3 ms·

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 disallo

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
    You didn't give an example? Unless you mean the hypothetical at the top of searching for terrorist organizations? In which, my point against that is that scope of data returned should be considered. And I fully expect if you are sending money to a terrorist organization, that will not be "protected speech," despite money being fungible for speech... That is, the fact that so few accounts were hit by the warrant shows to me that it was a better warrant to grant. If you are wanting it codified that size of result list should be a consideration, for example, I would support that. If you are saying we need better controls, I'm all for it. To completely disallow this data, though, feels weirdly misguided. I'm guessing they have already run phone records for all calls to the residence that was burned, such that that is allowed with warrant. Why is the search extra protected? I'll again state that I'm all for strengthening privacy and security of people. I'm just not seeing this case being the place to make that battle. Nor do I think it is reasonable to make it illegal for police to get the data. If you want the data to not be used, I'd actually rather support making it illegal for companies to store it.

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
  You didn't give an example? Unless you mean the hypothetical at the top of searching for terrorist organizations? In which, my point against that is that scope of data returned should be considered. And I fully expect if you are sending money to a terrorist organization, that will not be "protected speech," despite money being fungible for speech... That is, the fact that so few accounts were hit by the warrant shows to me that it was a better warrant to grant. If you are wanting it codified that size of result list should be a consideration, for example, I would support that. If you are saying we need better controls, I'm all for it. To completely disallow this data, though, feels weirdly misguided. I'm guessing they have already run phone records for all calls to the residence that was burned, such that that is allowed with warrant. Why is the search extra protected? I'll again state that I'm all for strengthening privacy and security of people. I'm just not seeing this case being the place to make that battle. Nor do I think it is reasonable to make it illegal for police to get the data. If you want the data to not be used, I'd actually rather support making it illegal for companies to store it.