Google Search Technique Used by Police Draws New Legal Challenge(bnnbloomberg.ca)
bnnbloomberg.ca
Google Search Technique Used by Police Draws New Legal Challenge
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/google-search-technique-used-by-police-draws-new-legal-challenge-1.2018433
20 comments
Keyword warrants tend to be bad because of how broad they are. In my opinion, this was different. They used a small window of time and only used "keywords" that were the personal information of the victims. That's very different from searching for "where to get an abortion". Now they have to figure out exactly where that line is and how to define it.
IMO, the real underlying issue is the fact that Google has this sort of personalized info in their possession.
Remember when the corporate line was that your personal data and search history was all anonymized? Clearly not true.
Remember when the corporate line was that your personal data and search history was all anonymized? Clearly not true.
>Remember when the corporate line was that your personal data and search history was all anonymized? Clearly not true.
When was this ever claimed?
When was this ever claimed?
Er that page is describing how anonymization happens, not where or when it happens.
Or better yet, can you prove that it ever happens at all? I know I can't.
But the mere fact that they took the time to describe how does tend to corroborate that they did claim to do it.
But the mere fact that they took the time to describe how does tend to corroborate that they did claim to do it.
I'm not sure what you expect for "proof" but elsewhere they specifically give some examples of where they do it: https://safety.google/privacy/data/
> To offer features like place busyness in Maps, we apply an advanced anonymization technology called differential privacy that adds noise to your information so it can’t be used to personally identify you.
> To offer features like place busyness in Maps, we apply an advanced anonymization technology called differential privacy that adds noise to your information so it can’t be used to personally identify you.
IP addresses are not people
In this case they clearly are as the IP address was traced to a particular person.
I think it’s more accurate to say “IP addresses are not always people” but they frequently are identifiers and enough to be useful in these cases. So it’s a bit of an odd statement to make regarding a case where the ip address literally uniquely identified someone.
It’s like saying “fingerprints aren’t people” in a case about fingerprints linking to an individual.
I think it’s more accurate to say “IP addresses are not always people” but they frequently are identifiers and enough to be useful in these cases. So it’s a bit of an odd statement to make regarding a case where the ip address literally uniquely identified someone.
It’s like saying “fingerprints aren’t people” in a case about fingerprints linking to an individual.
They are when correlated with a timestamp and logs from an ISP
That may correlate to a given host, device, or customer connection, but none of those are natural persons.
Who had control of said device on that connection? Was a child using it? Remote-execution malware or a botnet? Was a criminal hacking their home WiFi?
You absolutely cannot map an IP address to a person, without additional forensic evidence that usually entails some non-technical circumstances as well.
Who had control of said device on that connection? Was a child using it? Remote-execution malware or a botnet? Was a criminal hacking their home WiFi?
You absolutely cannot map an IP address to a person, without additional forensic evidence that usually entails some non-technical circumstances as well.
This is a pedantic and pointless distinction given the fact that the law regularly does in fact map IP addresses to people without additional forensic evidence. People are successfully convicted on the basis of an IP correlation to a device owned by an individual.
Juries aren't going to care about this distinction because the CSI effect makes it seem like anything technical is basically an immutable fingerprint.
Juries aren't going to care about this distinction because the CSI effect makes it seem like anything technical is basically an immutable fingerprint.
You absolutely cannot map an IP address to a person
Maybe you can't ... but people sitting on jury do this all the time.
Maybe you can't ... but people sitting on jury do this all the time.
Please don't misquote me.
I didn't and everyone can easily see that by looking above.
If you didn't, then your point is entirely invalid, isn't it.
Not at all. See post below for a more detailed explanation.
Police try to consult Google as an oracle in this manner because Google is a search monopoly. Otherwise there would be an insufficient connection to events under investigation.
it haunts and fascinates me at the same time.
Huh I wonder if I could setup a local police force to do keyword research now for cheap with a few overbroad warrants.