Comment on Google forced to reveal users' search histories in Colorado court ruling

• FutileRecipe@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Everything must blow your mind.

  Just people in a privacy community advocating for even less privacy than Google, who is decidedly anti-privacy, wants. The company who detests privacy and wants to collect data on everyone said, “this might be private and we shouldn’t go with it,” and you go “nope, it’s not, give it over?”

  So yes, no matter how much I experience in the world, people advocating for being taken advantage of or having their rights violated (which is what’s happening here) blows my mind, despite running into it semi-constantly.

  source

  • tsonfeir@lemm.ee ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    That’s not what’s going on

    source
• hedgehog@ttrpg.network ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  This is like going to a hotel and asking to see a list of people who stayed in the hotel last week because the suspect is probably staying nearby.

  Going to the hotel and asking is fine. It’s up to the hotel to protect their guests’ privacy in such a case. It’d probably be more productive if they asked the hotel staff about particular suspicious behavior that they’d personally seen, especially if they could narrow down the time frame, though. “Did anyone smelling like smoke come through after 11 PM last night?”

  But the issue wasn’t what the police did - it was what the judge did. This situation would be more like if a judge issued a warrant for such a request without any evidence linking the hotel itself to the crime.

  Getting a warrant for the entire guest list would not be appropriate, though - at least, not without specific evidence linking a suspect to that specific hotel. “The crime was committed nearby” isn’t sufficient. They need evidence the suspect entered the hotel, at minimum.

  Sounds like a pretty good way to get leads without asking for too much info.

  Sounds like a pretty good way to trample over the privacy rights of the hotel guests who’ve done nothing wrong.

  source

  • tsonfeir@lemm.ee ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Agree to disagree

    source

    • hedgehog@ttrpg.network ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Sure. On your side, you have your opinion. On my side I have legal precedent. You’re welcome to continue having your opinion, even though it’s unfounded and you’ve been told as much.

      source

      • tsonfeir@lemm.ee ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Do you agree with every legal precedent?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Sentau@feddit.de ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  This is like going to a hotel and asking to see a list of people who stayed in the hotel last week because the suspect is probably staying nearby.

  And the hotel can deny to provide this information if it is an informal request. Only with a warrant will they forced to give up that list and a judge issuing the order will want some proof as why the police believe the suspect stayed in a hotel.

  I am not a lawyer so I could be wrong about the criteria for the issue of warrants.

  source

  • tsonfeir@lemm.ee ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Right. Google could have just looked that shit up voluntarily. I mean, it can’t be a long list.

    source

    • Sentau@feddit.de ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      But Google didn’t. They were forced by a warrant which was issued on grounds so weak, that judges themselves agreed that it was unconstitutional.

      source

      • tsonfeir@lemm.ee ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        There was a fire and maybe people who looked up that address could be further investigated.

        Do you think that’s weak grounds? How could that specific and very small list of IP addresses violate a persons privacy?

        I obviously haven’t read the warrant request, and it could have been worded pretty poorly.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The police had a warrant for this information from Google. The problem isn’t what Google did, it’s that a judge signed off on a bad warrant and that the evidence obtained from it was still allowed to be used.

    source

    • Sentau@feddit.de ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      My comment was in context of the comment above and not in the context of the article.

      What you said is all true and is what I was trying to explain to the guy above that usually warrants need proof/probable cause to be issued.

      source