330
Google forced to reveal users' search histories in Colorado court ruling (www.techspot.com)
submitted 1 year ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/privacyguides@lemmy.one
82 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 276 points 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 31 points 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

[-] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not long after Dobbs, someone posted a guide on r/WitchesVsPatriarchy on how to securely find* this information without opening yourself up to potential harm. Terrifying that that’s even a thing that needs to exist.

[-] rosymind@leminal.space 8 points 1 year ago

Lemmy needs a witches vs patriarchy- or is there one already? Im too lazy to check rn

[-] derin@lemmy.beru.co 8 points 1 year ago

Cool, I'm too lazy to answer!

[-] rosymind@leminal.space 5 points 1 year ago

Damn. Guess I'll just have to live in ignorance. (Clearly there's no other choice)

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] merthyr1831@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago

"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.

[-] cybersandwich@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Tax fraud? What am I missing?

[-] FutileRecipe@lemmy.world 3 points 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.

[-] LufyCZ@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

How is it fraud if they're using loopholes?

[-] flamingarms@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago

I'm sure they mean fraud in the colloquial sense, not the legal sense.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Clent@lemmy.world 41 points 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

[-] AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works 6 points 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.

[-] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

Stop using Google products, people. There are alternatives for every service they offer.

Unfortunately many of the products they offer are a requirement for daily life.

[-] FutileRecipe@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It's been my experience that for most people, Google services are not a requirement, but a luxury... especially for daily life. Now, most Google-esque services are a requirement for daily life, but as they said, there are alternatives that you can use that work.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] smeg@feddit.uk 36 points 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 30 points 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

[-] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world 12 points 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.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/stingray-tracking-devices-whos-got-them

[-] Kepabar@startrek.website 3 points 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] yeather@lemmy.ca 6 points 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 23 points 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.

[-] nolannice@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

Never ask Google a question you wouldn't also ask the feds!

[-] bappity@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

Never ask Google a question. ~~you wouldn't also ask the feds!~~

FTFY

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 9 points 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 24 points 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 3 points 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.

[-] rgb3x3@beehaw.org 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Would you still feel the same way if the DMV was set on fire and you were a suspect because you'd searched for directions to the place?

Or if you had searched that home address because you were looking for homes in the area to compare with what you wanted?

It shouldn't be enough to make a Google search to assume an individual is a suspect in a crime.

[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

Yes exactly. This story has echos of the guy who was hounded by police (and maybe even charged and convicted?) because he took a different route while cycling and rode past a house where a crime was committed. That, too, was Google.

[-] FutileRecipe@lemmy.world 13 points 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.

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] hottari@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

Another reason to use VPN/Tor.

[-] schwim@reddthat.com 2 points 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.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
330 points (100.0% liked)

Privacy Guides

16263 readers
1 users here now

In the digital age, protecting your personal information might seem like an impossible task. We’re here to help.

This is a community for sharing news about privacy, posting information about cool privacy tools and services, and getting advice about your privacy journey.

You can subscribe to this community from any Kbin or Lemmy instance:

Learn more...

Check out our website at privacyguides.org before asking your questions here. We've tried answering the common questions and recommendations there!

Want to get involved? The website is open-source on GitHub, and your help would be appreciated!

This community is the "official" Privacy Guides community on Lemmy, which can be verified here. Other "Privacy Guides" communities on other Lemmy servers are not moderated by this team or associated with the website.

Moderation Rules:

  1. We prefer posting about open-source software whenever possible.
  2. This is not the place for self-promotion if you are not listed on privacyguides.org. If you want to be listed, make a suggestion on our forum first.
  3. No soliciting engagement: Don't ask for upvotes, follows, etc.
  4. Surveys, Fundraising, and Petitions must be pre-approved by the mod team.
  5. Be civil, no violence, hate speech. Assume people here are posting in good faith.
  6. Don't repost topics which have already been covered here.
  7. News posts must be related to privacy and security, and your post title must match the article headline exactly. Do not editorialize titles, you can post your opinions in the post body or a comment.
  8. Memes/images/video posts that could be summarized as text explanations should not be posted. Infographics and conference talks from reputable sources are acceptable.
  9. No help vampires: This is not a tech support subreddit, don't abuse our community's willingness to help. Questions related to privacy, security or privacy/security related software and their configurations are acceptable.
  10. No misinformation: Extraordinary claims must be matched with evidence.
  11. Do not post about VPNs or cryptocurrencies which are not listed on privacyguides.org. See Rule 2 for info on adding new recommendations to the website.
  12. General guides or software lists are not permitted. Original sources and research about specific topics are allowed as long as they are high quality and factual. We are not providing a platform for poorly-vetted, out-of-date or conflicting recommendations.

Additional Resources:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
jonah@lemmy.one
dngray@lemmy.one
freddy@lemmy.one
ninchuka@lemmy.one
jonah@lemmy.jonaharagon.net