3 ms·
The most likely explanation here is that Google was conducting its own investigation into Russian disinformation and discovered the suspicious search queries. T
by mike_d 6y ago
The most likely explanation here is that Google was conducting its own investigation into Russian disinformation and discovered the suspicious search queries. They then turned the anonymous query records over to the FBI with the understanding that they would then generate the necessary court order to request Google de-anonymize them. That is why the second sentence explicitly says "records from Google."
I've done this dance before. It is the cleanest way to turn over evidence of a crime that is discovered in a private investigation.
- jeffbee 6y agoWhy is that the most likely explanation, rather than something you just produced from your butthole? The FBI had already requested all Google records pertaining to Stone's accounts on May 4, 2018[1]. The warrant for the search records wasn't issued until June 18, 2018[2]. The FBI were not randomly trolling search logs; they were already on to Stone. 1: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.204569/gov.uscourts.dcd.204569.29.7.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.204569/... 2: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6879593-180820-Stone-AT-T.html#document/p13 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6879593-180820-Stone...
- mike_d 6y agoMuch more likely than Google giving in to a dragnet warrant (of which there is no evidence to support) for anyone who conducted a search. Google has fought similar requests in the past [1]. Google has a dedicated group that investigates government backed attacks, like Russian disinformation and hacking. I never worked on that team while at Google, but I worked on a similar team at another company. Normally nothing in a warrant will bar you from conducting your own internal investigation in support of producing relevant records. Sometimes that investigation yields results that are relevant but not within the scope of the warrant (the order you cite is only for a single Google account, not all Stone accounts). One way the legal department can handle such a situation is exactly what I laid out in my comment. 1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/12/11/google-gives-feds-1500-leads-to-arsonist-smartphones-in-unprecedented-geofence-search/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/12/11/googl... 2. https://blog.google/threat-analysis-group/ https://blog.google/threat-analysis-group/
- jeffbee 6y agoYou assume that Google legal would view the request as a dragnet, which might not be the case. You could argue that it's similar to asking a library to produce information about people who checked out a certain book on a certain date, which the police have done before.
- joshuamorton 6y agoOr cellphones in a specific geographic area at a certain time (which is a common-ish request both to Google and to cell providers).
- twirlock 6y agoGoogle is practically a government agency. Spooks should stop proactively lying about this stuff. You are literally the enemy of the people in the most tangible fucking sense.
- dang 6y agoPlease don't break the site guideline against calling names in arguments. Your comment would be just fine without that bit. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html