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

581–590 of 830 posts

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

#581

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

keithnz wrote: post #579
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you feel that way about the second amendment too? Just curious if we’re picking and choosing what visitors can legally do. What if SCOTUS said that people means citizens and not visitors for guns, don’t you think that would apply to visa, immigrants, or visitors as well?

I think in the second amendment "the people" are quite clearly the citizens so they can secure their own "free" state. Where the first amendment is about limiting what the government can do so they can't make laws against free speech.

How odd that one amendment away the word “people” has two different meanings.

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

#582

Post by hedora »

nightpool wrote: post #578
inkysigma wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it did contain a request to not notify according to that same letter. I suppose that brings up several questions. 1. Does that mean the same thing in the ToS? 2. How valid are these requests?

Google acknowledges that they should have given notice per their own policy and that they violated it. In this case, they said that they violated it because they had failed to respond to the subpoena within ICE's 10-day deadline: > On November 20, 2025, Google, through outside counsel, explained to the undersigned why Google did not give Thomas-Johnson advanced notice as promised. Google’s explanation shows the probl…

At what point does Google’s incompetence imply organizations that use its services are liable for negligence?

What if this were a bogus subpoena for a lawyer’s privileged conversations with a client? A doctor’s communications about reproductive health with a patient? A political consultant working for the democrats?

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

#583

Post by [deleted] »

pyrale wrote: post #540
oceanplexian wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically incorrect, Supreme Court precedent has held that aliens are entitled to lesser First Amendment protections while seeking to enter the United States. You could be on US Soil (i.e. entering customs at an airport) and those protections don't apply. The person in question said he was in Geneva when he received the email from Google. Therefore is a non-US citizen residing outside the country entitled to 1A pro…

To condone what happens to him, you must first condone that your government lists and identifies people attending opponent meetings. Whether the government waits for him to leave the country to violate his rights feels like a small detail in this issue. Also, if you intend to claim that us foreigners are free targets for any abhorent behaviour of your government, maybe you should rename your bill of rights a bill of…

[deleted]

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

#584

Post by hedora »

fn-mote wrote: post #335
hypeatei wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This exactly. It's like everyone is assuming whatever ICE ordered Google to do was completely lawful. Even if this administration was a tightly run ship, when an agency gets a massive funding increase and daily quotas to hit like ICE did, all bets are off and you should never give them the benefit of the doubt. Obviously when the DHS secretary is calling American protesters domestic terrorists, cosplaying as a cop, a…

Cited elsewhere in this thread. [1] > First, numerous other individuals have challenged recent administrative subpoenas in court after receiving notice, and the Department of Homeland Security has withdrawn those subpoenas before reaching a court decision. They don't want a ruling against them. > [The subpoena would have been quashed because] there are facial deficiencies in the subpoena, including that the subpoena…

I’m really hoping this leads to criminal convictions once these clowns are voted out of office.

Congress needs to retroactively eliminate the presidential pardon, or (more realistically) states need to pass laws allowing them to prosecute members of the federal government (the federal government already did this to the states; the result would be symmetric, and likely survive legal challenges.)

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

#585

Post by [deleted] »

pyrale wrote: post #540
oceanplexian wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically incorrect, Supreme Court precedent has held that aliens are entitled to lesser First Amendment protections while seeking to enter the United States. You could be on US Soil (i.e. entering customs at an airport) and those protections don't apply. The person in question said he was in Geneva when he received the email from Google. Therefore is a non-US citizen residing outside the country entitled to 1A pro…

To condone what happens to him, you must first condone that your government lists and identifies people attending opponent meetings. Whether the government waits for him to leave the country to violate his rights feels like a small detail in this issue. Also, if you intend to claim that us foreigners are free targets for any abhorent behaviour of your government, maybe you should rename your bill of rights a bill of…

[deleted]

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

#586

Post by csomar »

lmm wrote: post #447
keithnz wrote: post #443

weird everyone's focusing on privacy and google.... Not the actual insanity of a government targeting people who are legally allowed to be in the US. You can try to find a way to keep things private, and many of the people on HN likely have the capability to do so. But hiding from your government because they are weaponizing your information against you seems to be the wrong approach. I just don't understand the Amer…

Was it a right he had in the first place? Many countries make it illegal for foreigners to undertake political activities as a condition of their visa, for good reason.

Was it a right that should be had, should be the question. I don't think you are refuting the parent claim. Americans are rolling over and justifying terrifying out reach from not-very-organized authorities (ICE). The American set of freedom, liberties and rights are more fragile than Trump's ego.

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

#587

Post by hedora »

jfoworjf wrote: post #5

This story is the one that finally pushed me to leave google. I moved off my ~20 year old Google account and deleted everything off their services including almost a decade of Google photos. I cancelled my Google one subscription for extra space. I'm now self hosting what I can and paying proton mail for everything else. I refuse to allow a company that will hand over data at the request of an administrative warrant…

[dead]

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

#588

Post by logifail »

Jimmc414 wrote: post #499
oceanplexian wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically incorrect, Supreme Court precedent has held that aliens are entitled to lesser First Amendment protections while seeking to enter the United States. You could be on US Soil (i.e. entering customs at an airport) and those protections don't apply. The person in question said he was in Geneva when he received the email from Google. Therefore is a non-US citizen residing outside the country entitled to 1A pro…

Yes, someone in customs at an airport can be treated as functionally “at the border” with reduced protections. But you are conflating seeking entry with being present inside the country. That’s the legal line, and the Supreme Court has stated it clearly. “once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, wh…

> Yes, someone in customs at an airport can be treated as functionally “at the border” with reduced protections. But you are conflating seeking entry with being present inside the country. That’s the legal line, and the Supreme Court has stated it clearly.

At least in terms of being "at the border", United States v. Martinez-Fuerte would appear to disagree.

That legal line you mention is both figuratively and literally not at the border; protections are weakened up to 100 miles away.

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

#589

Post by nullsanity »

Jimmc414 wrote: post #557
refurb wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoa! I’d slow down with the hypotheses, considering we have one side of the story. What we do know is that the US, like all other countries, has wide legal latitude on not allowing foreigners into the country. You can be denied entry for no more than a Facebook like of the wrong post.

The policy of applying US immigration enforcement actions against legal visa holders who have attended specific legal (US based) protests has been publicly reported and confirmed by many government officials and is unrelated to anyone trying to enter the country. Senior ICE officials have testified under oath in federal court that analysts were moved from counterterrorism, global trade, and cybercrime work to this gr…

Yes? Why would a government allow people who aren't citizens to come in and protest on its soil about its actions? I think that's the definition of forgein interference.

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

#590

Post by znpy »

Jimmc414 wrote: post #479

The First Amendment applies to everyone on US soil, not just citizens. That’s settled law. The government can revoke visas for legitimate immigration violations, but it’s not allowed to use immigration machinery as a pretext to punish political expression. That’s exactly what they are doing. It looks like the courts will eventually put an end to this [0] but it won’t reverse the damage that’s already been done. I’m g…

> The government can revoke visas for legitimate immigration violations, but it’s not allowed to use immigration machinery as a pretext to punish political expression.

What is the punishment though? According to the article (written by the same person whose data was subpoenaed) they are still around, alive, safe and sound in geneva, not even formally accused of anything.

So far there is only evidence of an investigation.

And pro-pal movements arr usually pro-terrorism, so it make sense to investigate.

Post reply on HN