“Ahhh gosh oh golly I guess i better comply with this police warrant” says the company that actively engages in one of the largest tax fraud operations in human history.
Google forced to reveal users' search histories in Colorado court ruling
Submitted 1 year ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to privacyguides@lemmy.one
https://www.techspot.com/news/100529-google-forced-reveal-users-search-queries-colorado-court.html
Comments
merthyr1831@lemmy.world 1 year ago
cybersandwich@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Tax fraud? What am I missing?
FutileRecipe@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Assuming they’re talking about what most businesses, especially large ones with huge legal resources, do: exploit loopholes to not pay, or pay reduced, taxes.
Clent@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Forced? Not at all. Google happily complied.
Stop using Google products, people. There are alternatives for every service they offer. They haven’t invented anything new in over a decade
KISSmyOS@lemmy.world 1 year ago
There are alternatives for every service they offer.
I used to believe that, but what’s the alternative for a phone keyboard with swipe typing and speech recognition that actually works?
Or a phone that gets reliable push messages and also works for banking?
Cause I hate Google, but these are things I actually need in my life.techt@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Understanding that you probably paraphrased for brevity, it’s hard to respond with anything helpful because only you know where the goalposts of, “actually works,” are – same thing with, “reliable push messages,” and, “works for banking.” I’ve used swipe input on the native Samsung keyboard and SwiftKey and found that they work just fine, but not as good as GBoard. If you’re going from a Google-invested product to pretty much anything else, it’s likely going to be a worse user experience, so you just have to set your expectations appropriately and keep in mind that what you’re getting in return for that is intangible but important.
What have you tried so far, and how have they failed you with respect to the metrics you’ve stated?
varsock@programming.dev 1 year ago
for speech recognition there is “futo voice” which not only works better than Google’s speech talk-to-type by allowing the user to fluently speak, but it also works offline and doesn’t upload voice recordings anywhere.
Clent@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Sounds like you’re on Android but there are still options. I am no subject matter expert but there are many who are and they are just a quick duckduckgo search away. Good luck!
AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Is there a good alternative, maybe locally hosted, for location history?
While I’ve recently disabled it for Google, it actually was helpful for going back in time and remembering where I was on X day, on numerous occasions. Would be cool if there was a locally hosted, open source alternative.
knexcar@kbin.social 1 year ago
If we aren’t committing any crimes, why should we care?
Solumbran@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Good thing that laws are perfect, huh?
drbluefall@toast.ooo 1 year ago
“If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear.”
CorruptBuddha@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
Privacy, freedom, and corruption? Like Trump banned international travel from how many Muslim countries? The fact that that happened at all is insane. You don’t think these tools will be abused? Like the UK banned fetish porn (which has been thankfully overturned). You would be fine if say… these tools were used to monitor your sexual habits?
varsock@programming.dev 1 year ago
if you’re not doing any weird shit at home, why have blinds in your windows?
smeg@feddit.uk 1 year ago
the police acted in good faith, meaning the evidence will be allowed in court despite the warrant being legally flawed
I have no knowledge (or particular interest) in USA laws, but I guess that judges making this decision is a statement of future intent. I guess if you don’t want to be tracked then don’t use services which track you!
_number8_@lemmy.world 1 year ago
this just means the cops can do anything??
i mean shit i guess they can here anyway, but it’s stunning to see that written down. oh they thought they were doing the right thing? oh that’s fine then
snooggums@kbin.social 1 year ago
Even worse, the court said what they did was wrong but they get to use the result anyway.
Touching_Grass@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Over a decade ago they had devices called “sting ray” that act like antenna. It captures all text messages in the area.
Kepabar@startrek.website 1 year ago
It’s called qualified immunity.
The idea is that if a police officer accidentally violates someone’s rights while trying to do their job and wasn’t aware they are not at fault.
It’s not a law but the result of a court case. Many of us want a law passed to remove it.
yeather@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
In Colorado, until a new law overides the ruling, google must reveal your search history when subpoenaed. This doesn’t affect surrounding states or federal law until their own judges make a ruling or politicians make a law.
TWeaK@lemm.ee 1 year ago
The issue here is not that they are required to reveal search history of suspects, the issue is that the police is browsing the search history of everyone in order to find a suspect. That’s not what warrants are for and violates the constitutional rights of nearly everyone they searched.
roguetrick@kbin.social 1 year ago
Opposite actually. The court decision says that all future reverse keyword searches will have their evidence thrown out. This one, however, didn't have precedent so the police acted in good faith.
nolannice@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Never ask Google a question you wouldn’t also ask the feds!
bappity@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Never ask Google a question.
you wouldn’t also ask the feds!FTFY
roguetrick@kbin.social 1 year ago
I am conflicted on how I feel about that. Obviously information dragonets are bad because they're specifically designed to produce false positives. In this case, however, they produced a definite positive that wouldn't have been achieved otherwise.
snooggums@kbin.social 1 year ago
The obvious potential harm in general outweighs the positive outcome in a specific case. Justifying broad surveillance because it works occasionally is the road to a police state.
hedgehog@ttrpg.network 1 year ago
Thus why it’s prohibited in the future.
uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
The entire exeption, and the broader exclusionary rule, is based around the self-evidently incorrect assumption that what happens in court will effect behaviour of investigators.
tsonfeir@lemm.ee 1 year ago
search warrant that required Google to provide the IP addresses of anyone who had searched for the address of a home within the previous 15 days of it being set on fire
I’m fine with this. It’s specific to an actual crime that happened, and not targeting a known individual or preventing something that hasn’t happened yet, “for the children” or some nonsense like that.
TWeaK@lemm.ee 1 year ago
It wasn’t specific to an individual criminal, though. Police aren’t allowed to get warrants for fishing expeditions, they’re supposed to find leads themselves and then get a concise warrant to evidence to confirm that. They searched people they had no right to search, and violated their constitutional rights.
tsonfeir@lemm.ee 1 year ago
It wasn’t specific to the fire? Like, whoever googled the address is a suspect. That’s a pretty good way to solve a crime.
FutileRecipe@lemmy.world 1 year ago
You’re fine with not targeting an individual and using blanket warrants instead? Even a judge said it was unconstitutional due to it not being individualized, and the EFF says it can implicate innocents. Even Google, who tracks and collects most everything, was reluctant to hand it over.
Sure, this reinvigorated the case, but it has an “ends justify the means” feel to it, which is a slippery slope. But you’re actively endorsing a less privacy friendly stance than Google, of all things. That blows my mind.
tsonfeir@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Everything must blow your mind. 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. Sounds like a pretty good way to get leads without asking for too much info.
Figuring out who searched for the address where the crime happened actually just sounds like good police work
Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
Yeah, it’s a specific enough request that I don’t see any problem here.
Although, why the IP address? I would imagine most people using Google products would be logged into Google accounts. They’d probably know the exact account who made the search, rather than a vague IP that could belong to multiple people in.
tsonfeir@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Well, sometimes I google but I don’t have an account. And if I did, it wouldn’t have my real info.
HootinNHollerin@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Google also hands over location data to police
schwim@reddthat.com 1 year ago
I always use Google anonymously as I always find alternative search engines to be lacking. Even without personalized search results, Google always works better for me.
sadreality@kbin.social 1 year ago
Not even true anymore...
But if SEO trash is good enough for you, that is a nice cope
schwim@reddthat.com 1 year ago
On the plus side, I meet less people like you when using their service, so it’s worth it to me.
theneverfox@pawb.social 1 year ago
I’ve been using duck duck go for a while, and I’ve got a fresh Linux install on another machine I’m using as a server and I went to look something up. I was 2 pages in, thinking “ddg isn’t great, but this is ridiculous”, and I remembered i was on Google
Google has seriously fallen off lately
themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 year ago
That headline misses the big problem. It’s not that Google was forced to give up search history data. If Google gets a warrant, they will comply. The real problem is that the justices acknowledged that the warrant was unconstitutional and permitted the evidence anyway. They claim the police “acted in good faith” while violating the constitution, which is a horrifying precedent.
If you’re thinking “alls well that ends well,” because they caught the arsonists who murdered a family of five, I can sympathize with that feeling, but consider that the murderer may have his conviction overturned on subsequent appeals.
The police obtained a warrant for everyone who searched for a thing from Google, and the search information was used against the accused in court. 14 states currently outlaw abortion, and there’s some cousin-fucking conservative prosecutor in Dipshit, Alabama, just salivating over the prospect of obtaining the IP addresses of every person looking up directions to clinics.
Touching_Grass@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I wonder how many companies like Cambridge analytica or TPUSA just have access to these. It wouldn’t surprise me if there’s some social engineering dark arts underground of pretending to be police and getting this data to study
Natanael@slrpnk.net 1 year ago
This is in fact a thing
cyberhoot.com/…/fake-emergency-search-warrants-be…
princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year ago
Not long after Dobbs, someone posted a guide on r/WitchesVsPatriarchy on how to securely fund this information without opening yourself up to potential harm. Terrifying that that’s even a thing that needs to exist.
rosymind@leminal.space 1 year ago
Lemmy needs a witches vs patriarchy- or is there one already? Im too lazy to check rn