Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data • Hacker News Board

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#441

Post by ddalex » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 2:52 PM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #349

ddalex wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? How is this different from a warrant to search a home? Would you argue in that case that personal paper letters should be kept in a safe that's very difficult to open for law enforcement even if they have the warrant to do it?

> Why not? Because if it's too easy they will be tempted to do it as a matter of routine. > How is this different from a warrant to search a home? They have to actually go to the home in question in order to execute the warrant. They can't automatically search all homes.

Even if tempted, they still would need to get warrants.

They can't automatically search all accounts - they need to demonstrate the probable cause to a judge first.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#442

Post by ddalex » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 2:53 PM UTC

ahakki wrote: post #265

ddalex wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this different from a warrant that lets prosecutors read your snail mail? I mean this passed the proper checks and balances of the law, and the only reason this is on HN is that's about electronic instead of paper mail, and it involves a big Corp.

The post office doesn't have a copy of all the snail mail I sent and received over the past years. Gmail definitely does.

but if you have a snail mail hard copy in your home, that's discoverable.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#443

Post by lrem » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 10:13 PM UTC

cf141q5325 wrote: post #397

lrem wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have just changed my understanding of the world. Thank you.

How? That people think differently about reality and have different motivations and values is not really a new revelation i think? Nor should it surprise anyone that a lot of people believe they are doing the right thing. What changed for you? It seems to be much more interesting then the initial conversation. What didnt i get? edit: While it might sound stupid its an honest question. Changing how you think about the…

It always appeared to me that the spirit of the law is obvious, at least in the broad strokes. The thought experiment with involuntary brain scans, whose admissibility is not obvious when extrapolating from the spirit of current law, was eye opening for me.

NB: I think that's why Norwegian laws come with the rules in effect and associated writeups of why the rules were made this way.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#444

Post by perl4ever » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 3:17 AM UTC

buboard wrote: post #111

perl4ever wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The courts aren't any more opaque and inaccessible than, say, javascript.

90% of javascript is minimized/obfuscated. Imagine a society where 0.01% understands the law. Now imagine it calling itself “democracy”

Probably 0.01% understand Javascript, but there are a heck of a lot of computers, and practically all of them have a web browser.

Surely both programming and law are more accessible than at any prior time in the history of the universe.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#445

Post by russler23 » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 8:38 AM UTC

makomk wrote: post #273

russler23 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Ignite racial tensions”? There was no chance of that happening. Smollett was a laughingstock the day the story hit the news. Foxx declined to prosecute because she correctly saw it as a ridiculous and embarrassing stunt. Another thing to keep in mind: “igniting racial tensions” as an investigatory justification was how MLK got labeled the gravest domestic security threat to the United States. You’re advocating a cat…

Smollett may have been a laughingstock amongst people who were actually able to think for a moment about how plausible his claims were, or (if we're being more cynical) amongst people outside the left wing who were inclined not to believe his claims from the start. Most world media and all his fellow celebrities not only went along with his claims, they went after anyone who questioned them right up until the point i…

That’s true, and the public anger at Smollett that I see as unreasonable might have to do with that suppression of questioning. But I think the anger has more to do with a) white people who feel defensive about being called racist and b) law-and-order types who are offended by the attempt to deceive the police. They are taking this opportunity to push back against a falsehood, even though it’s a stupid falsehood.

The story was just uncomfortable for me, so I felt relief when contradictory testimony was found. I live near Chicago in an area both white and black, and mainly left-wing. I didn’t dare bring the story up with my black neighbors, and never heard about it from them either, despite its high profile. It was a very self-conscious couple of weeks. In contrast, when Obama was running for office people couldn’t help talking about that, and the sense of pride was real.

There was really no benefit to expressing doubt either; actual tragedies and abuses (Laquan McDonald murdered by the CPD, for instance) are still fresh in everyone’s mind. If current events weren’t as horrific people might be more comfortable expressing doubt and maybe even laughter over a guy with basically a homemade lanyard around his neck.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#446

Post by harry8 » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 9:39 AM UTC

himinlomax wrote: post #440

harry8 wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have little idea and care even less, myself. The source material, ie article published by the Tribune, was completely unwilling to come to that same conclusion in the story. So to me it seems more likely that it is in dispute on that basis rather than that is is indsiputable due to wholly unsupported comments here. But again it doesn't matter at ALL. It has zero relevance to this discussion. None. No really. Rights…

It matters in that if no one is contesting the accusations, they are, in fact, facts. That he staged the thing is a fact. Period.

Repeated assertion is no substitute for evidence. Good Soviet technique that one.

The Tribune refusing to come to the conclusion that such is a fact is a conspiracy? Something stranger? Could be, I guess. A less likely than an alternate interpretation of the evidence I've seen here. But i don't care at all about it. Zero.

It still has absolutely no baring at all on the discussion of rights erosion.

Re: Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data

#447

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 3:38 PM UTC

keiferski wrote: post #170

The deeper problem is that old laws are being used to deal with new behaviors. This inadequacy will continue to grow as human beings and computers slowly merge over the next century or two, where at some point, “your Google data” will be more-and-more equivalent to “all of your thoughts.” Those who say that this is justified because warrants were obtained seem to miss the point that state’s ability and desire to gath…

[deleted]