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

391–400 of 830 posts

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

#391

Post by rootusrootus »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #388
tmoertel wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We voted for the people who gave the power, and we re-elected them. That would be true if We The People were reliably informed when we showed up to cast our votes. However, in recent years, we have become detached from reality. "News media" companies pivoted away from keeping their audiences informed about things that mattered and instead focused on capturing audiences and keeping those audiences maximally engaged…

> That would be true if We The People were reliably informed when we showed up to cast our votes. Weren't the democrats criticised for campaigning on the message that voting for Trump was a significant risk to due process and democracy? I feel like every voter was aware of what happened on Jan 6th and still voted for him with some level of knowledge about that.

I agree. People had already experienced one round of Trump before, and had every opportunity to see what he was planning for this term. There is no reasonable conclusion other than that they indeed wanted exactly what we got.

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

#392

Post by tdb7893 »

kmeisthax wrote: post #358
tdb7893 wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always feel like I'm taking crazy pills when people say no one complained under Obama since I distinctly remember people complaining at the time (maybe it just didn't make it to less left-wing circles?). It's also pretty trivial to find contemporaneous ACLU articles on it with specific complaints. https://www.aclu.org/news/human-rights/ones-obama-left-behin... https://www.aclu.org/news/human-rights/ones-obama-left-…

The liberal media did an absolutely bang-up job covering up Obama's tyranny, and the conservative media wasn't about to start punishing Obama for threatening them with a good time. So nobody in the media talked about it, even though left-wing activists were shouting from the rooftops about the Deporter-in-Chief. Obama might have even campaigned on some of these issues, but DNC insiders are experts at making big promi…

So firstly: no significant group in the US is advocating for "open borders", that term is just a strawman as used in modern politics.

Secondly: "open borders is a libertarian policy, not a left-wing one" doesn't really make sense. Saying a particular policy is inherently part of only a single ideology just isn't how ideologies work. Also, if you're looking for anti-statists who view people from all countries as equal and are for people being able to choose which government to be under then the ideology that best fits that is "anarchism". If you're using a definition where "anarchism" and "libertarianism" are essentially the same then you're using a definition where "libertarian" isn't particularly right wing (which makes contrasting it to "left wing" not make sense).

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

#394

Post by traderj0e »

Yokohiii wrote: post #296
traderj0e wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that we're only hearing one side is suspicious enough

ICE is free to speak. I don't think they have interest to explain why they hunt someone.

It's true, by not speaking ICE loses some credibility, but they won't speak even when they're right.

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

#395

Post by mothballed »

rootusrootus wrote: post #387
mothballed wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Constitution uses the following in regard to protest in the first amendment Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It uses this same "right of the people" in the second amendment ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. In both cases, the right is restricted to "the pe…

> the people You could make this argument, but the Supreme Court does not seem to agree, they have consistently said that "the people" is basically everyone here. Even those unlawfully here. That said, the second amendment does have some interpretation that allows for restrictions on temporary visa holders like the student that is the topic of this discussion. But it also has rulings that support it applying to illeg…

> they have consistently said that "the people" is basically everyone here.

This is absolutely false. DC v Heller cites that "the people" refers to members of the "political community."[] Not "basically everyone here." The interpretation of what "political community" means has been split in the circuits. One court in Illinois found it might include illegal immigrants (who have settled as immigrants) or non-immigrant visa holders that were illegally settling here. This is anomalous. Generally they've found the political community to be something approximating those with immigrant type visas, permanent residency, or citizenship -- barring some exceptions from those like felons.

Even if you dig up the most generous case in illinois (I've forgotten the name) which claims some illegal immigrants are "the people", which it has been awhile since I read it -- even they narrow the political community refered to by "the people" to people actually settling as part of the community and not just basically anyone inside the US in a way that would suggest it applies to tourists or student visa holders using their visa in the legal manner.

      What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):
[] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

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

#396

Post by hgoel »

bit-anarchist wrote: post #382
hgoel wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think "both sides" works very well when one side has been supporting the murder of citizens for exercising their free speech, calling for denaturalization of citizens for expressing the wrong opinions or being from the wrong community, openly suppressing criticism by threatening to revoke broadcast licenses and barring reporters from DoD briefings for not taking sufficiently flattering photos. I don't think a…

Well, the "worst" side has currently returned to power, the other hasn't. There's no reason to belive that the other side wouldn't become worse in its own way to further solidify its power. Before you talk about priors, remember that Trump's 1st turn also wasn't as unhinged as this. While it is okay, perhaps advisable, to temporarily support the current less worse side, try to not build house for people that would gl…

Yes, the point is to keep picking the option that's better on the things important to you. Blind loyalty is why the current guys are acting with such impunity.

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

#397

Post by [deleted] »

jgkelley wrote: post #316
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.

EFF's letter offers more details and says that the subpoena did not contain a gag order: https://www.eff.org/files/2026/04/13/eff_letter_re_google_no...

[deleted]

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

#398

Post by patrickmay »

sneak wrote: post #368
laweijfmvo wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people. We voted for the people who gave the power, and we re-elected them. It’s really that simple. Is it “too late” now? maybe, but we had ~25 years since this all started post 911 to react, and chose not to.

Nobody ever voted for mass surveillance. There's no party you can vote for in the US that doesn't advocate for total mass surveillance by the federal government. Don't pretend this is a red/blue thing. The military-industrial complex is fully integrated with both parties in the US.

No major party. There are smaller parties who oppose mass surveillance.

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

#400

Post by StanislavPetrov »

hgoel wrote: post #285
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The number of HNers who were earnestly arguing that this was the party of free speech indicates that this absolutely needs to be on the HN front page. The number of HNers (and people at large) who think that both corporate parties don't vehemently oppose free speech and privacy is disturbing. Right now, today, a massive number of Democrats who have spent years decrying Trump (and Republicans as a whole) as fascists…

I don't think "both sides" works very well when one side has been supporting the murder of citizens for exercising their free speech, calling for denaturalization of citizens for expressing the wrong opinions or being from the wrong community, openly suppressing criticism by threatening to revoke broadcast licenses and barring reporters from DoD briefings for not taking sufficiently flattering photos. I don't think a…

>I don't think "both sides" works very well when one side has been supporting the murder of citizens for exercising their free speech

Obama was murdering US citizens for exercising their free speech, and their children, more than a decade ago.

>But of the options currently available, one is much less bad than the other.

If one person says they are going to stab 99 people and the other person says they are going to stab 100 people, you could argue that the guy who stabs 99 people isn't as bad, but I won't ever support either one of them or consider them worthwhile no matter how many others do.

Post reply on HN