22 ms·

Google broke its promise to me – now ICE has my data

• pixel_popping 7mo ago
  Huh, I don't think anyone expect Google to maintain privacy for them, Google deliberately leak 500K user info to various governments, every year [1]. https://transparencyreport.google.com/user-data/overview https://transparencyreport.google.com/user-data/overview
  • tosti 7mo ago
    The stats are per half a year, so even more than that. And we don't even know what the guy is really wanted for. I think EFF was just waiting for this to happen to make a political statement. That's what they do, if course, but how the hell can they be sure they're aren't vouching for a criminal?
• josefritzishere 7mo ago
  This is so wrong. What's the solution? Google class action lawsuit?
  • jmward01 7mo ago
    Start actively divesting of Google where possible. There are a lot of 'Switching to 100% European cloud' stories hitting HN lately. The more things like this happen the more stories like that will be there. Google and US tech are becoming toxic at many levels and an appropriate response is to mitigate risk by going to other providers.
    • free652 7mo ago
      >Switching to 100% European cloud' Yea, they are even worse. They would sell out in a sec once goverment is going after them.
      • epistasis 7mo ago
        What is the basis for this claim?
        • izacus 7mo ago
          The law of their respective country most likely.
  • mothballed 7mo ago
    Realistically? Treating visiting or studying the USA as visiting or studying in North Korea. Would you stand in Kim Jong square and protest their foreign policy? If you would I salute you. If something terrible happens, I will not blame you, the victim. But if you surprise pikachu at the results, you are a moron. Foreigners will end up making a choice -- study or protest -- but don't expect they'll be able to manage both. The powers that be in the USA have signalled they won't tolerate foreigners protesting state department policy on their soil. This is obviously unconstitutional. But it won't be changed through lawfare.
  • izacus 7mo ago
    You're going to sue Google for following the law of the land they're incorporated in? And demand that they - as a mega corporation - just ignore laws? How about making sure that your laws don't authorize ICE data requests? How about that?
• jmward01 7mo ago
  Privacy, technology and actual freedom overlap massively. Stories like this making it to HN are important since many of the people working at Google that had interactions with this, either by creating the tech or being aware of internal policy changes, read HN. Additionally many founders and decision makers in companies read these stories because it hit HN. Knowing that Google will do this changes your legal calculations. Should I trust them to store my company's data? Will they honor their BAA requirements if they are ditching other promises they made? People may be tired of seeing stories like this appear on HN, but getting this story exposure to this group is exactly why they need to hit the homepage.
  • shevy-java 7mo ago
    > People may be tired of seeing stories like this appear on HN I am not tired of that at all. But you have people be tired of tons of things, on reddit too. That should not distract discussions. If technology is involved I think it perfectly fits HN and in this regard, the state uses technology to sniff after people - without a real legal, objective cause. It's almost as if the current administration attempts to inflate court cases to weaken the system, e. g. until judges say "no, that's too much work, I just auto-convict via this AI tool the government gave me".
  • smallmancontrov 7mo ago
    The number of HNers who were earnestly arguing that this was the party of free speech indicates that this absolutely needs to be on the HN front page. > the administration’s rhetoric about cracking down on students protesting what we saw as genocide forced me into hiding for three months. Federal agents came to my home looking for me. A friend was detained at an airport in Tampa and interrogated about my whereabouts.
    • traderj0e 7mo ago
      [flagged]
      • selectodude 7mo ago
• jfoworjf 7mo ago
  This story is the one that finally pushed me to leave google. I moved off my ~20 year old Google account and deleted everything off their services including almost a decade of Google photos. I cancelled my Google one subscription for extra space. I'm now self hosting what I can and paying proton mail for everything else. I refuse to allow a company that will hand over data at the request of an administrative warrant to hold my data.
  • fluidcruft 7mo ago
    When did you find out about this? The timeline of this actually pushing you to do all that seems a bit unbelievable and difficult to take seriously.
    • busterarm 7mo ago
      It's this account's only comment and was only created right before posting. It has no credibility.
      • djeastm 7mo ago
        They could just be very concerned with privacy.
      • LastTrain 7mo ago
        If they were motivated enough by this story to delete 20 years worth of history maybe they were motivated enough to create an account and talk about it?
        • busterarm 7mo ago
          I don't care. The UX means I can't give it any credibility. For all I know this could be somebody's OpenClaw spouting bullshit. The default credibility of all throwaways is zero and that was even true before 2023. If you let it influence your opinion in any way you're a fool.
• sMarsIntruder 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  • MallocVoidstar 7mo ago
    Google publicly promises not to do exactly what they did here. Why would this not be a story?
    • dekhn 7mo ago
      Where does Google publicly promise they don't do this? For example, there's https://policies.google.com/terms/information-requests?hl=en-US https://policies.google.com/terms/information-requests?hl=en... """When we receive a request from a government agency, we send an email to the user account before disclosing information. If the account is managed by an organization, we’ll give notice to the account administrator. We won’t give notice when legally prohibited under the terms of the request. We’ll provide notice after a legal prohibition is lifted, such as when a statutory or court-ordered gag period has expired. We might not give notice if the account has been disabled or hijacked. And we might not give notice in the case of emergencies, such as threats to a child’s safety or threats to someone’s life, in which case we’ll provide notice if we learn that the emergency has passed."""
      • deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
  • drowntoge 7mo ago
    Yes.
  • paoliniluis 7mo ago
    Agree. Google can't go against the all-mighty state. Just look at what Anthropic did and the effect of that action. There are billions of dollars at stake on government contracts that they can't afford to lose. Reminds me of Mullvad's ad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPzvUW8qaWY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPzvUW8qaWY
• ihaveajob 7mo ago
  "Don't be evil" they used to say.
  • PaulKeeble 7mo ago
    They dropped that a long time ago, at least a decade ago. Which is really an odd thing to do, what company would think that not being evil was holding it back but Google clearly did.
    • GolfPopper 7mo ago
      And we all ought to have dropped them, then. (Most of us, myself included, did not.)
      • Jensson 7mo ago
        No other big american company says "don't be evil", if you aren't dropping Apple and Microsoft then you it doesn't make sense to drop Google.
    • matt_kantor 7mo ago
      While this is a common quip that I find pretty funny, it's not really true. What actually happened was that while updating their code of conduct[0], Google changed it to only say "don't be evil" in one place instead of multiple[1]. Google was also sued by former employees who claim they were fired because they tried to prevent Google from doing evil[2], in accordance with the code of conduct they agreed to. Sadly that lawsuit ended with a secret settlement, so we'll never know what a jury thinks. Since "don't be evil" is still in there I suppose it could come up again. [0]: https://abc.xyz/investor/board-and-governance/google-code-of-conduct/default.aspx https://abc.xyz/investor/board-and-governance/google-code-of... [1]: https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-dont-be-evil/254019/ https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-dont-be-evil/2540... [2]: https://www.npr.org/2021/11/29/1059821677/google-dont-be-evil-lawsuit https://www.npr.org/2021/11/29/1059821677/google-dont-be-evi...
    • pwg 7mo ago
      "Don't be evil" was dropped after the DoubleClick acquisition completed their internal takeover of the old "Don't be evil" Google (Google purportedly purchased DoubleClick, in reality they 'did' purchase them, but then the old DoubleClick advertisers slowly took over old Google from the inside out). What is called "Google" today is actually the old, fully evil, advertising firm "DoubleClick" pretending to be "Google" to make use of the goodwill the "Google" brand name used to have attached to it.
• 440bx 7mo ago
  Promises are broken, policies are changed and political regimes vary. You need to make sure that you consider the future and not just now. And that means NEVER handing your data over in the first place.
  • abustamam 7mo ago
    That's easier said than done. Even if you don't directly use Google services, chances are that Big Data is still watching you on every website you go to. And if you have a mobile data plan, your service provider knows exactly where you are 24/7.
• goosejuice 7mo ago
  We could and should have better privacy laws, though foreigners will always be subject to less protection. That said, a lot of this comes down to a failure in education around privacy and the cultural norm around folks thinking they have nothing to hide. The intuition most people have around privacy, and security, is incredibly poor.
  • Tangurena2 7mo ago
    I think the issue is deeper than that. In the US, data about you belongs to the company that owns the hardware that the data is stored on. In the EU, data about you belongs to you.
    • goosejuice 7mo ago
      My point is aside from policy, knowing what you give up to use that free software is a huge part of the equation.
  • tdb7893 7mo ago
    One thing to note when talking about "foreigners" is that many rights in the constitution specify "persons". So citizens and non-citizens theoretically have equal rights from that standpoint. So I agree in general but it's worth noting that he was supposed to have constitutional rights to speech and against unreasonable searches.
    • goosejuice 7mo ago
      Yes, sorry, by foreigner I mean non-citizen. Others do have constitutional rights, but the legislative and executive hold plenary powers in the realm of national security and immigration.
      • tdb7893 7mo ago
        As far as the Constitution goes, non-citizens have the same rights as citizens (at least for all the rights given to "persons") and there's no carveout actually in the Constitution for national security or immigration. Practically you have a point given case law but even in cases of immigration and national security these Constitutional rights still apply (regardless of what any branch of either Congress or the president try to do). You can read the bill of rights here (no mention of citizens or national security): https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transc...
• mark-frost 7mo ago
  [dead]
• malux85 7mo ago
  I feel bad for both sides in this. Google can be put under so much pressure by the government, they are basically forced to do what they says; yes they can fight it, but if the government wants something badly, they will get it, they have powers (especially under the very broad definition of 'national security') to just get automatic compliance, using the same powers they can silence the companies from publishing anything about it too. I of course feel bad for the student here too, he should not be targeted for exercising his rights to peaceful protest. But Google is not the enemy here, I would bet good money their hand is forced to comply and their mouth is silenced. The enermy here is the overreaching government and ICE
  • convolvatron 7mo ago
    Google's sin here is not in obeying a warrant, it's by pressuring a strategy of extreme concentration of power and intermediation. Google wants to know who you talk to, where you are, where you work, how much money you make, what kind of jobs you are interested in, whether or not you've searched for recipes to make controlled substances, etc. etc. We can be happy that they failed, or at least are only weakly succeeding. They almost completely dominate email services, which were supposed to be distributed and run by whomever. This is hugely anticompetitive practice, right in the middle of our relatively new ubiquitous information infrastructure. One side effect of this is that they are one-stop shop for governments to get extremely detailed profiles of..to be honest, almost of all of us. But that's just one of the unfortunate side effects.
  • microtonal 7mo ago
    I feel bad for both sides in this. Google can be put under so much pressure by the government, they are basically forced to do what they says; yes they can fight it, but if the government wants something badly, they will get it, they have powers Or they could implement end-to-end encryption for many of their products and they wouldn't be able to give the government the data, even if they wanted to. But that would hamper them to analyze data for ad targeting.
  • jmward01 7mo ago
    I do not feel bad for Google here and they are at fault. If they are in a tight bind now it is only because they have eroded the privacy safety buffer so thin over the past few decades that they are finally having a hard time walking the line. If they had been fighting for strong, clear, boundaries then this wouldn't be an issue. Instead they have pushed automatic TOS changes that let them do what they want when they want and ignoring privacy settings and selling info to anyone with no consequences. Yes, they are likely in a 'tight bind' right now but it is one that they set up for themselves.
• jauntywundrkind 7mo ago
  It must really really suck to be a data-holder, that every single government out there views as some piggy bank, sitting there waiting to smash & grab. It's certainly been quite the turn recently. But being between the people and the governments that seemingly inevitably will turn into arch fascist pricks & go to war against the citizens is not an enviable position. Hopefully many jurisdictions start enacting laws that insist companies build unbreakable backdoorless crypto. Hopefully we see legislation that is the exact opposite of chat control mandatory backdoors. It's clear the legal firewalls are ephemeral, can crumble, given circumstances and time. We need a more resolute force to protect the people: we need the mathematicians/cryptographers!
• avazhi 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  • soganess 7mo ago
    Yeah, because the American ideal of our forefathers was FAFO? This is embarrassing to admit, but I miss the halcyon days when folks were still nominally pretending to be free speech warriors.
    • avazhi 7mo ago
      I find the idea of a non citizen protesting and causing social unrest diabolical. Most international students, (whether studying in the US or Europe or Australia or Malaysia or indeed anywhere else) understand that their visa does not grant them the same substantive rights that citizens of a country get. That’s as it should be. I couldn’t care less about a non citizen’s non existent free speech rights, nor would I expect to be provided rights exclusively afforded to citizens of a country in which I was visiting. Some of you guys have clearly never travelled outside your home countries.
      • soganess 7mo ago
        [dead]
      • pesus 7mo ago
        There is nothing in the constitution limiting the 1st amendment to only citizens.
        • avazhi 7mo ago
          The US Constitution limits the legislature's ability to pass laws restricting speech. The Executive revoking a noncitizen's student visa does not breach that Constitutional protection.
        • WesolyKubeczek 7mo ago
          I applied for a visa and crossed borders enough times to remember this: visas can be refused and revoked for any reason at all. And a border guard is within rights to deny you entry for any reason whatsoever. Understanding these things made my life much easier.
• shevy-java 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  • microtonal 7mo ago
    I think Trump and his ICE stormtroopers, aside from having already killed several people, are in violation of the US constitution. In particular warrantless search and seizure. Probably some more. What is the constitution worth if it is not or only selectively enforced? It's like an overthrow of a democracy and total inaction against it That is 100% it. If the people do not revolt against this (general strike), nothing will stop it. Democracy needs to be actively protected.
• diego_moita 7mo ago
  Does anyone remember when western nations were freaking out that Huawei would handle everybody personal data to the Chinese government? Now, please tell me that American companies are better at privacy than the Chinese ones. Btw, some alternative email providers in truly democratic countries: * ProtonMail (Switzerland) * TutaMail, Posteo, Mailbox.org and Eclipso (Germany) * Runbox (Norway) * Mailfence (Belgium)
  • j2kun 7mo ago
    In that case, the US was worried about espionage, not violation of civil liberties.
  • eaf7e281 7mo ago
    American companies give data to the U.S. Chinese companies give data to China. I don't trust either of them, but if I had to choose, I would use Chinese products in the U.S. and vice versa.
  • traderj0e 7mo ago
    None of those countries are interested in free speech, not even this particular kind of speech, especially Germany.
    • notrealyme123 7mo ago
      They don't sack you from the street and put you in a Camp. At least not anymore. Say what you want about especially Germany, but there you don't get sued by the president for billions if he doesn't like your opinion.
      • traderj0e 7mo ago
        Germany will literally fine you for viewpoints, including criticism of Israel. What happens if you don't pay?
        • ExpertAdvisor01 7mo ago
• guelo 7mo ago
  [flagged]
• quadrifoliate 7mo ago
  Honestly, I think the author is expecting too much from companies that are under jurisdiction of the US Government, especially in the situation as of 2026. It is telling that when they say "federal government" in the article, they implicitly mean the US Federal Government and not those of the UK or Trinidad and Tobago. The author (in my opinion) needs to raise this with their own governments (UK is probably the one where they can get better action) to push for data sovereignty laws so that it's at least UK or Trinidad and Tobago that are the governments involved in investigating their data, via appropriate international warrants.
  • wasabi991011 7mo ago
    I don't see how your opinion matches the article. Expecting a company to hold its own promise (of notifying the user before it happens) sounds like a pretty minimal expectation, hard for me to imagine it being "too much". Furthermore, how would data sovereignty affect whether Google holds its promise on notifying users?
    • marcosdumay 7mo ago
      It's not anything close to minimal. Expecting a company to hold their promise against an authoritarian government is an extremely strong expectation. It's even harder than people doing the same, because at the end of the day companies are a bunch of stuff that can be taken over and controlled by other people.
    • quadrifoliate 7mo ago
      My opinion doesn't match the article. I do think the user has a legitimate grievance; I am merely suggesting a different avenue for fixing it. > Expecting a company to hold its own promise (of notifying the user before it happens) sounds like a pretty minimal expectation, hard for me to imagine it being "too much". I am saying that this expectation is unrealistic for a British/Trinbagonian citizen, given the political situation in the US right now. For a US citizen having the same issue (Google gave their data to the government without a safeguard), it would be realistic. > Furthermore, how would data sovereignty affect whether Google holds its promise on notifying users? The user could file a lawsuit in the UK about Google handing over their data without notification and proper jurisdiction. If Google UK employees were involved in handing over this data, they could be prosecuted and fined by the UK government. Overall what I am hinting at is that this would incentivize Google to put in proper safeguards for non-US citizens. Currently they seem to be treated as a separate, non-protected category.
• eaf7e281 7mo ago
  I still don't understand. Who gave ICE such power, and who is ordering them to do all this? To me, ICE's actions are similar to those of a private army.
  • MisterTea 7mo ago
    [flagged]
  • crooked-v 7mo ago
    Trump (with indirect support from the Republicans in Congress), and Trump (with indirect support from the Republicans in Congress), respectively.
    • righthand 7mo ago
      I would call passing a bill to fund it, pretty direct support from Republicans in Congress/Senate.
    • js2 7mo ago
      It's Stephen Miller, enabled by Trump.
  • dismalaf 7mo ago
    Believe it or not, immigration authorities (like the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency) have the power to enforce immigration laws. The author isn't American. Edit - wait until y'all find out other countries also have borders and laws...
    • rootusrootus 7mo ago
      Which immigration laws are they enforcing in this case? And are you also going to suggest that the Constitution does not protect foreign nationals inside the US?
      • mothballed 7mo ago
• woodydesign 7mo ago
  Every time this happens the debate goes the same way — trust Google or don't, switch to Proton, self-host everything. But the real issue I believe isn't whether we trust Google. It's that the data existed somewhere it could be taken from in the first place. I've been thinking about this a lot while working on a side project. I ended up making it work entirely offline — no server, no account, no network calls. Not out of paranoia, just because I couldn't come up with a good reason to ask users to trust me with their data. Turns out the best privacy policy is just not having anyone's data.
  • EarthAmbassador 7mo ago
    Outstanding, and ethical too. So tell us, did you forgo monetization forever, or do you have a plan for revenue? Perhaps it’s not an issue for you, but knowing what you have up might help others conceive of a shift of the Overton window such that it’s no longer a given that that must be harvested.
  • EarthAmbassador 7mo ago
    What’s your project by the way. Would be curious to know more, if you’re up for sharing now. Later is fine too.
    • woodydesign 7mo ago
      No monetization plan — it's all local, no server, near-zero cost to run. Free and open source. I believe good tools should be accessible to everyone. Open source first, monetization will figure itself out down the road. It's called Hodor — prompt launcher for macOS.
  • woodydesign 7mo ago
    [dead]
  • traderj0e 7mo ago
    Yeah, in this case, the cell carriers did a lot of the work.
  • 7mo ago
• WalterBright 7mo ago
  I simply assume that everything that travels out of my home through a wire gets tracked and stored by the government. Everywhere you go, if your phone is in your pocket, you are being tracked and stored, and available to the government. Everywhere your car goes, is tracked and stored and available to the government. BTW, the J6 protesters were all tracked and identified by their cell phone data.
  • solid_fuel 7mo ago
    > BTW, the J6 protesters were all tracked and identified by their cell phone data. Many of the insurrectionists were also caught on camera in congress after they broke down the doors and stormed the building. Some even took selfies in the offices of various senators and house reps.
    • baggachipz 7mo ago
      And now they're being let off and called "heroes" by the United States Government.
      • solid_fuel 7mo ago
        It's all part of this administration's strategy to set the stage for next time. By pardoning violent criminals, they make it clear that they endorse political violence. Now, when he incites a mob to interrupt the elections next time he loses - in 2026 or 2028 - everyone in the next mob will know that their actions will be pardoned.
  • mothballed 7mo ago
    Meanwhile it took them 4+ years to find the barely functional autistic pipe bomber in his parents basement. And IIRC, a large part of the FBI at one point assigned to it.
  • EA-3167 7mo ago
    Protestors huh? That’s quite the revisionist take on recent history.
• orbisvicis 7mo ago
  How was Amandla even identified? Stingray at the protest? Then how was the phone number linked to Google? Facial recognition at the protest? I guess his details are on file under terms of the visa? So then the government simply asks Google for all details on the individual by name? Either is pretty disturbing.
  • wmil 7mo ago
    Cell carriers sell geofenced data about cell phones in an area at a given time to anyone. There's zero privacy. KYC laws mean that his carrier has his name and email address and the feds probably got that without anyone informing the customer.
    • SoftTalker 7mo ago
      Or there may be more to the story than he's telling.
      • junofan 7mo ago
        Guy seems to have earned himself a ban from entering Cornell’s premises[1]. They seem to be letting him finish [2], which tracks—they’re pretty chill IME. Something might’ve went down… [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/oct/05/palestinian-foreigners-protests-campus-ai-ice-trump-us-migrant https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/oct/05/palest... [2]: https://panthernow.com/2026/03/03/international-students-self-deportation-raises-visa-and-privacy-concerns-for-other-international-students/ https://panthernow.com/2026/03/03/international-students-sel...
        • pseudalopex 7mo ago
          This disruption, according to a University statement, involved shoving police officers, making guests of the University feel threatened and denying students the opportunity to experience the career fair. Sun reporters on the scene did not observe any physical violence towards law enforcement but did note distress among recruiters, students and administration involved in the career fair.[1] [1] https://www.cornellsun.com/article/2024/09/pro-palestine-protesters-disrupt-career-fair-confront-boeing-recruiters https://www.cornellsun.com/article/2024/09/pro-palestine-pro...
• renewiltord 7mo ago
  Recently in SF, the police have been very open about their use of drones to follow thieves (completely violating their privacy). It is like China where there are posters telling you drone surveillance is in effect. I think we need to expand CCPA so that the government cannot simply spy on you by claiming that “criminals” are near you. Even criminals should have their privacy protected or else they will just label everyone criminals.
  • dylan604 7mo ago
    If you're being followed/tracked by a drone, you are clearly not in a place where you expect privacy. How are we confusing being out in public and expectation of privacy issues?
  • 1234letshaveatw 7mo ago
    how does using a drone to follow thieves violate anyone's privacy? how is it any different than police pursuit in a marked car?
    • quantummagic 7mo ago
      Don't know the specifics of what the OP is referencing, but some police departments are experimenting with some wild tech. Check out the Baltimore "Spy Plane", for instance. It used high-altitude Cessna airplanes (rather than drones) equipped with a massive array of cameras, that recorded everything. It allowed analysts to: - Watch and record a 30-square-mile area of the city simultaneously, in real-time. - If a crime occurred, they could "go back in time" to see where a suspect came from. Ie. track a vehicle from its destination back to its source. - Or they could follow a vehicle "forward" in time to see where it parked, identifying potential hideouts or residences. Of course, it was recording everyone, not just criminals.
    • deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
• paulddraper 7mo ago
  The author not say whether the subpoena prevented advance notification. The Google policy he linked to says: > We won’t give notice when legally prohibited under the terms of the request. We’ll provide notice after a legal prohibition is lifted.
  • ethan_smith 7mo ago
    This is the key detail everyone is glossing over. NSLs and subpoenas with non-disclosure orders are extremely common in these cases - Google literally cannot notify you without being in contempt. The EFF article frames this as Google "breaking a promise" but if there was a gag order attached, they had no legal choice.
  • anonymousiam 7mo ago
    This EFF article does not announce any legal action they are taking as a result of Google complying with the government's request. I'm not really sure what the purpose of the article is. If you object to the NSL non-disclosure requirements, sue the US Government. Google is probably blameless here.
• eurleif 7mo ago
  The linked Google policy states: >We won’t give notice when legally prohibited under the terms of the request. The post states that his lawyer has reviewed the subpoena, but doesn't mention whether or not it contained a non-disclosure order. That's an important detail to address if the claim is that Google acted against its own policy.
  • sam345 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    • kokanee 7mo ago
      Weird take. When it comes to trying to compel tech companies to not be evil, trying to use legal precedent for crimes you can charge them with is usually difficult and turns into a semantic debate. I think what's more important is that we recognize when people and companies abuse power to do evil things, regardless of what legal precedent or written corporate policy is relevant. These companies act exactly as evil as they can possibly get away with without pushing us to other products and services.
    • Forgeties79 7mo ago
      Frankly I trust the EFF more than anyone else in this situation/conversation. So I will assume there is a very clear basis. I don’t know what you mean by “activism narrative” but the EFF has been fighting for your digital rights for many, many years. It reads like you consider their work disingenuous, but I can tell you from firsthand experience it is not. They deserve less skepticism than you’re giving them.
      • nomdep 7mo ago
        John Perry Barlow‘S EFF surely did, but are you sure you can trust Nicole Orze’s EFF to fight for your rights if one of your sympathies doesn’t align with current California’s sensibilities? https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicoleozer https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicoleozer
• forinti 7mo ago
  Such are the times that he feels he must say that he only attended the protest "for all of five minutes" and that he was protesting "what we saw as genocide". He is almost ashamed of his views because of the current climate but he didn't do anything wrong, apparently.
  • dominicrose 7mo ago
    He should be ashamed. Why did (does) he see the punishment for the 7th octobor attack as a genocide but the 7th octobor attack itself as not-an-issue? (not an attempted genocide) The law protects people up to a point. Collaborating with the enemy is an issue especially if you're not a confirmed citizen.
    • tombrandis 7mo ago
      Is it OK for some Israelis to do genocide against Palestinians if some Palestinians tried to do genocide against Israelis? IMO no, there is no justification for anyone to do genocide.
• asdfman123 7mo ago
  This is a good reminder that you should assume there's no privacy on the internet whatsoever, unless you really go to extensive lengths to cover your tracks. And even then, you have to be really careful.
• convolvatron 7mo ago
  an apropos bit from the NYT today: President Trump pressured House Republicans on Wednesday to extend a high-profile warrantless surveillance law without changes, declaring on social media: “I am willing to risk the giving up of my Rights and Privileges as a Citizen for our Great Military and Country!” Mr. Trump urged the G.O.P. to “unify” behind Speaker Mike Johnson for a critical procedural vote that had been scheduled for late Wednesday night. The vote would clear the way for House approval of a bill extending a major section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. The law is set to expire on April 20. The statute, known as Section 702, permits the government to collect the messages of foreigners abroad without a warrant from American companies like Google — even if the targets are communicating with Americans.
  • frm88 7mo ago
    You should submit this as a HN article, this is important.
• jiveturkey 7mo ago
  > That notice is meant to provide a chance to challenge the request. That's the author's interpretation. The promise doesn't indicate anything of the sort (as of this writing). And users cannot challenge these requests -- users don't own the data (in the US). The promise is very clear that Google will provide the data, if the request is compliant. Now the text of the notification was past tense, that the information was provided, whereas the promise is crystal clear that Google will notify before providing the info, but to me that could amount to a simplification of "we have verified that the request is legally compliant and will be providing the info to them in 250 ms". Don't get me wrong, I'm not on Google's side. I'm a huge privacy nut. But the fix is to not give your info to Google, not trust that they will abide by any policy. Especially in a case like this where your freedom is at risk. Most people are completely unaware and unthinking but this guy seems that he was fully aware and placed his trust in Google.
• radicaldreamer 7mo ago
  This is why E2E encryption is important
• Ardren 7mo ago
  > While ICE “requested” that Google not notify Thomas Johnson, the request was not enforceable or mandated by a court Sounds like Google stopped caring. But... Why on earth do the people filing an administrative subpoena not have to notify the interested parties too? Why is it Google's responsibility? If they didn't tell you, would you ever find out?
  • titanomachy 7mo ago
    What do you mean? Eventually notifying him seems like the one thing Google did right here.
    • Ardren 7mo ago
      On a scale of 1-10, Yeah, I'd give them a 1-2 for notifying him after the fact. The problem is they tell user that they'll inform you right away and give them a chance to challenge the subpoena. A quick search shows that they've done in the past and people have been able to get the subpoena's withdrawn. https://thefulcrum.us/rule-of-law/us-administrative-subpoenas#:~:text=Anonymous%20speech%20and%20compelled%20disclosure https://thefulcrum.us/rule-of-law/us-administrative-subpoena...
      • dmix 7mo ago
        Google's lawyer responded by claiming they do follow that policy normally except when their lawyers nearly miss the "artificial deadline set by the government" and sometimes send it out same day. I'm curious if this was a common issue or Google's legal team was flooded with subpoenas during the first months of the administration during their deportation surge (they did around 100k removals around that time). Homeland sent the request to Google a month prior to when they released the data and notified him, so they had time to notify, but it clearly isn't an automated thing.
    • subscribed 7mo ago
      You give Google credit for holding someone's head above the icy lake after they pushed them into lake themselves at the request of the piranhas.
• hypeatei 7mo ago
  The fact that they complied with an administrative subpoena makes it so much worse. "Administrative" anything essentially has about as much value as toilet paper unless it goes to court and the judge agrees with whatever agency wrote it.
• advael 7mo ago
  It's insane to trust a company in the way you trust a person. Companies can change their terms of service, their policies, or even their entire ownership or leadership at any time. We have seen over and over again that companies are seldom held accountable for even explicit breaches of prior agreements unless there's either collective action or someone very powerful affected. The only way to trust a company not to leak your data is for them not to have it. The only way to trust a company not to break their product or exploit you with it is for this not to be possible.
• LightBug1 7mo ago
  "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain" - Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Eric Schmidt - chanting to each other after a round of ayahuasca.
• chriscrisby 7mo ago
  He disrupted a career fair because it had defense contractors. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/oct/05/palestinian-foreigners-protests-campus-ai-ice-trump-us-migrant https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/oct/05/palest...
  • sleazebreeze 7mo ago
    Should he be harassed and deported for this?
    • xdennis 7mo ago
      Yes. If you're a guest in a country and don't follow the law you should be deported. You don't need waste money putting them on trial (except for murder/rape/etc), just deport.
      • jstanley 7mo ago
        How do you find out if someone followed the law without a trial?
        • deleted 7mo ago
          [deleted]
      • Pay08 7mo ago
        That only works if the accused has committed a crime in their home country too.
  • dwaltrip 7mo ago
    Not simply because it had defense contractors… You made an editorial choice to leave out the part about selling weapons to Israel to use against Gaza. Once can agree or disagree with the action to disrupt the career. Either way, I find your omission a bit glaring.
    • xdennis 7mo ago
• boxingdog 7mo ago
  [dead]
• fblp 7mo ago
  Has Apple done this? Trying to figure out a safe place to store photos in the cloud without having to self host.
• lacoolj 7mo ago
  I would love more information. What exactly did the request for information say from DHS? What exactly was the reason for them to look for you specifically (certainly there are many others protesting)? Following up on that, how do others avoid something like this? What red flags should be avoided and how? There may or may not be a solid answer for any of this. But this article feels like it's made for awareness, when it could also be made for action, with the right details included.
• slowhadoken 7mo ago
  Obama set the record for deportation. I wonder if ICE used similar methods when he was president. There might be a roadmap for digital invasion of privacy going back that far.
• speedgoose 7mo ago
  I used to joke that by using Google products, the NSA backups my data, but I’m not sure I like ICE having access to my YouTube history.
  • dnnddidiej 7mo ago
    Just get a friend overseas to email you and it kicks off the backup. Best UX of any Google product.
• nullc 7mo ago
  It's not just ICE that can abuse subpoena to get your data-- scammers and other fraudsters can file a federal lawsuit against a bunch of John Does and then run around issuing subponea for records to attempt to uncover their identities. There appears to be no defense against this beyond not allowing companies access to your data in the first place.
• sodapopcan 7mo ago
  Stop using google, ffs.
• einpoklum 7mo ago
  Unfortunately, "Google let the government have my private data" is right up there with "President Trump said one thing yesterday, and now he's saying the exact opposite" in the what-did-you-expect hall-of-fame.
• rbbydotdev 7mo ago
  > ...he briefly attended a pro-Palestinian protest. In April 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sent Google an administrative subpoena requesting his data. incredible.
• sneak 7mo ago
  I've long maintained that anyone who has a personal email address ending in @gmail.com is clueless, both about digital privacy/security, but also about society, history, and geopolitical events. It was a decade+ ago that Snowden explained to us, with receipts, that the USG has warrantless access to everything stored in Apple (iCloud Photos and iCloud Backup are unencrypted and contain a copy of everything on your device), Google, Microsoft, Amazon, et al. You have to be an ostrich with your head in the sand to not be well aware of this at this late juncture. You'd have to be a moron to let the feds read all of your mail without a warrant by default - any country's feds.
• xnx 7mo ago
  Weird to be more upset at Google about this than ICE or the other parties involved.
  • RIMR 7mo ago
    Weird to assume that anyone is more upset with Google than ICE about this when nobody said anything to that effect. Weird to decide that you have to choose to be mad at one party or the other, and that getting mad at one party somehow indicates that you are less mad at the other party. Weird to make this comment in response to perfectly valid criticism of Google by the EFF.
    • xnx 7mo ago
      Fair, but we all have a limited outrage budget. Getting mad at Google for not disclosing when they may not have legally been able to is not for me.
  • platevoltage 7mo ago
    Weird to make that assumption. You don't see hundreds of thousands of people marching in the streets to protest Google do you?
• chungus_amongus 7mo ago
  rare google W
• fredthompson 7mo ago
  [dead]
• pino83 7mo ago
  My simplified model always was: If you give it to Google (or MS, Amazon, Meta, ...) you basically already gave it to all these agencies. Was that ever wrong?
• anonym29 7mo ago
  A promise from google isn't worth the pixels it's presented on.
• exiguus 7mo ago
  Still waiting for the story that apple does the same.
• grzegorzx2 7mo ago
  I believe there are many US citzens discussing here. I always wanted you to ask: do you ever wonder why there are retaliations related to pro-Palestinian protesters in your country? Do you think sometimes why your mainstream media name them always this way while they actually are anti-Israel protests? Are you aware about anti-boycott regulations which you have since many years? I think this is much more important than what big-tech do.
  • platevoltage 7mo ago
    It's almost like we can pay attention to multiple things at the same time.
• jsmo 7mo ago
  Thanks for sharing, this should get more attention.
• keithnz 7mo ago
  weird everyone's focusing on privacy and google.... Not the actual insanity of a government targeting people who are legally allowed to be in the US. You can try to find a way to keep things private, and many of the people on HN likely have the capability to do so. But hiding from your government because they are weaponizing your information against you seems to be the wrong approach. I just don't understand the American people just rolling over and letting their country / rights / freedoms just be obliterated.
  • lmm 7mo ago
    Was it a right he had in the first place? Many countries make it illegal for foreigners to undertake political activities as a condition of their visa, for good reason.
    • keithnz 7mo ago
      the problem is, technically yes, they have a right, but their visa can be arbitrarily cancelled for very unspecified reasons, like the government not liking what you are doing and calling a potential security risk. This targeting of people, because they can, amazes me that Americans are so accepting of it. To me this says they'd do this to their citizens if they could. You already have the attack on birth right citizenship to try and take away protections so they can target more people. This targeting on political grounds is nuts. It's so anti American but somehow so many are convinced that it's not a bad thing.
      • lmm 7mo ago
        IDK, I think "foreigners shouldn't be coming over here as guests and then trying to influence our politics" is a reasonable stance, and doesn't say anything about targeting citizens.
        • lukeschlather 7mo ago
          If that were a uniform stance, maybe, but when it's used for partisan reasons by the party in power it's a different story. That's also not the law, the law is that anyone in the country has the right to free speech. If rights only apply to citizens it is a mockery of the freedoms this country is built on.
• h4kunamata 7mo ago
  TL;DR: Trusted an American big tech with your data, what did you expect?? A brand new car. Paying the price of your own choices.
  • cindyllm 7mo ago
    [dead]
• 1vuio0pswjnm7 7mo ago
  What's interesting to me about this submission is that the author believes this policy document contains a "promise" https://policies.google.com/terms/information-requests?hl=en-US https://policies.google.com/terms/information-requests?hl=en... I cannot find any promises in that document nor would I expect to find any. It's a policy not an agreement At best, the policy contains "representations" The author might claim he was deceived by misrepresentations, and this deception had consequences for him, amounting to measurable harm But proving these statements about Google's internal operations are false is difficult. Proving Google's intent in making them is even more difficult It's incorrect to interpret a "policy" comprising statements about what Google allegedly does internally as an agreement to do anything in the future Promises can be enforced through the legal process. Generally, Silicon Valley's so-called "tech" companies do not make "promises" to users that can be enforced. Imagine what would happen if they did
  • rectang 7mo ago
    Sounds like promises are worthless and only capabilities matter.
  • 1vuio0pswjnm7 7mo ago
    "Google promises that it will notify users before their data is handed over in response to legal processes, including administrative subpoenas." Where? The policy does not contain the word "will" and makes no reference to what Google will (cf. "may") do in the future The policy is comprised of statements about what Google has done in the past The claims here are for deceptive trade practices, not breach of agreement (enforceable promise) Google could agree, i.e., promise, to notify. It does not. Readers should ask themselves why Instead Google states it typically notifies, i.e., has notified in the past, or may notify under certain circumstances No doubt Google can show the statements in the policy are true at least some of the time. It is just disclosing what it has sometimes done in the past. Nothing in these statements binds it to doing something in the future. It could decide to change its procedures and update the policy at any time. It can also make justifiable exceptions at any time for any reason, irrespective of whatever it has done in the past The "Guest author" of this EFF page should not be surprised when he/she is ignored by the Attorneys General contacted
• Jimmc414 7mo ago
  The First Amendment applies to everyone on US soil, not just citizens. That’s settled law. The government can revoke visas for legitimate immigration violations, but it’s not allowed to use immigration machinery as a pretext to punish political expression. That’s exactly what they are doing. It looks like the courts will eventually put an end to this [0] but it won’t reverse the damage that’s already been done. I’m generally receptive to point the finger at Google’s intentions but in their defense, administrative subpoenas frequently include non disclosure orders. Google’s own transparency policies have always carved out (industry standard) exceptions for cases where they’re legally prohibited from notifying. [0] https://evrimagaci.org/gpt/judge-rebukes-trump-over-student-deportation-crackdown-505576 https://evrimagaci.org/gpt/judge-rebukes-trump-over-student-...
  • rootusrootus 7mo ago
    > administrative subpoenas frequently include non disclosure orders Which Google definitely knows are not enforceable.
    • laughing_man 7mo ago
      When you're a huge company trying to do business in the US (or any country, for that matter) you have to think very, very carefully before you make an enemy of the government. Google could refuse to go along with this stuff and find itself the subject of a big, expensive anti-trust probe.
      • gambiting 7mo ago
        Or more simply, a target of a temper tantrum that suddenly declares them a national risk and orders everyone in the government to stop doing business with them.
        • laughing_man 7mo ago
          Or a tax action where the government sues them for for billions by ruling assumptions Google made are incorrect. That's my point, though. The levers the government has to move businesses are endless.
• ilaksh 7mo ago
  It's definitely important to fight all the key battles including against companies like Google, but the root of the problem is the government. I would suggest that it 's worse than any particular government. At a fundamental international level, we don't truly have a civil society. Things operate on a strategic and often criminal basis. And there is a strangely prevalent pervasiveness of ethnic hatred and tribalism. And a fundamental lack of respect for human life.
• SapporoChris 7mo ago
  When visiting other countries never take part in protests. Avoid areas where protests are likely to occur, travel advisories sometimes explicitly point out areas. It is probably best to avoid anything political. "In September 2024, Amandla Thomas-Johnson was a Ph.D. candidate studying in the U.S. on a student visa when he briefly attended a pro-Palestinian protest."
• aussieguy1234 7mo ago
  If Trump was able to imprison other political opponents who were not immigrants, he would do it. Take this as a warning.
• shoman3003 7mo ago
  Just fyi, you deserve what happened to you. I am Palestinian & what you are doing is turning our situation into a social trophy. Maybe you guys should read about what you are supporting first.
  • Waterluvian 7mo ago
    In the US, “not my president” is a mindset many seem to believe in. That not agreeing with the actions is somehow enough to wash one’s hands of responsibility for their country’s actions.
• neya 7mo ago
  > In September 2024, Amandla Thomas-Johnson was a Ph.D. candidate studying in the U.S. on a student visa when he briefly attended a pro-Palestinian protest. Why would you go to a country for study purposes - where you explicitly tell the visa officers you're on US soil ONLY for study purposes - which is what the student visa explicitly grants you to do and then participate in a protest against the very country that granted you the study visa and then get mad that you are under investigation and would have been kicked out for violating the said visa? That's so bizarre.
  • viscountchocula 7mo ago
    And probably bought a pizza at some point, too. That's not studying. Shameful liar.
    • neya 7mo ago
      That's not a meaningful comparison. Eating a pizza isn't the same as violating the terms of your visa - which is an explicit contract between you and the country you're entering which you sign before you enter the said country.
      • underdeserver 7mo ago
        Please quote the clause he violated in said contract.
  • ungreased0675 7mo ago
    I think most countries on earth have very little tolerance for visitors protesting against the government.
    • neya 7mo ago
      Yes. And whether protests should be allowed or not as part of the visa is a different discourse, but most countries simply forbid it.
  • rainbow13 7mo ago
• pcblues 7mo ago
  Overseas citizen foments government trouble? That's terrorism in Australia. Should be in yours and the countries you raise trouble in.
  • pcblues 7mo ago
    What are you trying to do. Affect the policies of a democratic country that isn't yours? Shame on you, and go do it in Russia.
• normal-person 7mo ago
  He was banned from the Cornell Campus for participating in a violent demonstration, inciting violence against Jews. It's very much not clear whether he is in a legal right or not. And no other country besides Western liberal democracies would allow anything like this. Certainly many Muslim countries do not allow it. As an aside, a pro-Palestinian African is a laugh. Do you think Palestinians give the slightest damn about black African's plight?
  • rainbow13 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    • deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
• pcblues 7mo ago
  If you were loyal to the country you chose to live in, you would support the protection of their people, not yours. Ask the Somalis.
• deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
• incompatible 7mo ago
  There isn't much further to go down the slippery slope it seems, if he only did what he claims: attending a pro-Palestine / anti-genocide protest at a university for five minutes.
• satonakamoto 7mo ago
  If you live in the United States, use Russian email services; if you are in Russia, use Chinese email services; if you are in China, use Gmail
• cycomanic 7mo ago
  It's fascinating to watch the absolute dishonesty/mental gymnastics of all the free speech absolutists who were crying that they could not say what they want on other people's platforms just a few years ago. Now they are justifying actions by the state (against whom the free speech protection was designed), with reasons like there were people at the protests who hurt a police officers feelings by shouting something mean. Let's remember this is the regime which pardoned people actively engaging in violence at the Capitol.
• kartika36363 7mo ago
  this is just a case of play stupid games win stupid prizes. total non issue.
• Unsponsoredio 7mo ago
  [dead]
• robrecord 7mo ago
  "Who, exactly, can I hold accountable?" Yourself. Don't trust Google, or anyone with big money and influence.
• khana 7mo ago
  [dead]
• dotcoma 7mo ago
  Google broke its promise… and the drunken sailor that I met last night who told me he loved me did not text back…
• k33n 7mo ago
  Left wing agitators will continue to FAFO tbh
• northernsausage 7mo ago
  USA, are you ok bro?
• deIeted 7mo ago
  > for breaking that promise eff are a joke "they pinky swore!"
• consomida 7mo ago
  [dead]
• Gasp0de 7mo ago
  It's ironic that the country that screams freedom loudest is actually not that free after all.
• democracy 7mo ago
  Google has been a fish (carp) for long time now, just as another boring corporation.
• enaaem 7mo ago
  What's up with America not allowing any critique on Israel-a foreign state?
  • 948382828528 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    • ButlerianJihad 7mo ago
      Like what kinda jihad?
• benterix 7mo ago
  > Am I now a marked individual? Will I face heightened scrutiny if I continue my reporting? Can I travel safely to see family in the Caribbean? As difficult as it sounds, we need to wait this crazy dude out, and do our best Vance doesn't take over.
• cdrnsf 7mo ago
  The best time to ditch Google was years ago. The next best time is now.
• tsoukase 7mo ago
  This incident validates the opinion that for an US citizen, it's better to hand over his private data to a foreign (read Chinese) cloud company than a US one.
• raks619 7mo ago
  [flagged]