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

331–337 of 337 posts

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

#331

Post by gnopgnip »

BobbyJo wrote: post #294
gnopgnip wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

IANAL, but the way I understood ECPA it only really protects communication while in transit, and both stored communications and data disclosed to third parties isn't really protected, depending on the context. Search history, and Google's analytics about you, are a gray area, because you are communicating with Google, not using Google as a transport layer with an expectation of privacy. Like, if the FBI asked me for…

Stored communications, data stored electronically is protected as well under the wiretap act. Search history, location history is covered, it requires a warrant.

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

#332

Post by mikecoles »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #303
ineedasername wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

naturally make Though some of those bomb searches could easily be made by anyone curious about past bombing incidents. I've certainly had some curiousity-based searches about how the Unibomber did his work. How do we end up defining naturally ? That's a question the court would ask, and want to be able to provide a litmus test for going forward. I'm not sure how we do that here... Statistical probability at some spec…

Yes, once the very unique search phrase becomes public and lots of random people are searching it, I suspect the court would be less likely to allow such a warrant.

This HN page is #4 at the moment. It hasn't tripped Google Trends yet though.

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

#333

Post by night862 »

eftychis wrote: post #248
night862 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a big problem insofar as you need to have legal standing in order to bring the malfeasance to court (implying you must be able to demonstrate this has been used) This is so difficult, more or less impossible. Prosecutors and LE will likely not bring forward a criminal case based on this sort of unlawful search, as the discovery would detonate the case if brought before a mildly competent defense. The defense…

Starting replying then saw your comment. Just wanted to note you are spot on in my opinion. It will be hard to showcase parallel construction and I am not sure how some ngo of some sort can pursue this at court. Honestly, my feeling is the moment judges and congress felt OK with actions even pondering such acts we had a fundamental democratic problem in our hands. As they say if you put a cop car on someone's tail th…

>As they say if you put a cop car on someone's tail they are going to get a ticket.

"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime." -Lavrenti Beria, ironically, before his 1953 trial and execution.

Beria was a monster, hated by many of his countrymen. Who would argue against such a puppet trial? So long as justice is served.

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

#335

Post by Talanes »

6510 wrote: post #328
vimacs2 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The work involves more than talking with people. They do get the full effect out of being polite but their effectiveness is hurt by a long list of things. For example, we can always spend more money on it. People will always find a way to spend more money. I would scale the budget with how long it takes to do basic things. If those take much to long they either need funding or have to prioritize tasks. Things like in…

Talking with people is kind of most of the job though.

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

#336

Post by vimacs2 »

edmundsauto wrote: post #192
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…

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.

Yes there was and sure, in the short term the Imperium seemed a good deal - until the wrong person takes the position of emperor which inevitable lead to mass terror and destruction. Something which had happened a number of times in Rome's history.

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

#337

Post by vimacs2 »

Jensson wrote: post #267
ineedasername wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Dissolution of the US federation.

Yes as well as the republic itself. It's a garbage system designed to keep power out of the grasp of the commons, which only has merit in relation to even worse systems like monarchies or fascism.
Post reply on HN