Google keyword warrants give U.S. government data on search users(forbes.com)
forbes.com
Google keyword warrants give U.S. government data on search users
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/10/04/google-keyword-warrants-give-us-government-data-on-search-users/
197 comments
The general population is highly domesticated. The defining aspect of domestication is the surrender of one's capacity to do violence in exchange for peaceful symbiosis. The domesticated are accustomed to filling rigid roles in society -- a society they believe to be benevolent and infinitely stable.
Those of us that are not so domesticated, we wild ones, we who intimately comprehend history because we understand the nature of violence and power, are dying with anxiety as centralized powers gain more and more power over us every year.
Your wife has no understanding of violence and power, i.e., she is domesticated. That's why she has "nothing to hide."
The funny thing is, people have been aware of this property of human nature for thousands of years, but every generation that lives through hard times is shocked when they are forced to rediscover these principles -- as you seem to be discovering. If you continue to investigate why your wife thinks as she does, you'll come to the points I've made above and the behavior of the compliant masses will make much more sense -- and will leave you with quite a terrible feeling if you truly come to understand how most people will pretty much blindly comply with any prevailing authority that has seized the capacity to commit violence.
Those of us that are not so domesticated, we wild ones, we who intimately comprehend history because we understand the nature of violence and power, are dying with anxiety as centralized powers gain more and more power over us every year.
Your wife has no understanding of violence and power, i.e., she is domesticated. That's why she has "nothing to hide."
The funny thing is, people have been aware of this property of human nature for thousands of years, but every generation that lives through hard times is shocked when they are forced to rediscover these principles -- as you seem to be discovering. If you continue to investigate why your wife thinks as she does, you'll come to the points I've made above and the behavior of the compliant masses will make much more sense -- and will leave you with quite a terrible feeling if you truly come to understand how most people will pretty much blindly comply with any prevailing authority that has seized the capacity to commit violence.
I think I disagree in several different ways.
I am personally highly domesticated. I accept that without society there are a lot of things I would not be able to do ( engaging with random strangers on HN come to mind -- in a lot of ways, it is pleasure and a privilege to have time to engage in an intellectual discussion ).
But I disagree with your definition that the defining aspect of domestication is surrendering one's capacity to do violence. You may be applying the meaning of the word as that referring to a farm animal, but, if you permit the pun, we are not on animal farm. We live in an odd 1984 dystopia, where we hashtag about room 101, but we are not on animal farm yet. In that sense, we are not domesticated.
You could argue, a lot of us have been lulled by the comforts of the lazy life, but meaning is somewhat different from the one proposed by you.
To your point about violence, I want to note that no one really surrenders it. If US news are any indication, it is, at best, temporarily suspended.
I am personally highly domesticated. I accept that without society there are a lot of things I would not be able to do ( engaging with random strangers on HN come to mind -- in a lot of ways, it is pleasure and a privilege to have time to engage in an intellectual discussion ).
But I disagree with your definition that the defining aspect of domestication is surrendering one's capacity to do violence. You may be applying the meaning of the word as that referring to a farm animal, but, if you permit the pun, we are not on animal farm. We live in an odd 1984 dystopia, where we hashtag about room 101, but we are not on animal farm yet. In that sense, we are not domesticated.
You could argue, a lot of us have been lulled by the comforts of the lazy life, but meaning is somewhat different from the one proposed by you.
To your point about violence, I want to note that no one really surrenders it. If US news are any indication, it is, at best, temporarily suspended.
My point is: your wife doesn't feel responsible for your personal safety. Here's the difference between a domesticated person who expects someone else to protect them, i.e., do their violence for them, and someone that feels responsible for their own safety.
Domesticated: works for a major corporation in a big city. Has no guns, no means of personally protecting himself, lives in close proximity to strangers, and if the food stores went down, he would starve to death within a few weeks.
Undomesticated: made very anxious by every conspiracy theory because he knows the world is dangerous and no one is ultimately his buddy, lives in a bunker in some undisclosed location, has at least a year of food rations, has more guns and ammunition than a small Latin American nation, makes a plan to kill everyone he meets.
The domesticated believe the undomesticated to be insane because they don't think about their own safety and violence as the undomesticated do. How many people look at the doomsday bunker crowd as a bunch of lunatics? They aren't lunatics: they have no trust in the system and they have taken it upon themselves to secure their safety to the best of their ability.
The fact that you blithely say "we live in an odd 1984 dystopia" tells me, no offense, that you aren't aware of what that means. Perhaps intellectually you do, but because you aren't used to protecting yourself, such a statement doesn't rain down anxiety and paranoia upon your emotional register. This is the strange thing about the domesticated condition: it's a type of blindness.
I'd compare the blindness of the domesticated to the difference between an old person at a funeral versus a child at a funeral. What is death to youth? What can youth possibly know of death? On the contrary, what is death to age? Death is profound and moving to those who have enough experience to know what it is, but it is nothing -- absolutely nothing -- to those that have not developed the depth of experience that allows one to register the significance of the grim reminder of our own mortality. The same thing goes for violence and its fruits and our ability to intimately know them.
In any case, good luck out there Winston #room101.
Domesticated: works for a major corporation in a big city. Has no guns, no means of personally protecting himself, lives in close proximity to strangers, and if the food stores went down, he would starve to death within a few weeks.
Undomesticated: made very anxious by every conspiracy theory because he knows the world is dangerous and no one is ultimately his buddy, lives in a bunker in some undisclosed location, has at least a year of food rations, has more guns and ammunition than a small Latin American nation, makes a plan to kill everyone he meets.
The domesticated believe the undomesticated to be insane because they don't think about their own safety and violence as the undomesticated do. How many people look at the doomsday bunker crowd as a bunch of lunatics? They aren't lunatics: they have no trust in the system and they have taken it upon themselves to secure their safety to the best of their ability.
The fact that you blithely say "we live in an odd 1984 dystopia" tells me, no offense, that you aren't aware of what that means. Perhaps intellectually you do, but because you aren't used to protecting yourself, such a statement doesn't rain down anxiety and paranoia upon your emotional register. This is the strange thing about the domesticated condition: it's a type of blindness.
I'd compare the blindness of the domesticated to the difference between an old person at a funeral versus a child at a funeral. What is death to youth? What can youth possibly know of death? On the contrary, what is death to age? Death is profound and moving to those who have enough experience to know what it is, but it is nothing -- absolutely nothing -- to those that have not developed the depth of experience that allows one to register the significance of the grim reminder of our own mortality. The same thing goes for violence and its fruits and our ability to intimately know them.
In any case, good luck out there Winston #room101.
Domesticated and undomesticated both sound terrible, does your paranoia not allow for an in between state?
There's probably a "domestication gradient" or something like that. I can sense it when I talk to people. Some people are like little children. They haven't thought about their own safety ever. Others are literal wild men who believe every conspiracy theory out there because they are practically traumatized and are always seeking out potential threats. And yes, there are people in between that worry about their own safety, but also have enough faith in the system to function properly.
I must admit... I have fallen in love with my own term because it really does seem to describe some of the human diversity I've encountered.
I must admit... I have fallen in love with my own term because it really does seem to describe some of the human diversity I've encountered.
You're an interesting man, if a bit grandiose. I'm currently stoned, so I'll ask a weird question. What about us doomsayers who know in their hearts that it'll all fall apart in the end, but are cognizant that they themselves don't care enough about their safety to do anything differently?
> makes a plan to kill everyone he meets.
Clarification needed
Clarification needed
I assume it's a reference to a James Mattis quote.
> Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
It refers to a general concept of alertness and awareness about your surroundings, and how you can't tell who might be good or evil until they act, so just assume everyone could be malicious until proven otherwise (or, more practically, until you're out of their sphere of influence).
> Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
It refers to a general concept of alertness and awareness about your surroundings, and how you can't tell who might be good or evil until they act, so just assume everyone could be malicious until proven otherwise (or, more practically, until you're out of their sphere of influence).
Ah, thanks
In a sense, I am just putting words together. Would you accept a variation of 1984 dystopia? I don't think I am wrong here, but I am willing to go over differences.
Does it alarm you? That's what I really want to know.
No. I don't believe in neat model of the universe where you can assign vague tag, label, whatever you want to call it and apply it to every facet of reality. Its not sensible. Worse, it is not how the world works. You won't even get appropriate approximation of reality that way. If it was a simple 1 and 0, we would have better simulations by now.
So.. no. It does not alarm me. It helps that I don't fit your model very well.
But your thought process does interest me.
So.. no. It does not alarm me. It helps that I don't fit your model very well.
But your thought process does interest me.
Now just imagine saying all these things as a mad man stands before you with a knife. Suddenly the world becomes more real than it ever has been and all these abstract things you say to your friends in cyberspace become utter nonsense as they offer you no assistance in navigating the mortal danger you find yourself in.
The mad mad has you by the throat, you feel his cold steel press up against your virgin neck. Your last words: "I don't believe in neat model of the universe where you can assign vague tag, label, whatever you want to call it and apply it to every facet of reality."
My ultimate point in this exchange with you is that violence has a real sobering effect on the mind. It's a great filter of sense and nonsense.
The mad mad has you by the throat, you feel his cold steel press up against your virgin neck. Your last words: "I don't believe in neat model of the universe where you can assign vague tag, label, whatever you want to call it and apply it to every facet of reality."
My ultimate point in this exchange with you is that violence has a real sobering effect on the mind. It's a great filter of sense and nonsense.
It is both good and bad that we don't seem to have more data on near death experiences. I mean actual research on mental impact and so on. I see some articles but the ones I found are relatively old.
Anecdotally, I had 3 NDEs and as the adage goes in the immortal words of Dr.House nearly dying changes everything for about three weeks. And it sounds about right in retrospect. I returned to normality fast. It sobered me enough to survive, but not enough to redefine my whole world around me in terms of domestication.
I don't want to assume, but I think you are extrapolating to a society from a single encounter. It would seem you over-corrected.
Just to further complicate this discussion, as an atheist, I do not yelp 'sweet entropy'. But it goes back to my original point. Things are complicated and you are making them more complicated by pretending they are simple:P
Anecdotally, I had 3 NDEs and as the adage goes in the immortal words of Dr.House nearly dying changes everything for about three weeks. And it sounds about right in retrospect. I returned to normality fast. It sobered me enough to survive, but not enough to redefine my whole world around me in terms of domestication.
I don't want to assume, but I think you are extrapolating to a society from a single encounter. It would seem you over-corrected.
Just to further complicate this discussion, as an atheist, I do not yelp 'sweet entropy'. But it goes back to my original point. Things are complicated and you are making them more complicated by pretending they are simple:P
So... just to remind ourselves how we got here. The parent comment was a poster talking about how his wife paid no mind to the potential threats posed by the big tech surveillance state. I then made a few comments explaining my thoughts on why she is like this. "She doesn't care because she's domesticated: she isn't used to thinking about violence and danger." That was my point. Then I went on further to talk about how people are more-or-less defined by this "domesticated" property and how there are others that seem to be "undomesticated" in the sense that they are more familiar with violence. And that this property dictates what thoughts are available to one's awareness. The domesticated being more limited in what they can think because they lack an understanding of violence.
I don't think anything I've said is particularly strange. If you parse "domesticated" into slave and "undomesticated" into master...then you'd end up with a very traditional worldview in which masters operate on a different level than slaves -- the latter subordinate to the former. The latent thesis in all this is that an intimate understanding of violence is what separates master from slave.
I don't think anything I've said is particularly strange. If you parse "domesticated" into slave and "undomesticated" into master...then you'd end up with a very traditional worldview in which masters operate on a different level than slaves -- the latter subordinate to the former. The latent thesis in all this is that an intimate understanding of violence is what separates master from slave.
I think I will need to think on it a little more. Since I checked your links a little, I would be mildly interested in what formed your opinion. Could you share books that are relevant from your perspective here?
"The Genealogy of Morals" by Nietzsche with the reminder that I am using "violence" in the way he uses "power." Power is just the civilized word for violence.
And this is what I consider to be a cipher from his "Thus Spoke Zarathustra:"
“But it is the same with man as with the tree. The more he seeks to rise into the height and light, the more vigorously do his roots struggle earthword, downword, into the dark, the deep - into evil.”
Also "The Golden Bough" by Frazer if you can read between the lines.
And this is what I consider to be a cipher from his "Thus Spoke Zarathustra:"
“But it is the same with man as with the tree. The more he seeks to rise into the height and light, the more vigorously do his roots struggle earthword, downword, into the dark, the deep - into evil.”
Also "The Golden Bough" by Frazer if you can read between the lines.
The pesky big-brained system substrate is much more efficient when it thinks it's free. No individual human has any actual agency.
Make no mistake, we are domesticated too. Gallows used to be much busier, running the system's traditional quaint breeding program, except instead of better wool or bigger tubers it was selecting for ingrained compliance and wetware compatibility.
Amusingly said. I agree that the most docile tend to have the greatest fitness in society, but I don't think it is all a matter of genes. I once had a near death experience and it really woke me up. I think anyone that has been close to death realizes that most people never think twice about their mortality till the very end...and this creates two very different types of psychological species: those who carry the weight of their mortality and those who fly around like little birds who think they will never die...tweet tweet...I will live for ever. The former we may call the "undomesticated" and the latter we may call the "domesticated." At least this is how I've come to understand things.
I suspect there may be some bias in your data gathering, because that's not what's reflected in the statistical surveys I've seen.
"Americans are concerned about how much data is being collected about them, and many feel their information is less secure than it used to be. The majority of Americans say they are at least somewhat concerned about how much data is collected about them by both companies (79%) and the government (64%). Additionally, seven-in-ten Americans say they feel their personal information is less secure than it was five years ago. This compares with just 6% who say they feel their information is more secure, and about one-quarter (24%) who feel it’s about the same."
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/15/key-takeawa...
"Americans are concerned about how much data is being collected about them, and many feel their information is less secure than it used to be. The majority of Americans say they are at least somewhat concerned about how much data is collected about them by both companies (79%) and the government (64%). Additionally, seven-in-ten Americans say they feel their personal information is less secure than it was five years ago. This compares with just 6% who say they feel their information is more secure, and about one-quarter (24%) who feel it’s about the same."
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/15/key-takeawa...
It is possible. My social circle is relatively small and may not be representative of the zeitgeist. But despite the data shown, the question is what an average American is doing. While there is interest in non-google, non-apple devices, those are still niche markets with some technical knowhow necessary.
Apart from that, both Apple and Google are doing rather well. I certainly did not see a decrease in sales of various panopticon enabling devices. Far from it. Amazon joined the fray and along with other players convinced people to install wiretaps in their own homes. There is an actual joke about it so I am not sure if it is a question of social proof or cognitive dissonance.
I agree there is an improvement, but I am not as optimistic it since I don't see it affecting profits.
Apart from that, both Apple and Google are doing rather well. I certainly did not see a decrease in sales of various panopticon enabling devices. Far from it. Amazon joined the fray and along with other players convinced people to install wiretaps in their own homes. There is an actual joke about it so I am not sure if it is a question of social proof or cognitive dissonance.
I agree there is an improvement, but I am not as optimistic it since I don't see it affecting profits.
> But the real problem is that general population has zero to no issue with it.
It’s really tough to make this case. You can ask someone whether they’re worried about tracking and likely get a “no,” but if you put a “allow app to track” button they’ll also click “no,” and if you ask how they feel about a concrete specific data collection, they’ll often say they don’t like it.
It’s really tough to make this case. You can ask someone whether they’re worried about tracking and likely get a “no,” but if you put a “allow app to track” button they’ll also click “no,” and if you ask how they feel about a concrete specific data collection, they’ll often say they don’t like it.
Sir, I would ask your wife if it is OK to share all the usernames and passwords of all websites she has signed up to a stranger. And if she says NO, ask her if she wont share what she know are in her field of view, how can she be sure about the things/data she don't know about knowing big corps put money over your interest at first?
Also - https://www.privacytools.io/
Also - https://www.privacytools.io/
hm, i think that page needs to be updated. They suggest protonmail for email and it has been shown, that they will do ip-logs etc.
All the email services they recommend are outside the USA also which means for USA residents it is guaranteed the NSA will be keeping a copy in case they can decrypt it later and will have copies of all your unencrypted emails.
The Jewish people of Germany had nothing to hide, until the government passed some new laws.
I think tht even today with the internet it takes a good detective to sort through all of the evidence. There are easy answers and there are the correct answers, in between truth. With AI it will only get more difficult. You have shot spotters, license plate reader and gps with no warranty.
In principle I don't have a problem with the police getting a warrant to find out who searched for a specific name or place in a constrained time frame. It's a bit like the police asking the library who checked out a specific book.
The problem is that this could obviously be used with keywords that target a wide group of people, e.g. finding everyone who plans to attend a protest. If we continue to allow keyword warrants we should add a law limiting their reach, e.g. by limiting the number of people who can be revealed in the answer to any one such warrant.
The problem is that this could obviously be used with keywords that target a wide group of people, e.g. finding everyone who plans to attend a protest. If we continue to allow keyword warrants we should add a law limiting their reach, e.g. by limiting the number of people who can be revealed in the answer to any one such warrant.
> It's a bit like the police asking the library who checked out a specific book.
And you have no problem with this? Government and police looking into and judging you based on what you read is one step away from policing wrongthink. You can't learn anything deemed dangerous anymore without being arrested. Can't look up how a bomb or sarin gas works without SWAT coming down on you because you're obviously a terrorist.
This government collusion with Google is the same thing. Government and police show up and say "find me a list of people who searched for dangerous knowledge". This is normal now, without even the trepidation depicted in films like Se7en.
And you have no problem with this? Government and police looking into and judging you based on what you read is one step away from policing wrongthink. You can't learn anything deemed dangerous anymore without being arrested. Can't look up how a bomb or sarin gas works without SWAT coming down on you because you're obviously a terrorist.
This government collusion with Google is the same thing. Government and police show up and say "find me a list of people who searched for dangerous knowledge". This is normal now, without even the trepidation depicted in films like Se7en.
They said “specific” book, which I take to mean “we found this book at a crime scene, can you tell us who checked it out?” Not, “I want to know everyone who checked out war and peace this year.”
But after thinking about it, I think they meant the former and you meant the latter. But to the library, it’s the exact same thing. A library doesn’t (traditionally) track each and every book, so if it’s a popular book, it could have been checked out by any number of people.
I think this is fine, as long as courts work to keep the scope small and laws allow people to do whatever they want without hindering freedom.
But after thinking about it, I think they meant the former and you meant the latter. But to the library, it’s the exact same thing. A library doesn’t (traditionally) track each and every book, so if it’s a popular book, it could have been checked out by any number of people.
I think this is fine, as long as courts work to keep the scope small and laws allow people to do whatever they want without hindering freedom.
Libraries track books individually. If you and I each check out a copy of War and Peace, and you turn yours in on time but I don’t, they know who to pester.
I think there’s a continuum from the cops being able to say “we found this here book at a crime scene, who had it checked out?”, which should clearly be allowed, to “the security footage shows a copy of War and Peace with the libraries sticker on it in the crooks hand, who had it checked out”, which should probably be allowed, to “we need to know everybody who checked out The Anarchists Cookbook in the last six months because the crook used an IED thats described in there”, which probably should be allowed.
I think there’s a continuum from the cops being able to say “we found this here book at a crime scene, who had it checked out?”, which should clearly be allowed, to “the security footage shows a copy of War and Peace with the libraries sticker on it in the crooks hand, who had it checked out”, which should probably be allowed, to “we need to know everybody who checked out The Anarchists Cookbook in the last six months because the crook used an IED thats described in there”, which probably should be allowed.
> If you and I each check out a copy of War and Peace, and you turn yours in on time but I don’t, they know who to pester.
They track checkouts. But back in the day, we could switch checkout cards in the cover of the book and return them and the library would never know the difference. With modern computers and barcodes, I do believe the individual books are tracked.
They track checkouts. But back in the day, we could switch checkout cards in the cover of the book and return them and the library would never know the difference. With modern computers and barcodes, I do believe the individual books are tracked.
I think the library warranty thing depends. If the government wants to find out who checked out the Communist Manifesto so they can jail them for thought crime - that's bad. If the police want to know who checked out this specific copy of Harry Potter because they found it at the scene of a murder, that's good.
Sure, I might've just dropped my copy of Harry Potter near a murder as I innocently passed by. And yeah, I might've been looking up the victim's name and address in Google purely out of curiosity right before they got murdered. Neither the Google search nor the book are dispositive but they fit into a broader context which could be used to convict or exonerate me.
Ultimately we need laws or judges to set reasonable limits on powers that could be used for good to make sure they aren't also overused for ill.
Sure, I might've just dropped my copy of Harry Potter near a murder as I innocently passed by. And yeah, I might've been looking up the victim's name and address in Google purely out of curiosity right before they got murdered. Neither the Google search nor the book are dispositive but they fit into a broader context which could be used to convict or exonerate me.
Ultimately we need laws or judges to set reasonable limits on powers that could be used for good to make sure they aren't also overused for ill.
There's an in between situation where someone is looking for correlations with a crime, but they are simply searching so much data, that they inevitably get a huge number of very close, but invalid matches.
This tends to be a problem more and more with ever increasing databases that are convenient to access.
People have intuitions for coincidences that are not appropriate for vast amounts of data.
This tends to be a problem more and more with ever increasing databases that are convenient to access.
People have intuitions for coincidences that are not appropriate for vast amounts of data.
Things like this make me think of the movie Gattaca. Mild Spoilers After the murder, they just go around vacuuming up any and all organic material to test for DNA. They get a hit from someone who “isn’t supposed to be there” and immediately focus the entire investigation on that person. It fits the very real pattern of using science to just confirm the human biases held by the people using it. If police can sweep up and search through a mountain of data, it is going to be the Muslim immigrant hit they focus on over the white middle manager. It will be the person struggling off and on with homelessness that gets arrested because they matched a pattern and didn’t have an alibi, over the suburban mom.
That if you give police a list of random correlations, they will focus on “those people” that are assumed to be more criminal and usually have less means and ability to fight back.
That if you give police a list of random correlations, they will focus on “those people” that are assumed to be more criminal and usually have less means and ability to fight back.
This is a really great insight, and demonstrates where the "library book" example is lacking.
Since Google is so vast, I can find a page of search hits to support any particular belief I might have, no matter how wild.
Since Google is so vast, I can find a page of search hits to support any particular belief I might have, no matter how wild.
> And you have no problem with this?
It was only a problem when George W Bush wanted to do it. :-p
It was only a problem when George W Bush wanted to do it. :-p
I always thought that it was generally accepted that if people tried to get hold of your library-loan records; that that was a red line. You can't call a place a free country if the police can ask for your library information.
For instance: In the Netherlands, libraries tend(ed) to destroy your loaned-book information ~ when the books were returned. (They seem to have since picked up some data-mining habits?)
For instance: In the Netherlands, libraries tend(ed) to destroy your loaned-book information ~ when the books were returned. (They seem to have since picked up some data-mining habits?)
Historically, I don't think there was much concern in the US over library records. Before library records were computerized it was often easy for anyone to find out who had checked out a given book and when.
A typical system might work like this. Inside each book there was a pocket attached to the back of the front cover, and in that pocket was a card.
When you checked out the book, your name and library card number and when the book was due were added to the card, below the entries for previous checkouts, and the card was filed somewhere. A card showing the due date was placed in the pocket and you could then leave with the book.
When you returned the book the checkout record card was put back in and the book re-shelved.
Want to know who has checked out a book before? Just walk into the library and look at the checkout card. No need for a warrant, and no need to even ask a librarian for the records.
Eventually the card would fill up and they'd have to start a new one. I don't know if they kept the old ones or not. Since storing them would take space, I'd guess they were probably thrown away (perhaps after recording some stats on how frequently the book was checked out, because those might be useful in the future when deciding on changes to their collection). If they were thrown away, I don't know if they would have taken care to destroy them or just toss them in the garbage.
A typical system might work like this. Inside each book there was a pocket attached to the back of the front cover, and in that pocket was a card.
When you checked out the book, your name and library card number and when the book was due were added to the card, below the entries for previous checkouts, and the card was filed somewhere. A card showing the due date was placed in the pocket and you could then leave with the book.
When you returned the book the checkout record card was put back in and the book re-shelved.
Want to know who has checked out a book before? Just walk into the library and look at the checkout card. No need for a warrant, and no need to even ask a librarian for the records.
Eventually the card would fill up and they'd have to start a new one. I don't know if they kept the old ones or not. Since storing them would take space, I'd guess they were probably thrown away (perhaps after recording some stats on how frequently the book was checked out, because those might be useful in the future when deciding on changes to their collection). If they were thrown away, I don't know if they would have taken care to destroy them or just toss them in the garbage.
That's certainly not a bright line in any American jurisdiction. Courts can and do order the production of library loan records. In general an American court can order the disclosure of any record maintained anywhere by anyone for any purpose. There are no records that are private and privileged against a court order, with a few narrow exceptions. The police can't order someone to produce anything; they need a court order to do it.
Hmm, this appears to be a relatively new power.
https://www.propublica.org/article/remember-when-the-patriot...
https://www.propublica.org/article/remember-when-the-patriot...
No, American courts can order the production of any kind of records, and always have done so. Law enforcement goes to the court, shows "probable cause" regarding a current case, swears to the facts of the case, and the court orders some third party to produce the information. The third party is obligated to comply or contest. This is the legal process to which people are due in the phrase "due process of law".
The Section 215 powers you refer to move jurisdiction of certain matters from one court to another. That's perhaps not great but the main effect of it is giving law enforcement a more secret venue in which to seek warrants.
The Section 215 powers you refer to move jurisdiction of certain matters from one court to another. That's perhaps not great but the main effect of it is giving law enforcement a more secret venue in which to seek warrants.
Also note that this legal theory only comes into play if they're compelled to do so. The police and investigators can always just kindly ask for records to be produced without a warrant and it's up to the institution to honor that request or not, much like how Google does its own review of law enforcement data requests in absence of a warrant.
It seems you are right. And other countries have long done similar or worse.
I always thought that in the west you had a freedom of thought and could pursue whatever direction of research you wished without consequence. After all, without freedom of thought, you can't really have proper freedom of conscience, let alone freedom of speech.
I'm slightly disturbed that apparently it's not quite that simple. Today I'm one of the (un)lucky 10000 I guess. https://xkcd.com/1053/
I always thought that in the west you had a freedom of thought and could pursue whatever direction of research you wished without consequence. After all, without freedom of thought, you can't really have proper freedom of conscience, let alone freedom of speech.
I'm slightly disturbed that apparently it's not quite that simple. Today I'm one of the (un)lucky 10000 I guess. https://xkcd.com/1053/
Jeffbee is right, but I would also point out the number of hurdles identified. Before the patriot act there were 100% violations of personal liberty and restrictions on consumption of information but there were more hurdles.
The point of the post here isn't that Google is providing records (which they have always if the situation has been identified as appropriate by a judge + public safety + ....) but that they are providing a really high level, in no way targeted or restricted request for records
The point of the post here isn't that Google is providing records (which they have always if the situation has been identified as appropriate by a judge + public safety + ....) but that they are providing a really high level, in no way targeted or restricted request for records
Wasn't there a fuss about Robert Bork (Supreme Court nominee) having his video rental records disclosed? Long before the Patriot Act.
Yes but again, please don't conflate these two unrelated topics. Bork's video rental records were voluntarily disclosed by a video rental shop to a newspaper reporter. A person has no particular constitutional right to privacy in such matters. This was Bork's own opinion on the matter! Later, Congress passed a law making such records private.
But that's all neither here nor there. We're discussing a court order. No law prevents a court from ordering the disclosure of video rental records, even today with the Video Privacy Protection Act, because the VPPA allows disclosure "to a law enforcement agency pursuant to a warrant issued under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure". Because that's what courts do. There's really nothing that is protected from court orders in the US, except for a few well-known, very narrow exemptions.
But that's all neither here nor there. We're discussing a court order. No law prevents a court from ordering the disclosure of video rental records, even today with the Video Privacy Protection Act, because the VPPA allows disclosure "to a law enforcement agency pursuant to a warrant issued under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure". Because that's what courts do. There's really nothing that is protected from court orders in the US, except for a few well-known, very narrow exemptions.
>"If we continue to allow keyword warrants we should add a law limiting their reach, e.g. by limiting the number of people who can be revealed in the answer to any one such warrant."
What's frustrating is that that limit is already present in the constitution itself: "upon probable cause... and... *particularly* describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized". "Particularly" isn't syntactic sugar; it is a word with meaning. "Specifically, uniquely or individually"; "In detail; with regard to particulars". Mass/dragnet/geofence warrants aren't constitutional.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/particularly#Adverb
Plenty of federal judges seem to agree,
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/08/new-federal-court-ruli...
"...geofence warrant violates the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause and particularity requirements"*
What's frustrating is that that limit is already present in the constitution itself: "upon probable cause... and... *particularly* describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized". "Particularly" isn't syntactic sugar; it is a word with meaning. "Specifically, uniquely or individually"; "In detail; with regard to particulars". Mass/dragnet/geofence warrants aren't constitutional.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/particularly#Adverb
Plenty of federal judges seem to agree,
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/08/new-federal-court-ruli...
"...geofence warrant violates the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause and particularity requirements"*
Why would a library have records of who borrowed what?
The old manual system in the UK worked on a system where your library card was a sort of envelope into which the book's card was placed and then it was placed in a tray in chronological order. When you returned the book you got your card back and there was no trace.
The library would only be able to say who had the book at the moment when they were asked not for times in the past.
See https://www.1900s.org.uk/1940s50s-library-systems.htm
The old manual system in the UK worked on a system where your library card was a sort of envelope into which the book's card was placed and then it was placed in a tray in chronological order. When you returned the book you got your card back and there was no trace.
The library would only be able to say who had the book at the moment when they were asked not for times in the past.
See https://www.1900s.org.uk/1940s50s-library-systems.htm
Most people do not have unique names. The number of unique names in the USA is estimated to be around 750,000 (using census data). Out of a population of 330,000,000 people. Which means, on average, 440 people will have the same name.
And these names will be clustered in population centers because people cluster in population centers. And since surnames are generally familial, people with the same names are very likely to live near other people with the same name.
You can use public records searches to find people nearby with the same name as you. You might be surprised at how common it is to have people near you with the same name. There are a few people locally who share a name with me, and who own businesses that probably get a decent amount of internet traffic based on name searches.
And these names will be clustered in population centers because people cluster in population centers. And since surnames are generally familial, people with the same names are very likely to live near other people with the same name.
You can use public records searches to find people nearby with the same name as you. You might be surprised at how common it is to have people near you with the same name. There are a few people locally who share a name with me, and who own businesses that probably get a decent amount of internet traffic based on name searches.
> It's a bit like the police asking the library who checked out a specific book.
After the patriot act was passed enabling the government to seek this kind of information my local library changed their records policy to not retain information on who checked out books after they were returned (or at least only for a strictly limited time after), as well as a host of other pieces of data-minimization. My library also put up signs explaining how to use the library most privately (e.g. that if you visit and read books on-site no one will ever collect your name or other personal information).
I understand many other libraries did as well and that the ALA promoted such changes.
Access to your library history is a violation of your mental privacy. Imagine you found yourself questioning your sexuality, -- you might check out books on the subject. A few years later a repressive regime could come into power and you might find our that your inquisitiveness a few years back placed you under enhanced scrutiny.
Because the access to search is even more casual the invasion is even more severe. And unlike your local library Google is MUCH less likely to consider your personal freedom a big priority.
After the patriot act was passed enabling the government to seek this kind of information my local library changed their records policy to not retain information on who checked out books after they were returned (or at least only for a strictly limited time after), as well as a host of other pieces of data-minimization. My library also put up signs explaining how to use the library most privately (e.g. that if you visit and read books on-site no one will ever collect your name or other personal information).
I understand many other libraries did as well and that the ALA promoted such changes.
Access to your library history is a violation of your mental privacy. Imagine you found yourself questioning your sexuality, -- you might check out books on the subject. A few years later a repressive regime could come into power and you might find our that your inquisitiveness a few years back placed you under enhanced scrutiny.
Because the access to search is even more casual the invasion is even more severe. And unlike your local library Google is MUCH less likely to consider your personal freedom a big priority.
>It's a bit like the police asking the library who checked out a specific book.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/05/nsa-surveillan...
https://slate.com/technology/2015/06/usa-freedom-act-before-...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/05/nsa-surveillan...
https://slate.com/technology/2015/06/usa-freedom-act-before-...
[deleted]
> In principle I don't have a problem with the police getting a warrant to find out who searched for a specific name or place
Wow. So, people like you actually do exist. This is both scary and sad.
Wow. So, people like you actually do exist. This is both scary and sad.
Wow. So people like you actually do exist.* This is both scarier and sadder.
*ie not already realising that people like them actually do exist.
*ie not already realising that people like them actually do exist.
Interesting to confirm that this has actually been done. I wonder if there's really any process around it.
It doesn't seem so bad to do it for something super-specific, like the home address of the victim of a crime, in the timeframe that the crime was committed, where you expect to get under 10 individuals. What's more worrying is how broad could this get? Are there any actual legal limits, or does Google just give the Government whatever they ask for?
It seems more and more like some of the tech majors are so big and so dominant over the industry and our lives that it makes less sense to treat them as private companies. In theory, under current legal dogma, Google is a private corporation, and I have no rights at all to data it gathers, so it can hand it over to the Government anytime it feels like it with no knowledge or due process. Even if they claim they only share information for the Right Cases, how do you know, how can you trust them? Do you have any recourse if you think your case was not justified?
It doesn't seem so bad to do it for something super-specific, like the home address of the victim of a crime, in the timeframe that the crime was committed, where you expect to get under 10 individuals. What's more worrying is how broad could this get? Are there any actual legal limits, or does Google just give the Government whatever they ask for?
It seems more and more like some of the tech majors are so big and so dominant over the industry and our lives that it makes less sense to treat them as private companies. In theory, under current legal dogma, Google is a private corporation, and I have no rights at all to data it gathers, so it can hand it over to the Government anytime it feels like it with no knowledge or due process. Even if they claim they only share information for the Right Cases, how do you know, how can you trust them? Do you have any recourse if you think your case was not justified?
> where you expect to get under 10 individuals.
Maybe. If this person was, for example, online dating, a member of a popular club, had a YT/TikTok channel, or shared a name with someone who does or is otherwise notable, this could be a big list.
How would you feel being suspected in a murder case because you searched for a d-list celeb who shares a name with the victim?
Maybe. If this person was, for example, online dating, a member of a popular club, had a YT/TikTok channel, or shared a name with someone who does or is otherwise notable, this could be a big list.
How would you feel being suspected in a murder case because you searched for a d-list celeb who shares a name with the victim?
Argh. Clickbait article header. The header sounds like a "blanket trawl," which, I suspect, would require an NSA-grade computer to manage (which they have, so it's not beyond belief).
They were sending warrants to people that searched for particular names, addresses, etc.
Not news. We all know this has been going on for many years. It's fairly standard, in many "capital crime" cases.
They were sending warrants to people that searched for particular names, addresses, etc.
Not news. We all know this has been going on for many years. It's fairly standard, in many "capital crime" cases.
>Not news. We all know this has been going on for many years.
Who is the 'we' here?
Many people may have assumed this is happening... But according to the article itself, there's less then a handful of these specific warrants being recorded/unsealed/reported in the news.
Do you have access to sources which Forbes does not where more of these warrants are documented?
From the article:
>Before this latest case, only two keyword warrants had been made public. One revealed in 2020 [...]
Who is the 'we' here?
Many people may have assumed this is happening... But according to the article itself, there's less then a handful of these specific warrants being recorded/unsealed/reported in the news.
Do you have access to sources which Forbes does not where more of these warrants are documented?
From the article:
>Before this latest case, only two keyword warrants had been made public. One revealed in 2020 [...]
You have a good point.
File this under “proof of what everyone already knew, but couldn’t verify.”
File this under “proof of what everyone already knew, but couldn’t verify.”
I got the same impression from the title.
The request is limited to searches for a couple specific people over a short timeframe. They had legitimate reason for it. There's no issue here.
The request is limited to searches for a couple specific people over a short timeframe. They had legitimate reason for it. There's no issue here.
The headline in the post has been modified too from the original. The original is Exclusive: Government Secretly Orders Google To Identify Anyone Who Has Searched A Name, Address And Telephone Number. The A there does a lot of heavy lifting, and implies that the warrants are for specific items.
The title on HN here is Exclusive: Government Secretly Orders Google To Identify Anyone Who Has Searched Name, Address And Telephone N, which implies that this is for all searches that are for any of these sorts of items.
The title on HN here is Exclusive: Government Secretly Orders Google To Identify Anyone Who Has Searched Name, Address And Telephone N, which implies that this is for all searches that are for any of these sorts of items.
[deleted]
as always with government power you should ask if you would be alright with your political enemies on the other side of the aisle having full access to abuse the new government power, because they probably will at some point.
DuckDuckGo famously does not save your search history but the way things are going I fear that one day such a thing will be mandated.
DDG famously blocked people in countries that aren't China from searching for topics that China censors.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27394925
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27394925
That was caused by Microsoft (DDG uses Bing search results):
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jun/04/microsoft...
Don't get me wrong, it doesn't make them look good, but the problem was the with the source of their results, not them censoring "tank man".
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jun/04/microsoft...
Don't get me wrong, it doesn't make them look good, but the problem was the with the source of their results, not them censoring "tank man".
No thanks, I prefer a search engine that doesn't implement Chinese censorship when I'm not in China.
Did you mean to reply to someone else? Because as explained, DDG didn't implement any censorship.
If I use DDG outside of China, and its results are sanitized of anything that offends the CCP, I will hold DDG accountable for that. It doesn't matter if under the hood DDG sources search results from somewhere else, DDG is the one serving me censored results. DDG "implemented" censorship. DDG is accountable.
From my point of view, there's a difference between displaying censored results from a 3rd party and implementing censorship. In this case, Microsoft / Bing censored their results and everyone relying on their results passed the censored results along.
No doubt this is bad, but we know who did the censoring (Microsoft). DDG? I guess we can blame them for using a bad source and for not double checking stuff like this (if that's even possible/viable)?
Anyway, what to use instead? The main alt search engines usually use Bing (DDG, Qwant, Ecosia, Yahoo Search, etc). The only one I'm aware that uses a different source is Startpage (they use Google), but now they're owned by an ad tech company (why not stick with Google in that case?). There's also Brave Search (they have their own index, but also include results from Google and Bing if you want), but it's still in beta and I'm not sure if it's ready yet for prime time.
So... no Bing or Bing-powered search engines. What's left? Yandex? Maybe some Searx instance (which never worked that well for my needs)? Going back to Google?
No doubt this is bad, but we know who did the censoring (Microsoft). DDG? I guess we can blame them for using a bad source and for not double checking stuff like this (if that's even possible/viable)?
Anyway, what to use instead? The main alt search engines usually use Bing (DDG, Qwant, Ecosia, Yahoo Search, etc). The only one I'm aware that uses a different source is Startpage (they use Google), but now they're owned by an ad tech company (why not stick with Google in that case?). There's also Brave Search (they have their own index, but also include results from Google and Bing if you want), but it's still in beta and I'm not sure if it's ready yet for prime time.
So... no Bing or Bing-powered search engines. What's left? Yandex? Maybe some Searx instance (which never worked that well for my needs)? Going back to Google?
Excuse the self promotion but to answer your question there is Gigablast and Mojeek.
https://blog.mojeek.com/2021/05/no-tracking-search-how-does-...
If Google is the only search engine that doesn't implement Chinese censorship outside of China, then that sounds a lot better than alts that censor search results via Bing.
DuckDuckGo does save users search history. It is stated in their privacy policy:
"We also save searches, but again, not in a personally identifiable way, as we do not store IP addresses or unique User agent strings. We use aggregate, non-personal search data to improve things like misspellings."
Startpage's privacy policy states they do not save search history:
"We don't record your search queries
When you search, your query is automatically stripped of unnecessary metadata including your IP address and other identifying information. We send the anonymized search query to Google and return the search results to you. We don’t log your searches.
To prevent abuse such as robotic high-volume querying, we anonymously determine the frequency of popular search keywords as a part of our anti-abuse measures, while protecting your privacy."
"We also save searches, but again, not in a personally identifiable way, as we do not store IP addresses or unique User agent strings. We use aggregate, non-personal search data to improve things like misspellings."
Startpage's privacy policy states they do not save search history:
"We don't record your search queries
When you search, your query is automatically stripped of unnecessary metadata including your IP address and other identifying information. We send the anonymized search query to Google and return the search results to you. We don’t log your searches.
To prevent abuse such as robotic high-volume querying, we anonymously determine the frequency of popular search keywords as a part of our anti-abuse measures, while protecting your privacy."
And ProtonMail never keeps (er, kept) IP logs.
You can trust them if you want, but really can you trust any company now days?
You can trust them if you want, but really can you trust any company now days?
They were legally compelled to BEGIN keeping logs for a specific individual. It’s not that they had logs ready to go. They also notified the user that they had received the Swiss warrant.
What should they have done differently? It’s comply with the order or dissolve the company.
What should they have done differently? It’s comply with the order or dissolve the company.
You were never able to trust companies.
History is likely saved by Bing. It's just that your address is not saved with it (assuming things are as DDG says, which I'm not sure how much I'd believe that). So net/net - just use Tor, and disable everything there is to disable as far as cookies and other methods of tracking.
What I don't know, even though I was in the same building with the people who handled these orders in Google Legal, is:
If you clear your Google history (as you should), can they still respond to an order like this with your name? What if you did the search from Brave or Safari, where you were not logged into Google?
If you clear your Google history (as you should), can they still respond to an order like this with your name? What if you did the search from Brave or Safari, where you were not logged into Google?
>If you clear your Google history
Also what if you are logged into Google, but your Google search history was always switched off?
>What if you did the search from Brave or Safari, where you were not logged into Google?
Relevant quote from the article:
>In Wisconsin, the government was hopeful Google could also provide “CookieIDs” belonging to any users who made the searches. These CookieIDs “are identifiers that are used to group together all searches conducted from a given machine, for a certain time period. Such information allows investigators to ascertain, even when the user is not logged into a Google account, whether the same individual may have conducted multiple pertinent searches,” the government wrote.
Also what if you are logged into Google, but your Google search history was always switched off?
>What if you did the search from Brave or Safari, where you were not logged into Google?
Relevant quote from the article:
>In Wisconsin, the government was hopeful Google could also provide “CookieIDs” belonging to any users who made the searches. These CookieIDs “are identifiers that are used to group together all searches conducted from a given machine, for a certain time period. Such information allows investigators to ascertain, even when the user is not logged into a Google account, whether the same individual may have conducted multiple pertinent searches,” the government wrote.
CookieIDs are specific to one browser, are they not?
As for the argument that they can still find it: The laws usually allow for the company to decline on the grounds that complying would be an "undue burden." In other words, if their usual method is to run some program they wrote to handle the common case, and this time they'd have to write a new program, they might claim that's an undue burden.
Might. If they feel like it.
As for the argument that they can still find it: The laws usually allow for the company to decline on the grounds that complying would be an "undue burden." In other words, if their usual method is to run some program they wrote to handle the common case, and this time they'd have to write a new program, they might claim that's an undue burden.
Might. If they feel like it.
I doubt that deleting your search history would trigger a re-write of search logs. After all your history is your data, but search logs are their data. I believe it is their published policy to remove the last octet (or 80 bits, for IPv6) from client addresses in logs after 9 months and to rewrite logs without cookies after 18 months. This probably tells us more about the fact that 18-month-old search logs are not very useful for search quality than it does about privacy.
I'm pretty sure the relevant distinction is between "Data that expires after a specific period of time" and "Information retained until you remove it" in their privacy policies.
I don't see why using Brave or whatever would influence the contents of their server logs.
I'm pretty sure the relevant distinction is between "Data that expires after a specific period of time" and "Information retained until you remove it" in their privacy policies.
I don't see why using Brave or whatever would influence the contents of their server logs.
see my comment about "undue burden."
They could, but might say "nah, too much trouble."
They could, but might say "nah, too much trouble."
> If you clear your Google history (as you should), can they still respond to an order like this with your name?
They can still trace you via your IP Address. Ironically, Incognito is not really an incognito
They can still trace you via your IP Address. Ironically, Incognito is not really an incognito
> If you clear your Google history (as you should), can they still respond to an order like this with your name?
Assuming they still have the data (didn’t delete it, just “cleared” it), then yes.
Assuming they still have the data (didn’t delete it, just “cleared” it), then yes.
From my perspective, this ability was generally assumed to be true but confirmation is interesting.
Heck, it’s even a running stand-up joke. “Ask your wife if you can look up something on her phone. Google “How to kill your husband” and hand it back to her. Congrats, you’re safe for another month!
Heck, it’s even a running stand-up joke. “Ask your wife if you can look up something on her phone. Google “How to kill your husband” and hand it back to her. Congrats, you’re safe for another month!
Yeah, honestly, this kind of thing slightly terrifies me. I know I have definitely Googled for totally random things that, when taken out of context, would look pretty bad. I remember once watching a show where someone was knocked out with chloroform, and I googled something like "Does chloroform really work?" or "Can you really knock someone out with chloroform?"
I turned to my partner and joked "You better not be huffing any chloroform in the near future."
That's the light side of it, but the scary side of it, and why these sort of "fishing expeditions" are so dangerous, is that statistically it's probably the case that if you're keywords are pretty specific (googling a person's name or address in a very time limited window), that 90-95% of the time if someone popped up they were doing something suspicious - but that means 5-10% of the time you'd get a false positive. Given revelations of people who have been released fro death row for rather flimsy evidence, I don't have confidence that the authorities would do much besides try to find someone guilty once they got a hit.
I turned to my partner and joked "You better not be huffing any chloroform in the near future."
That's the light side of it, but the scary side of it, and why these sort of "fishing expeditions" are so dangerous, is that statistically it's probably the case that if you're keywords are pretty specific (googling a person's name or address in a very time limited window), that 90-95% of the time if someone popped up they were doing something suspicious - but that means 5-10% of the time you'd get a false positive. Given revelations of people who have been released fro death row for rather flimsy evidence, I don't have confidence that the authorities would do much besides try to find someone guilty once they got a hit.
Further, if someone were to train a machine learning model to predict which people googling "chloroform" actually went on to become kidnappers, you might find yourself at the front of the list -- not for a good reason, but because the term "MAC" is shared between tech and anesthesia, so some innocent fishing around for the OUI prefix on a smart fridge might be misinterpreted by a black box algorithm as the logistics of a kidnapper trying to determine the Minimum Alveolar Concentration of anesthetic required to accomplish their goals.
I feel the same sometimes.
Every now and then I want to Google something a bit dubious, but decide against it, just in case. I mean, I've no intention of murdering anyone or anything like that, I'm just just a curious soul.
Every now and then I want to Google something a bit dubious, but decide against it, just in case. I mean, I've no intention of murdering anyone or anything like that, I'm just just a curious soul.
[deleted]
> Google “How to kill your husband” and hand it back to her. Congrats, you’re safe for another month!
Sure, google's search results suck nowadays, but she could always just go to the library.
Sure, google's search results suck nowadays, but she could always just go to the library.
First 20 results are SEO sites with words Husband and Husbandry in them.
makes perfect sense, there's lots of killing in animal husbandry.
Time to stop using Google Search or any of their services. Realistically the only one that's not replaceable ATM is YouTube but hopefully soon will be with other platforms gaining speed.
Personally I use Brave Search for 99% of my searches. They are definitely privacy based, unlike some other alternatives.
Personally I use Brave Search for 99% of my searches. They are definitely privacy based, unlike some other alternatives.
It should be clear by now that Google serves the state. The government knows Google collects all this information and they also know Google never deletes this information. Both Google and the government have an ongoing relationship where information is provided on demand. One can easily imagine that the government is very protective of their relationship with Google. They even invested in Google during the early years.
This story is a smoke screen. The government in general - that is, some branches of the government starting with the NSA - already obtains all this information, and more, automatically from Google, whether willingly or otherwise. No warrant, no specific orders, no nothing. That is part of Edward Snowden's revelations:
https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Guardian_and_Snowden_r...
Many large media outlets have basically buried this fact rather quickly after the initial coverage of the revelations, and now we can have stories about how "the keyword warrant" being "one of the more contentious". Sure, it's contentious, since _more_ government bodies get easier access to some of the information, but its infraction of people's privacy is nothing compared to the vast public spying.
One should also mention the mechanism of "National Security Letters", in which the executive branch of the US federal (only?) government can compel non-govenrment entities, in secret, to provide them with whatever information they deem necessary for national security purposes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter
https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Guardian_and_Snowden_r...
Many large media outlets have basically buried this fact rather quickly after the initial coverage of the revelations, and now we can have stories about how "the keyword warrant" being "one of the more contentious". Sure, it's contentious, since _more_ government bodies get easier access to some of the information, but its infraction of people's privacy is nothing compared to the vast public spying.
One should also mention the mechanism of "National Security Letters", in which the executive branch of the US federal (only?) government can compel non-govenrment entities, in secret, to provide them with whatever information they deem necessary for national security purposes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter
If you haven't already, you've been able to "auto-delete" the data Google keeps on you for a while now. I think Google should be turning this on by default for everyone, but, if you are not doing this, a little more detail may be found at https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/automatically....
This is only the data that Google keeps for you, not the data that Google keeps on you.
This only applies to "Web Activity" and "Location History" which you can also just turn off completely instead of the "auto delete every x months" option.
This includes your searches, which you can see at https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity.
> so-called geofence warrants, where investigators ask Google to provide information on anyone within the location of a crime scene at a given time.
It's amazing we've become so tethered to our phones that it's just implicitly obvious that your phone's location is the same as your location. Authoritarian governments rejoice! People will voluntarily pay and cling to their tracking devices, no need to track them personally.
It's amazing we've become so tethered to our phones that it's just implicitly obvious that your phone's location is the same as your location. Authoritarian governments rejoice! People will voluntarily pay and cling to their tracking devices, no need to track them personally.
[deleted]
Basically everyone has an ankle monitor.
Sounds like a huge fishing expedition that violates what little currently remains of the 4th amendment. This kind of shit should be plainly, unequivocally illegal, and people who approved this in the first place need to be in jail.
This is one of those slippery slopes, but I dont think the uses here have gone down that slope yet.
An open ended search might be on terms related to bomb making, where curiosity might get someone labeled a potential terrorist. Here a specific person went missing and they were looking for people who searched on that specific person. It's still a net, but it's not that wide and its focused on something that already happened. They even put date ranges on the search.
I see the problem though. It's probably just a matter of time before the specificity is loosened a lot, and that would be bad.
An open ended search might be on terms related to bomb making, where curiosity might get someone labeled a potential terrorist. Here a specific person went missing and they were looking for people who searched on that specific person. It's still a net, but it's not that wide and its focused on something that already happened. They even put date ranges on the search.
I see the problem though. It's probably just a matter of time before the specificity is loosened a lot, and that would be bad.
[deleted]
Using a VPN provider in a country outside US jurisdiction would be recommended. Sure, they can also request the data from there with enough political pressure, but it is about putting up barriers.
This screams of government being acutely overstrained as it is but no reason to give them a hand with such deed.
You should also search for this person too. They requested data and data should be served.
This screams of government being acutely overstrained as it is but no reason to give them a hand with such deed.
You should also search for this person too. They requested data and data should be served.
So anyone who searched A SPECIFIC Name...this title is grossly misleadung
This is why everybody should do all their browsing with Tor, excepting maybe banking and shopping.
It's time Google notifies every user whose data was searched for these warrants.
The notification should say:
Google has searched your data in response to a legal request from XYZ court. Google searched for the keyword "John Smith" in your Google search history. No matches were found, so no further action was taken. For more information, click HERE.
The notification should say:
Google has searched your data in response to a legal request from XYZ court. Google searched for the keyword "John Smith" in your Google search history. No matches were found, so no further action was taken. For more information, click HERE.
This over reach is so terrifying it's almost funny. Always use a VPN and/or Tor.
Does anyone have links to Apple complying with geofence warrants? I searched and didn’t get very far, this is one that might need someone’s recollection.
Don't want to be swept up in a dragnet? Don't want to be a suspect based on normal everyday activities? Then you better not use Google, try DuckDuckGo or another private search engine.
Edit: downvote all you want. dealing with google is like talking to the police, whatever you say/do will be used against you. in googles case for advertising/influencing you or by the government using the google gold mine. you can spare yourself by using a different search engine.
Edit: downvote all you want. dealing with google is like talking to the police, whatever you say/do will be used against you. in googles case for advertising/influencing you or by the government using the google gold mine. you can spare yourself by using a different search engine.
Eric Schmidt, as Google CEO, had a habit of saying unpopular but true things. When he responded to a question about how people interact with Google with "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," he wasn't so much offering self-criticism as a warning regarding the overall societal trend, of which Google was merely a part.
The context is often left out in that interview snippet, because he goes on to say "... but if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it’s important, for example that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities."
Actions online leave a data trail. The US government has broad subpoena power to acquire that data trail. DDG is a smaller aggregation house, so it's less likely to be hit first, but I wouldn't assume that they don't retain routing info, IP addresses, etc. that could (with some difficulty) be collected and aggregated to narrow the search space for a person.
The context is often left out in that interview snippet, because he goes on to say "... but if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it’s important, for example that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities."
Actions online leave a data trail. The US government has broad subpoena power to acquire that data trail. DDG is a smaller aggregation house, so it's less likely to be hit first, but I wouldn't assume that they don't retain routing info, IP addresses, etc. that could (with some difficulty) be collected and aggregated to narrow the search space for a person.
Schmidt had some incident where some info about him was posted. He was really upset. Pretty sure he threatened or did do legal action. Coming from his position of power.
Doesn’t make what he said untrue. Just funnier.
Doesn’t make what he said untrue. Just funnier.
Privacy is generally agreed to be a human right. And privacy means that you can do or say something and have a right to have it not be known or made public. If someone with access to you data exposes it, it's a violation of privacy.
So no, the old argument of "if you don't want it known, don't do it" is fallacious and dangerous.
So no, the old argument of "if you don't want it known, don't do it" is fallacious and dangerous.
Doesn't the added context change it from a moral argument to a pragmatic one about opsec as it were? Morally not locking your door doesn't mean you should be robbed. Practically it means you are more likely to be robbed.
Well, no, because that's not what it says. The qualitatively different statement "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't tell Google about it." is probably true, but... well, qualitatively different.
(If the problem with the original isn't obvious to you, try specific cases like "If you don't want people to know you're gay, maybe you shouldn't be being gay.".)
(If the problem with the original isn't obvious to you, try specific cases like "If you don't want people to know you're gay, maybe you shouldn't be being gay.".)
> Privacy is generally agreed to be a human right.
Correct, but not a universal, constant, perpetual one like life and liberty. It is situational and context-specific; for example, it is not assumed you have a right to privacy regarding what you shout in the public square.
The still open question is the scope (perpetuity and breadth) of that right regarding things like the information you query on a publicly-accessible third-party search service... Does it look more like the privacy around what you do in your own bedroom or around what you do in the public square. And we have precedent that pokes at this topic... One's banking affairs, for example, are relatively private, but the state has a vested interest (taxation and investigation of a crime) in acquiring that information in special circumstances, and banks can and will divulge their copy of that information upon due legal request from the state.
I think it's hard to build a case that you have the same right to privacy as a bedroom right regarding information that you have queried in a third-party's database over a public network. It certainly seems like the jury is still out on the topic (and has been for two or three decades now, at least).
Correct, but not a universal, constant, perpetual one like life and liberty. It is situational and context-specific; for example, it is not assumed you have a right to privacy regarding what you shout in the public square.
The still open question is the scope (perpetuity and breadth) of that right regarding things like the information you query on a publicly-accessible third-party search service... Does it look more like the privacy around what you do in your own bedroom or around what you do in the public square. And we have precedent that pokes at this topic... One's banking affairs, for example, are relatively private, but the state has a vested interest (taxation and investigation of a crime) in acquiring that information in special circumstances, and banks can and will divulge their copy of that information upon due legal request from the state.
I think it's hard to build a case that you have the same right to privacy as a bedroom right regarding information that you have queried in a third-party's database over a public network. It certainly seems like the jury is still out on the topic (and has been for two or three decades now, at least).
I do agree with you that privacy as a concept is variable, as with many other notions. I wasn't thinking with the right to privacy as a bulwark against a state's legal jurisprudence.
For example say a disgruntled ex-lover posts private medical information on someone else and this gets indexed by Google. Obviously this is a breach of privacy. I would extend that to any private information, and the person should have the ability to remove that private information.
I think it has also been made more and more clear that platforms should not perpetually and forever host information about individuals against their wishes. People change, and this should be reflected in the public square. In the old days, your shouts only existed in the memory of those that were there. Now they are as fresh as the day they were posted.
The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 12 states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
The key is "protection of the law" and this is why I think that privacy should be regulated by government which extends its authority into "private" companies. Clearly that function is needed. However, I am constantly hearing the opposite case being made, that government should use its power to dig up information on law-abiding citizens as they could be doing something illegal.
For example say a disgruntled ex-lover posts private medical information on someone else and this gets indexed by Google. Obviously this is a breach of privacy. I would extend that to any private information, and the person should have the ability to remove that private information.
I think it has also been made more and more clear that platforms should not perpetually and forever host information about individuals against their wishes. People change, and this should be reflected in the public square. In the old days, your shouts only existed in the memory of those that were there. Now they are as fresh as the day they were posted.
The UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 12 states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
The key is "protection of the law" and this is why I think that privacy should be regulated by government which extends its authority into "private" companies. Clearly that function is needed. However, I am constantly hearing the opposite case being made, that government should use its power to dig up information on law-abiding citizens as they could be doing something illegal.
Unpopular but true? No. Popular and false.
You say that as if DuckDuckGo is completely immune to the same sorts of warrants.
They're all the same, serving you ads based on your search terms.
They're all the same, serving you ads based on your search terms.
Yes. I think people forget that personalization is not used for ads in Google Search - it's always ads for what you're searching for. Your data is only used for things like YT Ads and banner ads via Adsense-enabled sites.
That's half true. Personalisation informs the search which informs the ads. If I search for a restaurant I get ads for local restaurants.
> You say that as if DuckDuckGo is completely immune to the same sorts of warrants.
If you don't collect data, you can't share it in a warrant.
If you don't collect data, you can't share it in a warrant.
protonmail used to say this on their website and removed it after some people were arrested because they did provide logs to the french authorities.
the catch is that they didn't log by default but they had to log specific users due to a warrant.
the same will happen any service hosted by legal businesses.
the catch is that they didn't log by default but they had to log specific users due to a warrant.
the same will happen any service hosted by legal businesses.
> the catch is that they didn't log by default but they had to log specific users due to a warrant.
that is a usable quantum bump up in privacy. requiring the authorities to specifically be investigating you, rather than you just being caught in a dragnet looking for someone to investigate.
that is a usable quantum bump up in privacy. requiring the authorities to specifically be investigating you, rather than you just being caught in a dragnet looking for someone to investigate.
Can't log specific users if you don't track who is who.
But they do though. How else are they going to serve you ads based on your search terms? (which they plainly say on their website that they do)
There isn't a single search engine anywhere that isn't collecting some data. Not even DDG.
There isn't a single search engine anywhere that isn't collecting some data. Not even DDG.
DDG's privacy policy says:
> When you search at DuckDuckGo, we don't know who you are and there is no way to tie your searches together.
> When you access DuckDuckGo (or any Web site), your Web browser automatically sends information about your computer, e.g. your User agent and IP address.
> Because this information could be used to link you to your searches, we do not log (store) it at all.
https://duckduckgo.com/privacy#s3
> When you search at DuckDuckGo, we don't know who you are and there is no way to tie your searches together.
> When you access DuckDuckGo (or any Web site), your Web browser automatically sends information about your computer, e.g. your User agent and IP address.
> Because this information could be used to link you to your searches, we do not log (store) it at all.
https://duckduckgo.com/privacy#s3
> How else are they going to serve you ads based on your search terms
They obviously have the search term your searching! They don't need to track you, they send the ads back with the search results!
They obviously have the search term your searching! They don't need to track you, they send the ads back with the search results!
Serving ads based on your search terms is like serving an ad because some ones search had the word 'bolts' in it. You don't need to keep a lot of information pertaining to that around, not about the people using your service at least.
Google isn't doing that. They have pretty complete portraits of your life (and dare I say) psychology that only comes from having such an incredible wealth of information about you and your position in the network graph.
Google isn't doing that. They have pretty complete portraits of your life (and dare I say) psychology that only comes from having such an incredible wealth of information about you and your position in the network graph.
Do you have any evidence that the same government orders were not given to DuckDuckGo? Or that they wouldn't be if DDG had any kind of meaningful market share?
If your goal is not to be seen, relying on things without meaningful market share is actually fine.
Security through obscurity is bad long-term, comprehensive strategy because it's unstable and not indefatigable... Not because it doesn't work in the short run and in one-off cases.
Security through obscurity is bad long-term, comprehensive strategy because it's unstable and not indefatigable... Not because it doesn't work in the short run and in one-off cases.
>If your goal is not to be seen, relying on things without meaningful market share is actually fine.
Except for the cases where you want the exact opposite, because the noise makes it more difficult to find a single person. If there's only 5 people using, say, TOR Browser - you become easy to track.
Not saying this is the case here, just that different situations require different operational security considerations.
Except for the cases where you want the exact opposite, because the noise makes it more difficult to find a single person. If there's only 5 people using, say, TOR Browser - you become easy to track.
Not saying this is the case here, just that different situations require different operational security considerations.
Would not using Google or Facebook be considered suspicious at some point?
I've been de-googling my life as much as possible the last year. I think it's impossible to completely be rid of it but at least I feel I'm doing something.
Moving important email to protonmail. I only use firefox and duckduckgo browsers. Pretty much exclusively using duckduckgo for search. I've installed a PiHole on my home network. I've switched to an iPhone... although I considering some custom android ROM now. Using Apple Maps.
I wish there was a YouTube alternative that was up to par.
Moving important email to protonmail. I only use firefox and duckduckgo browsers. Pretty much exclusively using duckduckgo for search. I've installed a PiHole on my home network. I've switched to an iPhone... although I considering some custom android ROM now. Using Apple Maps.
I wish there was a YouTube alternative that was up to par.
> Moving important email to protonmail.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/secure-email-provider-protonma...
Protonmail literally gave up the personal info of some French activists who were later arrested...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/secure-email-provider-protonma...
Protonmail literally gave up the personal info of some French activists who were later arrested...
ProtonMail was required to do this, under Swiss law. They don't track you by default, but they can be compelled to add logging by their government.
This isn't an issue with ProtonMail in particular; any email provider has to follow local laws, and Swiss law is generally a pretty good framework if you have to choose.
This isn't an issue with ProtonMail in particular; any email provider has to follow local laws, and Swiss law is generally a pretty good framework if you have to choose.
For the record, I have no issue with Protonmail (or other tech companies) following the law. But their claim was always that email was encrypted and they "don't track you" which was always nonsense. Just like Apple's privacy promises. In the end all tech companies either track you, have the ability to track you, and have to give you up to the relevant authorities.
I think there's a significant and important difference between collecting data after being presented with a warrant, and collecting data indiscriminately by default.
>For the record, I have no issue with Protonmail
If this was the case, you would have given the full context in your earlier comment. There is a significant difference between tracking by default and tracking only when issued a court order.
If this was the case, you would have given the full context in your earlier comment. There is a significant difference between tracking by default and tracking only when issued a court order.
> There is a significant difference between tracking by default and tracking only when issued a court order.
Is there? Either your data is on their server or it isn't. As if they can't give data created before a court order to a government after a court order...
Is there? Either your data is on their server or it isn't. As if they can't give data created before a court order to a government after a court order...
I can't believe I have to argue that there is a difference between always tracking everything by default and only turning on tracking once a warrant arrives.
In one case, you track everything.
In the other case, you don't track everything. But you have the ability to turn on logging when required (like, for example, with a warrant).
>As if they can't give data created before a court order
This is surprisingly simple. You just don't track the data until you have to because of a warrant. Then you say "Sorry, I don't have data before your warrant arrived because we do not track it".
In one case, you track everything.
In the other case, you don't track everything. But you have the ability to turn on logging when required (like, for example, with a warrant).
>As if they can't give data created before a court order
This is surprisingly simple. You just don't track the data until you have to because of a warrant. Then you say "Sorry, I don't have data before your warrant arrived because we do not track it".
https://protonmail.com/security-details
They literally claim they're "unable" to give data to 3rd parties.
Another claim is that they have secure features for activists and journalists.
The trust is broken...
They literally claim they're "unable" to give data to 3rd parties.
Another claim is that they have secure features for activists and journalists.
The trust is broken...
This entire comment chain started because you said
>For the record, I have no issue with Protonmail
And I called that out because it was obviously untrue based on the rest of your comment. Now you say
>The trust is broken...
Which sort of proves my whole point to begin with.
>For the record, I have no issue with Protonmail
And I called that out because it was obviously untrue based on the rest of your comment. Now you say
>The trust is broken...
Which sort of proves my whole point to begin with.
It seems to me there are privacy knock-on effects. How long does the logging need to be on? If you turn on logging, does it turn on logging for all? (Seems likely yes)
Therefore one warrant can put all other privacy-desiring users at risk...
>How long does the logging need to be on?
This would depend on the warrant.
>If you turn on logging, does it turn on logging for all? (Seems likely yes)
No, the warrant must have a specific (non-drag-net) scope. Broadly scoped warrants are fought to reduce the scope to something specific (reduced time-frame, reduced users, etc.). This is common, even with Google/FB. I'm not sure why you assume yes.
>Therefore one warrant can put all other privacy-desiring users at risk...
No, not really.
This would depend on the warrant.
>If you turn on logging, does it turn on logging for all? (Seems likely yes)
No, the warrant must have a specific (non-drag-net) scope. Broadly scoped warrants are fought to reduce the scope to something specific (reduced time-frame, reduced users, etc.). This is common, even with Google/FB. I'm not sure why you assume yes.
>Therefore one warrant can put all other privacy-desiring users at risk...
No, not really.
Being legally compelled to hand over data is not the same as actively collecting every single facet of personal info about people for monetary profit bud.
Google does exactly what you're upset about ON TOP of a plethora of more insidious things.
If you're trying to make a claim that one is equal to the other you're failing miserably.
Google does exactly what you're upset about ON TOP of a plethora of more insidious things.
If you're trying to make a claim that one is equal to the other you're failing miserably.
Because France had a treaty with Switzerland, the home country of protonmail, and Switzerland gave Protonmail a legally binding warant to turn over information. Nothing that Protonmail could do unless they themselves wanted to be arrested.
Sounds like a valid complaint about protonmail though, right? They choose their jurisdiction, seems like they may have chosen poorly.
YouTube and YouTube music are the only remnants of Google for me at the moment. With the occasional use if Facebooks messenger for a particular group of friends and WhatsApp. The later really annoys me, so. Turned getting rid of everything MS was much easier, privately that is, now that I don't need Excel anymore. My employer provided IT equipment is still MS, so.
> Edit: downvote all you want.
Complaining about being downvoted is shunned upon on HN and is unlikely to cause people to stop downvoting. It brings nothing interesting to discussion and actually reduces density of interesting things.
Complaining about being downvoted is shunned upon on HN and is unlikely to cause people to stop downvoting. It brings nothing interesting to discussion and actually reduces density of interesting things.
You only posted a piece of my edit. I did also clarify my point. Was not meant as a complaint as much as a clarification and invitation for discussion. Wish more down votes would comment.
My style tends to be terse/short and perhaps I don't always make my point well.
My style tends to be terse/short and perhaps I don't always make my point well.
It still detracts from the conversation and invites distracting meta-threads like this one (and yes, I'm contributing). It's really better to let your original point stand on its own.
Don't be disheartened by a few downvotes in the short period while a comment is still editable. You may get many more upvotes as time goes on. Or not, but don't take it personally either way.
There are also people like me that upvote interesting comments even if we disagree with them (especially if they are unfairly negative). Meta-commentary on votes tends makes them much less interesting.
Don't be disheartened by a few downvotes in the short period while a comment is still editable. You may get many more upvotes as time goes on. Or not, but don't take it personally either way.
There are also people like me that upvote interesting comments even if we disagree with them (especially if they are unfairly negative). Meta-commentary on votes tends makes them much less interesting.
Fair enough.
The edit would have been better if you'd left off the first four words in it. It's not your terseness that's the issue.
just another reason to use duckduckgo
As a person neither leaning East nor West who is an avid HN reader it's always interesting to read the comments under such topics where the collusion between US private companies come up. Comparing it to the reactions when tenous connections between Chinese companies and the CCP are characterised as a threat to freedom and human rights.
It reminds me to be wary of my own biases. Because from where I stand they are all two sides of the same coin.
It reminds me to be wary of my own biases. Because from where I stand they are all two sides of the same coin.
Courts in the US are generally quite independent of the political process. Abuse of the court system is prosecuted fairly heavily. This is "rule of law".
On the other hand, courts in China do whatever the CCP tells them. These are not equivalent.
On the other hand, courts in China do whatever the CCP tells them. These are not equivalent.
I think this depends on what you define as "abuse". Many suspects are railroaded into plea-bargains to avoid bankruptcy or the risk of more severe charges regardless of actual guilt[1]. There are also abuses like civil asset forfeiture or false DMCA takedowns that rarely see any punishment.
I think it's possible to get justice in the US court system if you have money. This isn't really "rule of law" as one might commonly think of it though.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/innocen...
I think it's possible to get justice in the US court system if you have money. This isn't really "rule of law" as one might commonly think of it though.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/innocen...
How do you feel about Steven Donziger ?
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/lawyer-who-sued-chevron-sen...
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/lawyer-who-sued-chevron-sen...
Also, on a technical level, let's not equate a government apparatus that both controls and records anything and everything you do online, with a government asking a private company to identify people who searched the name of a girl who was murdered.
The China surveillance apparatus is based on compulsion of private companies. Where are you drawing the distinction?
I believe it's in degree. The great firewall, a massive centrally controlled effort, vs random judges with asking for narrow data related to specific events.
Cops can search your car if they have a reason to believe you've committed a crime, but if they just start rifling through every car in a public lot someone is getting sued.
Cops can search your car if they have a reason to believe you've committed a crime, but if they just start rifling through every car in a public lot someone is getting sued.
> Courts in the US are generally quite independent of the political process.
I'm not sure what to make of this statement.
To become a judge at the federal level is a deeply political process. Judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Nominated judges are usually the same political party as the president but must also be acceptable to at least a majority of senators, and there is often some bargaining to make this work. Every SCOTUS nomination in recent history has had senators question nominees on their political opinions. Federal courts frequently break along ideological lines such that the balance of liberals to conservatives on a court is important to parties and voters. Some state courts mirror this, with the governor nominating and a legislature confirming. How could this process be described as apolitical?
This is different from an apolitical process where a neutral body like a bureaucracy or bar association selects judges based on merit. The US is distinct from many European countries in this regard.
I'm not sure what to make of this statement.
To become a judge at the federal level is a deeply political process. Judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Nominated judges are usually the same political party as the president but must also be acceptable to at least a majority of senators, and there is often some bargaining to make this work. Every SCOTUS nomination in recent history has had senators question nominees on their political opinions. Federal courts frequently break along ideological lines such that the balance of liberals to conservatives on a court is important to parties and voters. Some state courts mirror this, with the governor nominating and a legislature confirming. How could this process be described as apolitical?
This is different from an apolitical process where a neutral body like a bureaucracy or bar association selects judges based on merit. The US is distinct from many European countries in this regard.
Where is this judicial fantasyland you live in with apolitical judges and independent laws? They're written, passed, judged, and enforced by heavily partisan actors, now more than ever. You're kidding yourself, and no one else, if you think the US judicial system is politically independent.
Given that judiciary being subservient to the Party is an intentional feature in China, no competent western system would do "worse" in judicial independence than China.
The GP is literally always correct in relativistic terms. If that makes people in the West feel more comfortable with the government, I guess I could say good for them? :)
The GP is literally always correct in relativistic terms. If that makes people in the West feel more comfortable with the government, I guess I could say good for them? :)
The Supreme Court itself is a partisan institution, now more than ever, and every reading of the Constitution has been subject to partisan biases since forever. That's not to say we have no checks and balances, just that they are not independent. More like interdependent and part of a vicious cycle; biased legislators appoint biased judges who exonerate biased executives who reward biased legislators. I think the cycles of the last few years have made that abundantly clear, but any cursory reading of US history should reveal this is not a new pattern. It's just how the system has always worked, our folklore notwithstanding.
If you don't think life appointment makes someone politically independent, I have to wonder what possible office would qualify. Divine monarch? Fürher?
Does your ideology radically change over your life? Why would theirs? They judge with their own biases, and are often out of touch with public sentiment. They're just people, and in case of at least one, a rapist with powerful friends.
A bigger court elected by the people could help solve that problem. Not lifetime appointments with zero accountability. The Supremes are just another fascist and anti democratic institution, like the electoral college or the party apparatuses.
A bigger court elected by the people could help solve that problem. Not lifetime appointments with zero accountability. The Supremes are just another fascist and anti democratic institution, like the electoral college or the party apparatuses.
You have a very peculiar view of language if you think that elected officials are less political than ones that are appointed for life.
Lifetime appointments just mean they get to force THEIR politics on the rest of us, instead of being accountable to ours. It doesn't make them magically apolitical. They are partisan hacks appointed by shitty legislators elected by an antiquated electoral system participated in by a disenchanted and uneducated mass. The Supreme Court doesn't have a great track record of being some sort of enlightened wise guru above the fray, they're very much a part of the broken model of American representative democracy and its inability to cope with the issues of modernity.
(sorry, new account BTW, lost the last password)
(sorry, new account BTW, lost the last password)
And if we're arguing semantics, there is a tendency for conservatives to label "things done differently than before" as "political" and the status quo as the sane default, which it rarely is to anyone not in line with their ideology. Everything in civic life is political, especially in a democracy as ragged and divided as ours. The more precise question, I think, is not whether some person or institution is "political" (they are, unavoidably, especially if they don't even see their own politics) but whether they are responsive to democratic whims. The Supreme Court by design is way less so, vs the House say. And I'd argue that's a huge part of their problem. Society and needs didn't evolve as quickly when that institution was designed. It simply cannot keep up. 9 old farts who don't understand technology have no place governing the future of 300 million.
I don't believe you understand the concept of "tenuous".
I have worked in China, China is a totalitarian communist State. There are no tenuous connections between the CCP and Chinese companies, companies ARE the CCP.
For example if you go around China you will see children with a red badge around the neck. This badge represents that the kid is a good student and the kid is forced to wear it.
In China the best students automatically enter the CCP, there is a spy apparatus that controls them once people travel abroad from friends and relatives. If they do something abroad against the CCP they take retaliation against their families.
If you want to create a company in China, you must enter the CCP. How tenuous is that?
People that have not lived there just can't understand what totalitarian means, there is no rule of Law and not free press. The "dictator for life" Xi Jinping can kill anyone in China with no consequences, and he regularly kills competitors or threats to his power.
Having said that, people in charge in the US or the financial elite would love the world becoming their own totalitarian regime, just like China but on the entire world. They lobby for that every day.
Those guys really love power, because they have power, they want more, they want it all like the song says.
It is really nothing new. Just like the Romans wanted to conquer Cartage to own the entire world. Philip II of Spain wanted the same thing conquering Britain, later it was Napoleon, and then Hitler and Stalin.
Now it is the US who would love to conquer China and Russia if they could. Also China would love to expand by force if they could.
The only reason they don't is because nuclear weapons.
The price of liberty for normal people is eternal vigilance.
I have worked in China, China is a totalitarian communist State. There are no tenuous connections between the CCP and Chinese companies, companies ARE the CCP.
For example if you go around China you will see children with a red badge around the neck. This badge represents that the kid is a good student and the kid is forced to wear it.
In China the best students automatically enter the CCP, there is a spy apparatus that controls them once people travel abroad from friends and relatives. If they do something abroad against the CCP they take retaliation against their families.
If you want to create a company in China, you must enter the CCP. How tenuous is that?
People that have not lived there just can't understand what totalitarian means, there is no rule of Law and not free press. The "dictator for life" Xi Jinping can kill anyone in China with no consequences, and he regularly kills competitors or threats to his power.
Having said that, people in charge in the US or the financial elite would love the world becoming their own totalitarian regime, just like China but on the entire world. They lobby for that every day.
Those guys really love power, because they have power, they want more, they want it all like the song says.
It is really nothing new. Just like the Romans wanted to conquer Cartage to own the entire world. Philip II of Spain wanted the same thing conquering Britain, later it was Napoleon, and then Hitler and Stalin.
Now it is the US who would love to conquer China and Russia if they could. Also China would love to expand by force if they could.
The only reason they don't is because nuclear weapons.
The price of liberty for normal people is eternal vigilance.
One can be against heavy-handed authoritarianism both at home and abroad, while still seeing the (quite distinct) shades of gray between the US security apparatus and the CCP, or between the CCP and North Korea, or between the US and the EU. Different governments and processes give different weights to due process and human rights vs bureaucratic efficiency and national security.
It should not be controversial to say that the CCP is more heavy-handed when it comes to government reach into private lives. That doesn't exonerate the US by any stretch; our government does a ton of shady shit, much of it arguably unconstitutional or extrajudicial, from warrantless wiretaps to drone executions of US citizens. But these make the news, which indicates 1) at least there is a relatively free press and 2) they are unusual enough as to be noteworthy, as opposed to commonplace and not discussed.
China doesn't share the same values as the West. The individual is deemphasized for the collective good, as defined by the current CCP elite of any decade. That doesn't mean their political system is inferior or superior -- our fragile "democracy" is threatening to devolve into civil war and take down the whole country, if not world with it -- but it IS a very different government on a different part of an authoritarianism <--> libertarianism continuum. It's not useful to equate them in this context just because the West does shady surveillance on its own citizens too.
It should not be controversial to say that the CCP is more heavy-handed when it comes to government reach into private lives. That doesn't exonerate the US by any stretch; our government does a ton of shady shit, much of it arguably unconstitutional or extrajudicial, from warrantless wiretaps to drone executions of US citizens. But these make the news, which indicates 1) at least there is a relatively free press and 2) they are unusual enough as to be noteworthy, as opposed to commonplace and not discussed.
China doesn't share the same values as the West. The individual is deemphasized for the collective good, as defined by the current CCP elite of any decade. That doesn't mean their political system is inferior or superior -- our fragile "democracy" is threatening to devolve into civil war and take down the whole country, if not world with it -- but it IS a very different government on a different part of an authoritarianism <--> libertarianism continuum. It's not useful to equate them in this context just because the West does shady surveillance on its own citizens too.
> That doesn't exonerate the US by any stretch; our government does a ton of shady shit, much of it arguably unconstitutional or extrajudicial, from warrantless wiretaps to drone executions of US citizens. But these make the news, which indicates 1) at least there is a relatively free press and 2) they are unusual enough as to be noteworthy, as opposed to commonplace and not discussed.
Does what is reported by the media equate to the sum total of US malfeasance? I sometimes wonder if there is an Overton's Window for the public's appetite for corruption and exposure of systemic exploitation.
> China doesn't share the same values as the West. The individual is deemphasized for the collective good, as defined by the current CCP elite of any decade.
Could the 2 power structures have different approaches to how the individual is de-emphasised for collective good? Perhaps the US has a more diffused and opaque strategy of achieving the same end? I say this because Americans signal opportunity and the virtues of social agency to one another at all levels of society - but each time I travel there it seems like a social nightmare where few are actually contented once you get past the small talk.
Does what is reported by the media equate to the sum total of US malfeasance? I sometimes wonder if there is an Overton's Window for the public's appetite for corruption and exposure of systemic exploitation.
> China doesn't share the same values as the West. The individual is deemphasized for the collective good, as defined by the current CCP elite of any decade.
Could the 2 power structures have different approaches to how the individual is de-emphasised for collective good? Perhaps the US has a more diffused and opaque strategy of achieving the same end? I say this because Americans signal opportunity and the virtues of social agency to one another at all levels of society - but each time I travel there it seems like a social nightmare where few are actually contented once you get past the small talk.
The cultural gap is because America's political leadership is mostly lawyers and China's is mostly scientists and engineers. So people hailing from the latter background tend to think along more utilitarian and technical lines.
Wish we had some scientists and engineers in there! Mostly we just have assholes.
> It should not be controversial to say that the CCP is more heavy-handed when it comes to government reach into private lives
I'm not so sure that is true. If anything the US agencies seem to be quite a bit more technologically advanced, and I'd bet they sit on more undisclosed zero days than the CCP.
You're definitely correct in the difference in ideological values, and this difference might make up for the technological gap between the surveillance capabilities of the two governments, but I honestly would say it's still a 50-50 to me which one comes out on "top".
I'm not so sure that is true. If anything the US agencies seem to be quite a bit more technologically advanced, and I'd bet they sit on more undisclosed zero days than the CCP.
You're definitely correct in the difference in ideological values, and this difference might make up for the technological gap between the surveillance capabilities of the two governments, but I honestly would say it's still a 50-50 to me which one comes out on "top".
Can you explain/rephrase? Are you just talking about surveillance in particular? If so, I apologize for not being clearer... I meant heavy-handed as in forced disappearances, labor camps, censorship, behavioral modification, etc. (or in the US, forced reproduction/sterilization, manipulation of educational curricula, etc.)
China's recent attempts to curb the influences of their Big Tech and online gaming sectors come to mind, vs the fuck-all we've done with ours over the past couple decades. Soon Facebook is going to become a supranational organization that can drive new laws just by enraging enough people through algorithmic manipulation... our watchdogs are whimpering puppies against that kind of power. Our government is way weaker in terms of its ability to regulate business or personal behavior.
And for the common person, sure, our government might know everything we're doing (they all do, these days), but by and large it does not really care. The data it collects is often so disorganized even its own agencies don't know how to share it with each other, much less use it to systematically oppress -- for now. Our discourse and dissent is THRIVING, free speech is alive and well, and we have so much freedom we've self-organized into alternate reality bubbles, absent state guidance and with a deliberate disregard of expert opinion. China doesn't allow its society to fracture like that. Ours has no choice but to allow it to happen, and our elites encourage that sort of fragmentation because it makes for easier power-mongering at the top when the commoners are divided against each other.
The Chinese are oppressed by a heavy-handed, paternal government. Americans are oppressed by a government so weak that capital, charisma, and convenience govern our society, not our supposed laws or values. Other developed countries, democratic or not, tend to fall in between those extremes, from the UK & Australia closer to us (weaker gov) to the Canada & EU (stronger govs) to the Nordic and Asian democracies (stronger yet), yet China's is way way way stronger than all of those.
China's recent attempts to curb the influences of their Big Tech and online gaming sectors come to mind, vs the fuck-all we've done with ours over the past couple decades. Soon Facebook is going to become a supranational organization that can drive new laws just by enraging enough people through algorithmic manipulation... our watchdogs are whimpering puppies against that kind of power. Our government is way weaker in terms of its ability to regulate business or personal behavior.
And for the common person, sure, our government might know everything we're doing (they all do, these days), but by and large it does not really care. The data it collects is often so disorganized even its own agencies don't know how to share it with each other, much less use it to systematically oppress -- for now. Our discourse and dissent is THRIVING, free speech is alive and well, and we have so much freedom we've self-organized into alternate reality bubbles, absent state guidance and with a deliberate disregard of expert opinion. China doesn't allow its society to fracture like that. Ours has no choice but to allow it to happen, and our elites encourage that sort of fragmentation because it makes for easier power-mongering at the top when the commoners are divided against each other.
The Chinese are oppressed by a heavy-handed, paternal government. Americans are oppressed by a government so weak that capital, charisma, and convenience govern our society, not our supposed laws or values. Other developed countries, democratic or not, tend to fall in between those extremes, from the UK & Australia closer to us (weaker gov) to the Canada & EU (stronger govs) to the Nordic and Asian democracies (stronger yet), yet China's is way way way stronger than all of those.
The problem is that Google is even retaining logs of this kind of thing in the first place.
On one hand I totally believe that our privacy needs to be protected companies that facilitate government surveillance should be boycotted.
On the other hand, the fact that no one can find Brian Laundrie indicates to be that generally government is incompetent and can’t mask all these things together to do anything really useful.
On the other hand, the fact that no one can find Brian Laundrie indicates to be that generally government is incompetent and can’t mask all these things together to do anything really useful.
How does the internet collect data (and share it) about someone offline (presumably in the wilderness)?
If he's in the belly of some crocodile, he's probably not using electronic devices.
If the crocodile looked him up on Google, we basically already got it.
But the real problem is that general population has zero to no issue with it. They barely comprehend the scope of what is happening. I am not sure it registers at all. Last time I talked to my wife about it, she said she has nothing to hide and I had to resist the urge to just plop her internet history open to make it a teachable moment. I had this conversation once before. It is not fun and I don't want a repeat.