4 ms·

This is a very broad power to be granted so casually. Local cops (and people impersonating local cops) shouldn't be able to go fishing for evidence like this.

This is a very broad power to be granted so casually. Local cops (and people impersonating local cops) shouldn't be able to go fishing for evidence like this. Searching for abortion clinics could be the next thing targeted.

dclowd9901 3y ago
I can imagine google sending their lawyers after such a request. Not that it makes any of this better, but, at least the cynical take here (google covering their own ass so it doesn’t blow up in public) is enough to rely on.
- heavyset_go 3y ago
  Tech companies like Google regularly just give police users' data when it's simply asked for. They all have portals that expedite this process. Some companies publish stats based on this. They get thousands of such requests a year, sometimes with warrants, and the vast majority are fulfilled without a fight.
- oxygen_crisis 3y ago
  Google's lawyers rejected the first two warrants issued for asking for too much information, it wasn't until after the prosecutors got on a call with Google lawyers for coaching on how to serve a more subtle warrant that they complied with the third.
  - dclowd9901 3y ago
    _sigh_ nevermind. I guess I didn’t really dream up a scenario where somehow google lawyers would be motivated to comply with a service.
tiahura 3y ago
A house was burned down, and the cops wanted to know who searched for the house address prior to the arson. I’m having a hard time getting worked up about this. To me it’s the equivalent of getting a warrant to find out who bought matches. It’s not like the police got access to all of the users browsing history, they just got a list of IP address who had been casing the joint.
- lamontcg 3y ago
  > A house was burned down [..] Next time it could be something that you find much less clearcut. Someone had an abortion (if you favor abortion rights), someone bought a gun/ammunition (if you favor the second amendment), someone was just around a given location (if you favor free association and movement). The dragnet could have been over drugs (if you are against the war on drugs). I don't know what conservatives/right-wingers fear these days, but imagine its a dragnet over those things pushed by a liberal political system. And this request produced only a handful of hits, but there's nothing stopping them from getting search results that produce a hundred hits in the dragnet. When it comes to crime there are real actual slippery slopes. You can justify capital punishment with some horrible serial killer like Ted Bundy, but then that winds up with Texas killing innocent, poor, mentally handicapped people who get shitty legal representation.
- heavyset_go 3y ago
  > It’s not like the police got access to all of the users browsing history, Police then get warrants for users' electronic devices when they're under investigation because they're on that list, so the police get more than access to users' browsing history. > they just got a list of IP address who had been casing the joint. Or they got a list of completely innocent people who made deliveries, live nearby, etc, who are now treated as suspects for arson and murder they didn't commit.
  - tiahura 3y ago
    Police then get warrants for users' electronic devices But that’s not what happened. I don’t practice in Colorado, but my guess is that a judge would deny such a warrant without something more, e.g. the person has a prior conviction for arson, or there’s a personal connection with the victims. If you’re just the Amazon delivery guy, I don’t see it happening.
    - singleshot_ 3y ago
      You misunderstood how and when the warrant was issued. “The person” who you are assuming must have had some other incriminating evidence against him was not even identified until after the warrant was executed.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

dclowd9901 3y ago

I can imagine google sending their lawyers after such a request. Not that it makes any of this better, but, at least the cynical take here (google covering their own ass so it doesn’t blow up in public) is enough to rely on.

heavyset_go 3y ago
Tech companies like Google regularly just give police users' data when it's simply asked for. They all have portals that expedite this process. Some companies publish stats based on this. They get thousands of such requests a year, sometimes with warrants, and the vast majority are fulfilled without a fight.
oxygen_crisis 3y ago
Google's lawyers rejected the first two warrants issued for asking for too much information, it wasn't until after the prosecutors got on a call with Google lawyers for coaching on how to serve a more subtle warrant that they complied with the third.
- dclowd9901 3y ago
  _sigh_ nevermind. I guess I didn’t really dream up a scenario where somehow google lawyers would be motivated to comply with a service.

tiahura 3y ago

A house was burned down, and the cops wanted to know who searched for the house address prior to the arson. I’m having a hard time getting worked up about this. To me it’s the equivalent of getting a warrant to find out who bought matches. It’s not like the police got access to all of the users browsing history, they just got a list of IP address who had been casing the joint.

lamontcg 3y ago
> A house was burned down [..] Next time it could be something that you find much less clearcut. Someone had an abortion (if you favor abortion rights), someone bought a gun/ammunition (if you favor the second amendment), someone was just around a given location (if you favor free association and movement). The dragnet could have been over drugs (if you are against the war on drugs). I don't know what conservatives/right-wingers fear these days, but imagine its a dragnet over those things pushed by a liberal political system. And this request produced only a handful of hits, but there's nothing stopping them from getting search results that produce a hundred hits in the dragnet. When it comes to crime there are real actual slippery slopes. You can justify capital punishment with some horrible serial killer like Ted Bundy, but then that winds up with Texas killing innocent, poor, mentally handicapped people who get shitty legal representation.
heavyset_go 3y ago
> It’s not like the police got access to all of the users browsing history, Police then get warrants for users' electronic devices when they're under investigation because they're on that list, so the police get more than access to users' browsing history. > they just got a list of IP address who had been casing the joint. Or they got a list of completely innocent people who made deliveries, live nearby, etc, who are now treated as suspects for arson and murder they didn't commit.
- tiahura 3y ago
  Police then get warrants for users' electronic devices But that’s not what happened. I don’t practice in Colorado, but my guess is that a judge would deny such a warrant without something more, e.g. the person has a prior conviction for arson, or there’s a personal connection with the victims. If you’re just the Amazon delivery guy, I don’t see it happening.
  - singleshot_ 3y ago
    You misunderstood how and when the warrant was issued. “The person” who you are assuming must have had some other incriminating evidence against him was not even identified until after the warrant was executed.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]