3 ms·

The few people who searched for douglas would be inconvenienced slightly, sure. But what harm has been, or might reliably, be done with this info?

tyingq 10y ago
It sets an interesting precedent for more broad fishing expeditions. Slippery slope and that sort of thing. Have you watched the film Minority Report?
- seangrogg 10y ago
  Have you? The concept was "pre-crime" which is stopping crimes before they happened - not investigating crimes that have already conclusively been committed. Additionally, upon finding the system in use was faulty it was dismantled and everyone affected by it given a pardon. Not saying the slippery slope argument is invalid, but the use of Minority Report is better kept to arguments where the intent is to use "big data" to predict and prevent crimes - not for when crimes have been committed and the intent is to figure out who did it.
  - tyingq 10y ago
    I mentioned it because it is the bottom of the slippery slope. Once search data is open game for any law enforcement purpose, why not preemptively tag searches that are common before a crime takes place? That said, I'm a bit confused as to how a "happy ending" would invalidate moral concerns raised by an illustrative story. Also FWIW, leading with "Have you?" reduces the chance I might read what you had to say with an open mind.
- stagbeetle 10y ago
  No, but I get the general premise. I don't see how it directly meshes into the issue at hand though.
  - tyingq 10y ago
    Sweeping through large swaths of data on what people do in order to single out one potential person in the data. Once you're good with that, it leads places.
mtalantikite 10y ago
Because innocent people getting swept up by the legal system is potentially disastrous for those people, particularly if they are people of color. Take the Kalief Browder case as an example: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law
- stagbeetle 10y ago
  Yes, this is one case. However, injustices happen all over the world in varying degrees. It's important to figure out the balance of damage done / good done. If one out of 100 million people is wrongly convicted each year due to these practices, but 1 out of 50 million is rightly convicted each year, then this tool net good (even though innocent people have convicted.) This is just a simple view though, it's up to society to balance this equation (but that means not having a puritist and irrationally stubborn point). What is the prevalence of accidental conviction due to the police having access to your limited private information?
fingerprinter 10y ago
For real? It's not about this case, it's about the precedent. The fight is about privacy...at all...online. Google needs to fight this for everyone because if they lose we all lose.
mickronome 10y ago
Apart from gigantig societal issues around chilling effects and free speech related issues. Whenever you cast a wide net you must either do significant statistical modelling or disqualify the actual results of the warrant from being considered as evidence. Ie you can not both use the results to filter the suspects _and_ use it as evidence without knowing exactly what you are doing from a statistical point of view. As badly understood statistics generally are, the required level of rigor is unlikely to be achieved.
- stagbeetle 10y ago
  I understand where you're coming from. But I believe this is just like where LE collects a list of suspects (from people the victim knew) and narrows down from there. The net isn't as wide, nor is it used as the main evidence for conviction (atleast I would hope so).

tyingq 10y ago

It sets an interesting precedent for more broad fishing expeditions. Slippery slope and that sort of thing. Have you watched the film Minority Report?

seangrogg 10y ago
Have you? The concept was "pre-crime" which is stopping crimes before they happened - not investigating crimes that have already conclusively been committed. Additionally, upon finding the system in use was faulty it was dismantled and everyone affected by it given a pardon. Not saying the slippery slope argument is invalid, but the use of Minority Report is better kept to arguments where the intent is to use "big data" to predict and prevent crimes - not for when crimes have been committed and the intent is to figure out who did it.
- tyingq 10y ago
  I mentioned it because it is the bottom of the slippery slope. Once search data is open game for any law enforcement purpose, why not preemptively tag searches that are common before a crime takes place? That said, I'm a bit confused as to how a "happy ending" would invalidate moral concerns raised by an illustrative story. Also FWIW, leading with "Have you?" reduces the chance I might read what you had to say with an open mind.
stagbeetle 10y ago
No, but I get the general premise. I don't see how it directly meshes into the issue at hand though.
- tyingq 10y ago
  Sweeping through large swaths of data on what people do in order to single out one potential person in the data. Once you're good with that, it leads places.

mtalantikite 10y ago

Because innocent people getting swept up by the legal system is potentially disastrous for those people, particularly if they are people of color. Take the Kalief Browder case as an example: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law

stagbeetle 10y ago
Yes, this is one case. However, injustices happen all over the world in varying degrees. It's important to figure out the balance of damage done / good done. If one out of 100 million people is wrongly convicted each year due to these practices, but 1 out of 50 million is rightly convicted each year, then this tool net good (even though innocent people have convicted.) This is just a simple view though, it's up to society to balance this equation (but that means not having a puritist and irrationally stubborn point). What is the prevalence of accidental conviction due to the police having access to your limited private information?

fingerprinter 10y ago

For real? It's not about this case, it's about the precedent. The fight is about privacy...at all...online. Google needs to fight this for everyone because if they lose we all lose.

mickronome 10y ago

Apart from gigantig societal issues around chilling effects and free speech related issues. Whenever you cast a wide net you must either do significant statistical modelling or disqualify the actual results of the warrant from being considered as evidence. Ie you can not both use the results to filter the suspects _and_ use it as evidence without knowing exactly what you are doing from a statistical point of view. As badly understood statistics generally are, the required level of rigor is unlikely to be achieved.

stagbeetle 10y ago
I understand where you're coming from. But I believe this is just like where LE collects a list of suspects (from people the victim knew) and narrows down from there. The net isn't as wide, nor is it used as the main evidence for conviction (atleast I would hope so).