Responding to shots fired they say, not telling him it was his own men's shots...
Hilariously, not a singular article of many states anything about the fact it was entirely his fault. Box truck he slammed into was crossing the intersection with a green light, unaware of the cop barreling down the street without even turning his sirens on until he'd nearly hit him. Small town reporting for you I guess. Incident "still under investigation" by the highway patrol...
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
well I mean generally far right terrorism isn't described or charged as terrorism is it? So it seems unlikely that they would track a white kid in case they turned in to a far right terrorist, because the narrative is that's not a problem. Incompatible narratives should be resolved in one direction or another.
Didn't the mostly white population of protestors at the capitol get threatened with terrorism charges or something of that nature?
from reading this https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases evidently they were not - although not sure what threats were made.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#275I'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…
Google has the resources. Is it sensible to expect a corporation larger than the oil giants to behave responsibly with its power?
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. Sure, though it’s worth noting that nothing prohibits the police from walking down the street and asking people. Those people don’t have to talk to the police, but… Google will fight warrants like this. AT&T doesn’t. Other companies hav…
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 ...
> there is no legal requirement that Google not hand over this data to police.
This isn't really true. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act prohibits third parties from sharing electronic communications without a warrant. It doesn't matter if they are the legal owner of the data, if it is about a third party that has fourth amendment protections.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#277I'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…
> then it would be constitutional to ask for names of people who searched for Harry.
I don't think putting people that want to inform themselves under suspicion is feasible and it probably should not be legal. This isn't conductive to solving crimes and has severe chilling effects.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#278I guess this means they are already doing this in secret. I wonder if private browsing even works at this point. Make sense to move out of google for those searches.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#279The golden age of the centralized Search Engine is over. We need something like a decentralized, Search-Engine-As-A-Service that holds data, allows customizable algorithms/censorship/etc.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#280Earlier 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.
The GDPR states that there is a list of purposes which allows member states law to restrict the scope of the GDPR[0]. One of these purposes is "the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security".
German law uses this to allow "non-public" controllers/processors (aka companies) to give data to German (and EU) law enforcement[1]. The police still needs to specify legal grounds, e.g. the investigation of a concrete alleged crime, and "drag net" investigations are generally not legal. The controller/processor has no obligation to give data to the police if they just ask, but it can if the police request is narrow enough and names the legal grounds. If there is a court order, that's another matter, then the company is obligated to provide the data.
But what about the US law enforcement wanting data about some German citizen within the scope of the GDPR and German law? A service provider is not allowed to give US law enforcement such data[2][3], but in this case the US law enforcement will usually use the mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) between the US and Germany to ask the German police for help, and the German police will then essentially ask for the data and (provided there are legal grounds) the service provider is allowed to pass data to the German police, which passes it back to the US law enforcement.
Legislation in other EU member states is mostly quite similar.
[0] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-23-gdpr/
[1] https://dsgvo-gesetz.de/bdsg/24-bdsg/
[2] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-48-gdpr/
[3] But it really becomes complicated when the service provider is under US jurisdiction (in this example). Then the service provider is caught between competing law of two different jurisdictions and is in the unfortunate position to decide what law to break.