4 ms·

Not tampering with evidence? [1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampering_with_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampering_with_evidence

maxerickson 4y ago
A blanket rule on data collection isn't tampering with evidence. They are not examining the particular information they are deleting in order to determine whether it is potentially evidence.
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  > They are not examining the particular information they are deleting in order to determine whether it is potentially evidence. Of course they are, unless I am misunderstanding what they are doing. It seems that they are specifically deleting location data with regards to visits to abortion clinics. [1] [1]: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/google-data-abortion-clinics-1.6508856 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/google-data-abortion-clinics-1...
  - maxerickson 4y ago
    There is no such thing as an abortion clinic, there are facilities that provide a range of healthcare services, potentially including abortions.
    - cato_the_elder 4y ago
      > a range of healthcare services Come on man, that's just muddying the water. The courts do care about intent, and Google's intent is clear in this case. Also, that's like saying there is no such thing as a gun shop, just a retail business providing access to various kinds of gear.
      - maxerickson 4y ago
        Their intent is pretty clearly to protect the privacy of women seeking healthcare at facilities that do provide abortions. But they are not peeking at what sort of healthcare the women are seeking. There's a clear distinction. "Without regard to the purpose of their visit" is going to pass muster pretty much anywhere.
        cato_the_elder 4y ago
        > Their intent is pretty clearly to protect the privacy of women seeking healthcare at facilities that do provide abortions And they just happen to think of that after the recent supreme court ruling?
        maxerickson 4y ago
        That doesn't matter!
        cato_the_elder 4y ago
        IANAL, so I don't know about that, but one would hope that the judiciary isn't too dumb.
        maxerickson 4y ago
        The fact that people are willing to conflate visits to those facilities with seeking abortion is itself a clear justification to discard all data about visits to those facilities!
        cato_the_elder 4y ago
        There is no conflation on my part, it's just clearly evidence in that direction.

maxerickson 4y ago

A blanket rule on data collection isn't tampering with evidence. They are not examining the particular information they are deleting in order to determine whether it is potentially evidence.

cato_the_elder 4y ago
> They are not examining the particular information they are deleting in order to determine whether it is potentially evidence. Of course they are, unless I am misunderstanding what they are doing. It seems that they are specifically deleting location data with regards to visits to abortion clinics. [1] [1]: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/google-data-abortion-clinics-1.6508856 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/google-data-abortion-clinics-1...
- maxerickson 4y ago
  There is no such thing as an abortion clinic, there are facilities that provide a range of healthcare services, potentially including abortions.
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    > a range of healthcare services Come on man, that's just muddying the water. The courts do care about intent, and Google's intent is clear in this case. Also, that's like saying there is no such thing as a gun shop, just a retail business providing access to various kinds of gear.
    - maxerickson 4y ago
      Their intent is pretty clearly to protect the privacy of women seeking healthcare at facilities that do provide abortions. But they are not peeking at what sort of healthcare the women are seeking. There's a clear distinction. "Without regard to the purpose of their visit" is going to pass muster pretty much anywhere.
      - cato_the_elder 4y ago
        > Their intent is pretty clearly to protect the privacy of women seeking healthcare at facilities that do provide abortions And they just happen to think of that after the recent supreme court ruling?
        maxerickson 4y ago
        That doesn't matter!
        cato_the_elder 4y ago
        IANAL, so I don't know about that, but one would hope that the judiciary isn't too dumb.
        maxerickson 4y ago
        The fact that people are willing to conflate visits to those facilities with seeking abortion is itself a clear justification to discard all data about visits to those facilities!
        cato_the_elder 4y ago
        There is no conflation on my part, it's just clearly evidence in that direction.