5 ms·

Curious: if anyone thinks it is bad for Google to give the police information, do you think it's bad for Google to have the information in the first place? Ano

by tabeth 10y ago

Curious: if anyone thinks it is bad for Google to give the police information, do you think it's bad for Google to have the information in the first place? Another way to think about this is: when (not if, but when) Google gives a government information in some time in the future, would that change your behavior now?

rosser 10y ago
It already has. I use DDG, and have for years. My Gmail box is for mailing lists, and putting up on things like my HN profile, for random people to get in contact. Personal correspondence goes to an address on a host I control.
milesf 10y ago
The problem with Google and Facebook is they lack context. Let's say you doing a search for school on Islamic State. How do they know the difference between you and a member of this terrorist organization? Context is everything.
- michael_fine 10y ago
  Isn't that exactly what the court system is for? I've never heard of anyone being charged with terrorism merely for googling IS, and I suspect any judge would throw out a case like that in a heartbeat.
  - nvarsj 10y ago
    The vast majority of prosecutions never go to trial. Plus the president can lock up enemy combatants without trial.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > The vast majority of prosecutions never go to trial. But that's a result of the evaluation of prospects at trial, so the protections that apply at trial directly influence that. > Plus the president can lock up enemy combatants without trial. Such detentions of alleged enemy combatants can be (and have been) challenged in court as well.
      - gnaritas 10y ago
        > But that's a result of the evaluation of prospects at trial, so the protections that apply at trial directly influence that. That would be nice, but it's not true. Prosecutors use the threat of trial to get innocent people to accept plea deals out of fear of being found guilty anyway and facing the full penalties of the charges. You're assuming good faith from prosecutors, you shouldn't; they only care about winning cases, not justice. The justice system is not your friend and is not out to ensure justice is done. The justice system is for those who can afford lawyers, it does its best to fuck anyone who can't.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > You're assuming good faith from prosecutors No, I'm not. Access to and competence of defense counsel is actually more relevant to the degree of effect that the available adversarial process has on the outcome of plea deals that avoid (some part of) that process, but even with imperfect access to and competence of counsel the fact that some share of cases do go to trial and prosecutors can't certainly predict in advance which cases will be in that set means that the protections in the adversarial process create incentives that influence behavior in the process that precedes arrest and charging. (This contrasts sharply with, e.g., the foreign intelligence surveillance warrant process, where the warrants do not feed into an adversarial process even in principle, and thus there is far less constraint on government misconduct even with a judicial warrant process.
        gnaritas 10y ago
        Prosecutors know who they can bully unfairly and have the discretion to back down if they make a mistake. If what would fly in court were any real behavior influencer, they wouldn't bully people into plea deals that were unjust just because they can. Most people do not have access to competent council and prosecutors know it, and they know the fear of being found guilty will get even innocent people to accept a plea; if you don't have money, the justice system isn't for you.
pdpi 10y ago
I'm not 100% sure about this particular instance, but, in general, it's fine for companies to have information that's not fine for the police to ask for. Substitute Google for any sort of dating website, and it's clear that such a website would have a tonne of data it needs as part of its day-to-day operation that the police should never have access to at such a wide scale.
mikulas_florek 10y ago
It can be disabled so it's no problem.
wu-ikkyu 10y ago
>Curious: if anyone thinks it is bad for Google to give the police information, do you think it's bad for Google to have the information in the first place? Yes. Having such comprehensive information stored in centralized databases on billions of users is extremely dangerous. It's like when armies in WWI marched in straight rank and file against machine gun fire because they didn't yet know the capabilities of new technology. Though this is much more subtle. I.e. the OPM hack => black mail on everyone with a US security clearance. Anyone who can gain access to this information (via hacking, social engineering, or court order) potentially has total control over the identities of their targets.

by tabeth 10y ago

rosser 10y ago

It already has. I use DDG, and have for years. My Gmail box is for mailing lists, and putting up on things like my HN profile, for random people to get in contact. Personal correspondence goes to an address on a host I control.

milesf 10y ago

The problem with Google and Facebook is they lack context. Let's say you doing a search for school on Islamic State. How do they know the difference between you and a member of this terrorist organization? Context is everything.

michael_fine 10y ago
Isn't that exactly what the court system is for? I've never heard of anyone being charged with terrorism merely for googling IS, and I suspect any judge would throw out a case like that in a heartbeat.
- nvarsj 10y ago
  The vast majority of prosecutions never go to trial. Plus the president can lock up enemy combatants without trial.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > The vast majority of prosecutions never go to trial. But that's a result of the evaluation of prospects at trial, so the protections that apply at trial directly influence that. > Plus the president can lock up enemy combatants without trial. Such detentions of alleged enemy combatants can be (and have been) challenged in court as well.
    - gnaritas 10y ago
      > But that's a result of the evaluation of prospects at trial, so the protections that apply at trial directly influence that. That would be nice, but it's not true. Prosecutors use the threat of trial to get innocent people to accept plea deals out of fear of being found guilty anyway and facing the full penalties of the charges. You're assuming good faith from prosecutors, you shouldn't; they only care about winning cases, not justice. The justice system is not your friend and is not out to ensure justice is done. The justice system is for those who can afford lawyers, it does its best to fuck anyone who can't.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > You're assuming good faith from prosecutors No, I'm not. Access to and competence of defense counsel is actually more relevant to the degree of effect that the available adversarial process has on the outcome of plea deals that avoid (some part of) that process, but even with imperfect access to and competence of counsel the fact that some share of cases do go to trial and prosecutors can't certainly predict in advance which cases will be in that set means that the protections in the adversarial process create incentives that influence behavior in the process that precedes arrest and charging. (This contrasts sharply with, e.g., the foreign intelligence surveillance warrant process, where the warrants do not feed into an adversarial process even in principle, and thus there is far less constraint on government misconduct even with a judicial warrant process.
        gnaritas 10y ago
        Prosecutors know who they can bully unfairly and have the discretion to back down if they make a mistake. If what would fly in court were any real behavior influencer, they wouldn't bully people into plea deals that were unjust just because they can. Most people do not have access to competent council and prosecutors know it, and they know the fear of being found guilty will get even innocent people to accept a plea; if you don't have money, the justice system isn't for you.

pdpi 10y ago

I'm not 100% sure about this particular instance, but, in general, it's fine for companies to have information that's not fine for the police to ask for. Substitute Google for any sort of dating website, and it's clear that such a website would have a tonne of data it needs as part of its day-to-day operation that the police should never have access to at such a wide scale.

mikulas_florek 10y ago

It can be disabled so it's no problem.

wu-ikkyu 10y ago

>Curious: if anyone thinks it is bad for Google to give the police information, do you think it's bad for Google to have the information in the first place? Yes. Having such comprehensive information stored in centralized databases on billions of users is extremely dangerous. It's like when armies in WWI marched in straight rank and file against machine gun fire because they didn't yet know the capabilities of new technology. Though this is much more subtle. I.e. the OPM hack => black mail on everyone with a US security clearance. Anyone who can gain access to this information (via hacking, social engineering, or court order) potentially has total control over the identities of their targets.