5 ms·
> For a legal warrant you have to have probable cause that a specific person committed a crime. You can't just search everybody and see what sticks, that's blat
by zamfi 5y ago
> For a legal warrant you have to have probable cause that a specific person committed a crime. You can't just search everybody and see what sticks, that's blatantly unconstitutional.
Sure, though it’s worth noting that nothing prohibits the police from walking down the street and asking people. Those people don’t have to talk to the police, but…
Google will fight warrants like this. AT&T doesn’t. Other companies have varying policies on this.
Obviously, one can’t assume data is not available to law enforcement merely because the police would need a warrant to get it over a possessor’s objections.
- passivate 5y ago>Google will fight warrants like this. How many keyword-search warrants have they fought? The article seems to suggest google has been providing data to the us government in the past and that this is an on-going collaboration.
- 77pt77 5y ago>Google will fight warrants like this. They are already complying. It's right there in the article.
- AlbertCory 5y agoMy bad. You're right.
- addingnumbers 5y agoGenuine question, what led you to believe Google would fight this sort of thing?
- BobbyJo 5y agoI think something everyone should be aware of as well: there is no legal requirement that Google not hand over this data to police. A warrant is needed to force Google to hand over such data, but they don't need anything at all to ask Google nicely. And if Google decides it's in their best interest to comply without a warrant, they are the legal owner of the data, so ...
- gnopgnip 5y ago> there is no legal requirement that Google not hand over this data to police. This isn't really true. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act prohibits third parties from sharing electronic communications without a warrant. It doesn't matter if they are the legal owner of the data, if it is about a third party that has fourth amendment protections.
- BobbyJo 5y agoIANAL, but the way I understood ECPA it only really protects communication while in transit, and both stored communications and data disclosed to third parties isn't really protected, depending on the context. Search history, and Google's analytics about you, are a gray area, because you are communicating with Google, not using Google as a transport layer with an expectation of privacy. Like, if the FBI asked me for my text messages with person X, I can hand them over if I want since they are my communications, but if they want the texts from my phone company they are legally protected. Using search is like texting Google.
- gnopgnip 5y agoStored communications, data stored electronically is protected as well under the wiretap act. Search history, location history is covered, it requires a warrant.
- Maarten88 5y agoI wonder if this is true for me as a EU citizen. Per the GDPR, companies can use personal data without consent when there is a legal requirement, but I think they can't just hand it out without consent when they just feel like it. Maybe that is where the warrant comes in, to make it plausible that it is required? I guess we'll find out when they arrest the first EU citizen based on this data.
- jtmarmon 5y agoIANAL but the answer appears to be no. Even an actual warrant doesn't count. Legal processing has to be required by the law of an EU member state, US court rulings don't count See https://gdpr-info.eu/art-6-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-6-gdpr/ (6)(1)(c) (6)(3)(a/b) and https://gdpr-info.eu/art-48-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-48-gdpr/ (48) That's not to say I know how a Google would react to a US warrant about an EU citizen (especially given the CLOUD act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_Act) but from what I can tell it's not permitted under GDPR