4 ms·

Rulings aren't only about the case. Precedent is important. Loosing rulings here can lead to expanded power and suppression of speech for fear of backlash. Say

Rulings aren't only about the case. Precedent is important. Loosing rulings here can lead to expanded power and suppression of speech for fear of backlash. Saying "checking for searches of an address in two weeks" is materially different than "searched for X suspected terrorist organization in four years".

taeric 3y ago
I don't know that I follow your example. Searching a specific address is a fairly rare thing to do, all told. Such that I suspect you have a tighter target for that than you do any organization search.
- heavyset_go 3y ago
  If you click anywhere on Google Maps it enters the address as a search query request.
  - taeric 3y ago
    And how many people are regularly clicking on a specific address? Compared to any searches on an organization, I just don't see it comparing.
    - ttyprintk 3y ago
      Because this sets precedence, the following scenarios can produce material admissible in court: - A state bans certain reproductive pills. An officer asks for all searches for the address of a certain pharmacy across state lines. - Some measure of crime is up around the new housing development. An officer asks for searches for webcams around an address. There is no oversight when that address happens to be a mosque. - Your DHCP lease grants an IP address that belonged to a real estate office plugging thousands of addresses in. The police department only asks for a few addresses, so it’s incorrigibly suspicious that you are the only IP who searched for all three addresses where a catalytic converter was stolen. You do not get the legal benefit of being able to see the exculpating history kept by the search giant.
      - taeric 3y ago
        Small nit to start, this sets a precedent. This does not necessarily set precedence. Those are two different things. Again, though, this is a hard hill to want to set the battle on. If this was a case of "searching for contentious thing" than I would be worried, as well. This was literally, "any evidence that someone scoped out a specific location where a crime that we all agree is a crime happened?" And saying there is no oversight is silly. This had a warrant. It went through a process. To claim there is no oversight is overstating the situation and is a bad faith argument. To contrive how this could have led to a lot of false positives completely ignores that it was such a well directed search that it did not, in fact, do that. Last number I heard was that it literally hit single digits in how many results it had. That is beyond well scoped for this sort of thing.
        ttyprintk 3y ago
        These are good points, and supported by the court explicitly stating that they’re not making a judgement on all such warrants, but on the constitutionality of using evidence gathered this way. I think this evidence cannot be used constitutionally, but practically I might be mistaking the application of this ruling to “good” warrants as well as “bad” ones. This might be a well-directed warrant which supports the public good with statistics satisfying a reasonable observer. But, can we tell that apart from a “bad” warrant in which we do not have access to refuting statistics? Honest question, should the search engine’s legal department be the only ones who can make the counter argument.
        taeric 3y ago
        Fair. I can certainly see how this is close to things that are bad. And I'm all for keeping the watch up, as it were. To your specific question, I don't have an answer. I'm assuming some judgement was made at Google, as well? In that, if they felt it was an unconstitutional request, they can push back. The link someone gave to what libraries can/should do supports that view.
- Guvante 3y ago
  This ruling isn't just "this specific case is allowed" it establishes precedent based on the ruling details. I certainly think there is an argument for disallowing but am not trying to argue about that. If you assume it is allowed then being careful about the controls put on police is important. Giving them unlimited access would be problematic. So it could be true that this is okay but the ruling allows things that shouldn't be.
  - taeric 3y ago
    The article pushes the view that keyword searches are completely off limits. But, I just don't buy that view. If it is seen that a blue honda accord left a crime, is it a violation of the privacy of all blue honda accord owners to scan and see if any are registered locally? If we found that a certain niche fuel was used in an arson, is it a violation of all hobbyists in town/state to check to see if anyone made some unusual purchases of said fuel? Same for if a specific type of gun was used? I'm very sympathetic to the concerns of drug/behavior searches for things that I feel should be legal. My aim there would be to argue for success in making those things legal. I just don't see the argument that keyword searches are somehow off limits for searching. And again, don't construe this in the realm of the search being the crime. If this person was convicted because they searched for something, I'd be far more open to the argument. They were found because they searched something.
    - Guvante 3y ago
      My example wasn't rhetorical. Finding out political affiliations via these searches is exactly the concern. The problem is creating boundaries that prevent that kind of behavior from law enforcement. The article proposes that is too difficult and removing the tool is a better solution. Parallel evidence is a very very weird thing in police work IMHO. We give police incredible power with the only oversight being blocking evidence from court. As long as police are rarely punished for crossing lines we should minimize expanding their tooling whenever possible.
      - taeric 3y ago

taeric 3y ago

I don't know that I follow your example. Searching a specific address is a fairly rare thing to do, all told. Such that I suspect you have a tighter target for that than you do any organization search.

heavyset_go 3y ago
If you click anywhere on Google Maps it enters the address as a search query request.
- taeric 3y ago
  And how many people are regularly clicking on a specific address? Compared to any searches on an organization, I just don't see it comparing.
  - ttyprintk 3y ago
    Because this sets precedence, the following scenarios can produce material admissible in court: - A state bans certain reproductive pills. An officer asks for all searches for the address of a certain pharmacy across state lines. - Some measure of crime is up around the new housing development. An officer asks for searches for webcams around an address. There is no oversight when that address happens to be a mosque. - Your DHCP lease grants an IP address that belonged to a real estate office plugging thousands of addresses in. The police department only asks for a few addresses, so it’s incorrigibly suspicious that you are the only IP who searched for all three addresses where a catalytic converter was stolen. You do not get the legal benefit of being able to see the exculpating history kept by the search giant.
    - taeric 3y ago
      Small nit to start, this sets a precedent. This does not necessarily set precedence. Those are two different things. Again, though, this is a hard hill to want to set the battle on. If this was a case of "searching for contentious thing" than I would be worried, as well. This was literally, "any evidence that someone scoped out a specific location where a crime that we all agree is a crime happened?" And saying there is no oversight is silly. This had a warrant. It went through a process. To claim there is no oversight is overstating the situation and is a bad faith argument. To contrive how this could have led to a lot of false positives completely ignores that it was such a well directed search that it did not, in fact, do that. Last number I heard was that it literally hit single digits in how many results it had. That is beyond well scoped for this sort of thing.
      - ttyprintk 3y ago
        These are good points, and supported by the court explicitly stating that they’re not making a judgement on all such warrants, but on the constitutionality of using evidence gathered this way. I think this evidence cannot be used constitutionally, but practically I might be mistaking the application of this ruling to “good” warrants as well as “bad” ones. This might be a well-directed warrant which supports the public good with statistics satisfying a reasonable observer. But, can we tell that apart from a “bad” warrant in which we do not have access to refuting statistics? Honest question, should the search engine’s legal department be the only ones who can make the counter argument.
        taeric 3y ago
        Fair. I can certainly see how this is close to things that are bad. And I'm all for keeping the watch up, as it were. To your specific question, I don't have an answer. I'm assuming some judgement was made at Google, as well? In that, if they felt it was an unconstitutional request, they can push back. The link someone gave to what libraries can/should do supports that view.
Guvante 3y ago
This ruling isn't just "this specific case is allowed" it establishes precedent based on the ruling details. I certainly think there is an argument for disallowing but am not trying to argue about that. If you assume it is allowed then being careful about the controls put on police is important. Giving them unlimited access would be problematic. So it could be true that this is okay but the ruling allows things that shouldn't be.
- taeric 3y ago
  The article pushes the view that keyword searches are completely off limits. But, I just don't buy that view. If it is seen that a blue honda accord left a crime, is it a violation of the privacy of all blue honda accord owners to scan and see if any are registered locally? If we found that a certain niche fuel was used in an arson, is it a violation of all hobbyists in town/state to check to see if anyone made some unusual purchases of said fuel? Same for if a specific type of gun was used? I'm very sympathetic to the concerns of drug/behavior searches for things that I feel should be legal. My aim there would be to argue for success in making those things legal. I just don't see the argument that keyword searches are somehow off limits for searching. And again, don't construe this in the realm of the search being the crime. If this person was convicted because they searched for something, I'd be far more open to the argument. They were found because they searched something.
  - Guvante 3y ago
    My example wasn't rhetorical. Finding out political affiliations via these searches is exactly the concern. The problem is creating boundaries that prevent that kind of behavior from law enforcement. The article proposes that is too difficult and removing the tool is a better solution. Parallel evidence is a very very weird thing in police work IMHO. We give police incredible power with the only oversight being blocking evidence from court. As long as police are rarely punished for crossing lines we should minimize expanding their tooling whenever possible.
    - taeric 3y ago