5 ms·

Google sent users' personal information to a Bay Area counter-terrorist center

raxxorrax 6y ago
Far right users are most commonly stupid like old cheese but I doubt the "investigate unit" is something I would want a business like Google to entail. Some form of hobby police is why I wouldn't want to share anything with Google in the first place. This is very close to thought policing. I also think the EFF missed the mark with its criticism to suggest even stronger content controls.
- ihadtosayit 6y ago
  Funny you say that. I find that far left agitators are stupid, infact so stupid that they are often referred to as "The useful idiots of the US capitalists".
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  > The users were often threatening violence. Feel free to not use google, but based on the information provided in the article calling this “thought police” is disingenuous.
rsa25519 6y ago
> Google also reported three videos by a third user Google handles mind-boggling amounts of traffic. Without statistics for how often these things happen, these specific cases mean very little to me. Regarding the article as a whole, what is Google supposed to do? Tech giants are pressured to increase regulation (e.g. Facebook and the 2016 US election stuff). They're also pressured to be places for free speech.
- sukilot 6y ago
  Threatening and conspiring to commit violence had never been part of protected free speech
  - opwieurposiu 6y ago
    The US government threatens and conspires to commit violence all the time. Clearly this is allowed if all men are equal. Otherwise agents of the state would have rights that others do not.
sukilot 6y ago
Misleading headline. Google gave law enforcement user data of users repeatedly publicly violating Google TOS and possibly the law.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  Where does it say that in the article? I see concern from privacy advocates, but no allegation that it’s against their TOC or the law. To me, the headline is misleading because it sounds as if users were reported merely for their political views — when in fact they were threatening violence.
CogentHedgehog 6y ago
Are they NOT supposed to report credible threats of violence or terrorism? I believe we all agree that Islamic terrorist groups such as ISIS should not be allowed to use the platforms to propagate violence. Why are violent members of the Far Right any different? From the article: > On a now-deleted video on the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton by Canadian white nationalist, Stefan Molyneux (whose channel YouTube has now banned), the user wrote: “Hi guys, i need your help, i cant help but look at those shooters and think, that could be me. I watch Stefan, and black pilled and many others on the right. I think i should do the same thing they are doing.” > The user then went on to discuss methods of making explosive devices. > But the same user also discussed making explosives in other comments which were still visible on YouTube at the time of reporting, along with the user’s account. > On a video alleging acts of brutality by local police, the user appended comments urging others to “kill them, when you go to trial i wouldn’t find you guilty for shooting these criminals. Kill them all”. > According to Google’s reports, the same user appended racial slurs to videos reporting crimes which Google has since removed. These are public comments -- any user could report them to law enforcement. This seems like EXACTLY the sort of thing that SHOULD be reported to law enforcement for investigation. Law enforcement takes the tip and decides where to go from there.
- cheph 6y ago
  > Are they NOT supposed to report credible threats of violence or terrorism? Absolutely and the title should make it clear that is what is happening here. If this is the case then data was not shared because user was far-right, it was shared because the user's comments appear to be incitement and not protected by the first amendment[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Incitement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
  - floatingatoll 6y ago
    The first amendment doesn't apply to user comments on any Google property, unless that property is exclusively operated for and/or moderated by the US government or a direct representative thereof.
Chris2048 6y ago
How does this differ from "Google giving extremist users' data to law enforcement"? The article says: > The users were often threatening violence or otherwise expressing extremist views, often associated with the far right. Ok, so so since "extrem[ism]" is "often associated" with "the far right", therefore it makes it into the headline? I'd like to see how they objectively decided that, or what they mean by "often associated" - associated by who? and why? Also; is this a causal association? i.e. extremists are often far right does not imply the far right are often extremist.
duxup 6y ago
You can bet that if someone used one of my rando apps for something like threatening violence I too would report them. I don't know how likely I would actually know it, but I've no issue with a service doing so. >“Hi guys, i need your help, i cant help but look at those shooters and think, that could be me. I watch Stefan, and black pilled and many others on the right. I think i should do the same thing they are doing.” >The user then went on to discuss methods of making explosive devices. >But the same user also discussed making explosives in other comments which were still visible on YouTube at the time of reporting, along with the user’s account. Yeah I think that's ok to report.
mtnGoat 6y ago
Misleading title posted by a throwaway? Hmm.

Far right users are most commonly stupid like old cheese but I doubt the "investigate unit" is something I would want a business like Google to entail. Some form of hobby police is why I wouldn't want to share anything with Google in the first place. This is very close to thought policing. I also think the EFF missed the mark with its criticism to suggest even stronger content controls.

ihadtosayit 6y ago
Funny you say that. I find that far left agitators are stupid, infact so stupid that they are often referred to as "The useful idiots of the US capitalists".
ashtonkem 6y ago
> The users were often threatening violence. Feel free to not use google, but based on the information provided in the article calling this “thought police” is disingenuous.

rsa25519 6y ago

> Google also reported three videos by a third user Google handles mind-boggling amounts of traffic. Without statistics for how often these things happen, these specific cases mean very little to me. Regarding the article as a whole, what is Google supposed to do? Tech giants are pressured to increase regulation (e.g. Facebook and the 2016 US election stuff). They're also pressured to be places for free speech.

sukilot 6y ago
Threatening and conspiring to commit violence had never been part of protected free speech
- opwieurposiu 6y ago
  The US government threatens and conspires to commit violence all the time. Clearly this is allowed if all men are equal. Otherwise agents of the state would have rights that others do not.

sukilot 6y ago

Misleading headline. Google gave law enforcement user data of users repeatedly publicly violating Google TOS and possibly the law.

jakelazaroff 6y ago
Where does it say that in the article? I see concern from privacy advocates, but no allegation that it’s against their TOC or the law. To me, the headline is misleading because it sounds as if users were reported merely for their political views — when in fact they were threatening violence.

CogentHedgehog 6y ago

Are they NOT supposed to report credible threats of violence or terrorism? I believe we all agree that Islamic terrorist groups such as ISIS should not be allowed to use the platforms to propagate violence. Why are violent members of the Far Right any different? From the article: > On a now-deleted video on the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton by Canadian white nationalist, Stefan Molyneux (whose channel YouTube has now banned), the user wrote: “Hi guys, i need your help, i cant help but look at those shooters and think, that could be me. I watch Stefan, and black pilled and many others on the right. I think i should do the same thing they are doing.” > The user then went on to discuss methods of making explosive devices. > But the same user also discussed making explosives in other comments which were still visible on YouTube at the time of reporting, along with the user’s account. > On a video alleging acts of brutality by local police, the user appended comments urging others to “kill them, when you go to trial i wouldn’t find you guilty for shooting these criminals. Kill them all”. > According to Google’s reports, the same user appended racial slurs to videos reporting crimes which Google has since removed. These are public comments -- any user could report them to law enforcement. This seems like EXACTLY the sort of thing that SHOULD be reported to law enforcement for investigation. Law enforcement takes the tip and decides where to go from there.

cheph 6y ago
> Are they NOT supposed to report credible threats of violence or terrorism? Absolutely and the title should make it clear that is what is happening here. If this is the case then data was not shared because user was far-right, it was shared because the user's comments appear to be incitement and not protected by the first amendment[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Incitement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
- floatingatoll 6y ago
  The first amendment doesn't apply to user comments on any Google property, unless that property is exclusively operated for and/or moderated by the US government or a direct representative thereof.

Chris2048 6y ago

How does this differ from "Google giving extremist users' data to law enforcement"? The article says: > The users were often threatening violence or otherwise expressing extremist views, often associated with the far right. Ok, so so since "extrem[ism]" is "often associated" with "the far right", therefore it makes it into the headline? I'd like to see how they objectively decided that, or what they mean by "often associated" - associated by who? and why? Also; is this a causal association? i.e. extremists are often far right does not imply the far right are often extremist.

duxup 6y ago

You can bet that if someone used one of my rando apps for something like threatening violence I too would report them. I don't know how likely I would actually know it, but I've no issue with a service doing so. >“Hi guys, i need your help, i cant help but look at those shooters and think, that could be me. I watch Stefan, and black pilled and many others on the right. I think i should do the same thing they are doing.” >The user then went on to discuss methods of making explosive devices. >But the same user also discussed making explosives in other comments which were still visible on YouTube at the time of reporting, along with the user’s account. Yeah I think that's ok to report.

mtnGoat 6y ago

Misleading title posted by a throwaway? Hmm.