5 ms·
When google does it without knowing what you did there, no. You can't knowingly destroy evidence if there isn't a (known) crime.
by bmicraft 4y ago
When google does it without knowing what you did there, no. You can't knowingly destroy evidence if there isn't a (known) crime.
- gruez 4y agoOkay, here's a new thought experiment: suppose some trump supporters did some illegal activities at a protest (think jan 6th). In typical trump supporter fashion, they also have truth social[1] installed and location tracking was enabled. Would you be fine with truth social scrubbing evidence relating to that protest? After all, showing up to the protest isn't illegal, so it should be perfectly fine to scrub all information relating to the protest. It'd only be illegal if they specifically searched for illegal activity and only scrubbed those. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_Social https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_Social
- somenewaccount1 4y agoYes. That's how privacy protection works. Both the good guys and the bad guys benefit equally.
- gruez 4y agoWell, that's the sane way of interpreting it. The alternative is finding some sort of post hoc justification to prevent your opponents for using it.
- mattzito 4y agoThere’s a nuance here, which is that in your scenario it sounds like truth social made a conscious decision to erase location data focused around this particular event - if that’s the case, and they picked this event specifically, that seems sketchy. Why that event, why just these people, etc. If, on the other hand, three months before January 6th truth social said “you know what, we are going to delete all location data that is near any government building going forward”, that seems to be to be morally neutral. The other way to look at it is that this change protects everyone who is at an abortion clinic, whether getting an abortion, protesting abortion, or just happened to be walking by.