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

761–770 of 830 posts

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

#761

Post by crazygringo »

nobody9999 wrote: post #541
crazygringo wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very curious about this. Google knows users care about their privacy, and it made the promise in its terms precisely for that reason. People pay attention to this stuff, as the popularity of this story shows. Therefore, it's generally not going to be in Google's interest to break its own terms. So what's going on? Did a Google employee simply mess up? Is the reporting not accurate or missing key details, e.g. Goo…

>Google knows users care about their privacy, and it made the promise in its terms precisely for that reason. People pay attention to this stuff, as the popularity of this story shows. Do Google users care about their privacy? I'd expect not, given that Google is (and hasn't been shy about telling us about it) reading all their emails in order to provide more targeted advertisements. And, as I mentioned, Google hasn'…

> given that Google is (and hasn't been shy about telling us about it) reading all their emails in order to provide more targeted advertisements.

That hasn't been the case since 2017. Nearly a decade ago. They stopped precisely because Google users do care about privacy -- and tracking is one thing, but scanning the content of your e-mails is another.

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

#762

Post by nickburns »

unselect5917 wrote: post #738
jchanimal wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The behavior at issue is not hostile, it’s a patriotic duty. We typically laude immigrants who assimilate, so why not in this case?

>it’s a patriotic duty. For Americans, not foreigners.

[flagged]

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

#763

Post by nickburns »

oceanplexian wrote: post #493
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…

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…

'Technically incorrect' on a matter of U.S. constitutionality, says the poster talking about capital-'s' soil. Right.

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

#764

Post by Glemllksdf »

bavell wrote: post #706
Glemllksdf wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't the tarrifs thing one of the things he did illegaly and thats why they are now getting paid back? Whats with the documents he put in his toilet? Destroying the east wing. Its too late now right but shouldn't he followed some procedure? I probably have plenty other examples but thats probablyh enough to get more insight. For me these cases feel like a mix of certain other parts should have steped in but have be…

Nope, the original tariffs were under IEEPA, then Supreme Court ruled they didn't have authority to use IEEPA, so they had to drop those tariffs and start working on refunds. It'd only have been illegal if they kept the tariffs after the ruling. Lot of propaganda & emotions around this straightforward chain of events.

So the USA was under

Wikipedia on IEEPA: "An Act with respect to the powers of the President in time of war or national emergency. "?

I mean thats very wishi washi. So are we both aligned that it looks like missuse? Because if its only about a word definition of no its not illegal what he did but a clear missconduct than it feels like word play.

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

#765

Post by Glemllksdf »

tehjoker wrote: post #720
Glemllksdf wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have the feeling that this is simplifying something. I do agree that if someone would come to my country on a visa for studing, I don't think its okay for them to protest stuff. It feels disrespectful even if i'm aligned with that persons politics. On the other hand, i expect us all to have a acertain amount of personal freedom on our planet and protesting itself is part of this, same as free speech. In this contex…

gifted by europeans? i think you may be overlooking the native americans. this is a settler colonial country

grifted in sense of Usurped; Stolen

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

#766

Post by tombrandis »

dominicrose wrote: post #643
forinti wrote: post #111

Such are the times that he feels he must say that he only attended the protest "for all of five minutes" and that he was protesting "what we saw as genocide". He is almost ashamed of his views because of the current climate but he didn't do anything wrong, apparently.

He should be ashamed. Why did (does) he see the punishment for the 7th octobor attack as a genocide but the 7th octobor attack itself as not-an-issue? (not an attempted genocide) The law protects people up to a point. Collaborating with the enemy is an issue especially if you're not a confirmed citizen.

Is it OK for some Israelis to do genocide against Palestinians if some Palestinians tried to do genocide against Israelis? IMO no, there is no justification for anyone to do genocide.

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

#767

Post by kmeisthax »

hedora wrote: post #584
fn-mote wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

The underlying problem is that the presidency is just a non-hereditary elected monarch. If you make a "CEO of the military", you have made a king. We need to get rid of or neuter the presidency.

The reason why we have this defective executive structure is because the Founders wanted separation of powers and thought Parliaments were inherently corrupt. In a Parliament, the executive is fundamentally a creature of the legislature and cannot disobey it. The Founders wanted an independent executive that couldn't be overruled by normal legislative actions, because the executive is supposed to be calling out the legislature when they do a tyranny. And since that executive executes the law, they also need control over the military. Congratulations, you have made a king.

Separation of powers failed the moment America got a party system: why would a Republican Congress check the power of a Republican President? Likewise, the process for removing a rogue President is laughably difficult to execute. In almost every party system in America, impeachment and conviction would require a complete collapse of party support for their own President. This rarely happens, because Congress is reliant on the Presidency to send votes downballot[0]. Voters do not reward political traitors for saving the voter's asses.

So in my mind, the only ways to fix this would be to either:

1. Replace the President and Vice President with an Executive Council (ala the EU Commission) where there is one member per department and every member is a separate elected position.

2. Make impeachment convictions a 50% majority matter.

3. Abolish the executive branch entirely and have Congress elect its own to do executive functions (i.e. become a Parliament).

I can see problems with all three, but they seem less problematic than just letting one guy run everything with term limits as the only check on their power.

[0] In general, there is a problem with Congressional and local elections not getting as much attention as they should be. I've found that mail-in ballots actually make it a lot easier to vote downballot. Even if I don't recognize the name off the top of my head, I can look them up and have a decent idea of what I'm voting for. If you have to do this in a ballot box, you aren't going to have a lot of time (there's a lot of people behind you) and will just skip the downballot races.

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

#768

Post by geodel »

jmyeet wrote: post #508
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…

> ... it’s not allowed to use immigration machinery as a pretext to punish political expression. That’s exactly what they are doing. I agree: this is exactly what the administration is doing. > I’m generally receptive to point the finger at Google’s intentions but in their defense, administrative subpoenas frequently include non disclosure orders. Except immigration aren't allowed to put gag orders on administrative…

> I don't think it's asking a lot to expect any platform to only provide the minimum legally required cooperation.

It is asking a lot. They can do minimum legally required things for environment, users, communities, charities and so on. This would be considered very hostile behavior. And companies don't do that.

So why would they be doing minimum required cooperation with government just because some people do not like government or its actions.

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

#769

Post by rootusrootus »

laughing_man wrote: post #667
rootusrootus wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> administrative subpoenas frequently include non disclosure orders Which Google definitely knows are not enforceable.

When you're a huge company trying to do business in the US (or any country, for that matter) you have to think very, very carefully before you make an enemy of the government. Google could refuse to go along with this stuff and find itself the subject of a big, expensive anti-trust probe.

I think it could easily be argued that the reverse is true. Even Donald Trump would think twice about taking on Google. He might bluster about them on Truth Social, sure, but America is a corporatocracy and I'd put my money on Google.

Yes, I know there are examples where he is trying to screw with big corps like Anthropic. But Anthropic is not Google.

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

#770

Post by scarecrowbob »

xethos wrote: post #648
scarecrowbob wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a person who spent a couple of hours watching our local ICE facility today, I'd say the differences are purely aesthetic. I've gotten to where I don't really care -what- the law is and believe that from an ethical standpoint if a person can have a house and a job and not cause trouble I don't care if they are from Honduras or Houston- any position other than that is just racism with extra steps. And I am aware tha…

> I'd say the differences are purely aesthetic I would have a hard time arguing that after seeing Alex Pretti's public execution. I also think we can at least partially agree on who should be targeted (emphasis my own): > Carefully calibrated revisions to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) immigration enforcement priorities and practices [...] *[made] noncitizens with criminal records the top enforcement target* […

I mean, the fact that it's Pretti who you're drawing the distinction on might indicate to you where your racial biases are here.

Aesthetic differences are differences: red is not blue, afterall.

However,

Post reply on HN