7 ms·

What could Google have done better? (Specifically in regards to this case. And assuming they pushed back on orders like this, like they claim to do.)

by Jabbles 13y ago

bobbydavid 13y ago
don't forget to mention that Google is also the entity reporting that the information was handed over.
breck 13y ago
Push back more on the request? The 4th amendment includes this part: "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" Describing what you want as " all e-mails " is exactly the type of description this part of the amendment is meant to prevent. It's way too broad.
- thrownaway2424 13y ago
  There is a 10-bullet list of the particular things to be seized. How would you have made it more specific?
  - betterunix 13y ago
    By not having such broad categories of things to be seized. It is not "specific" to seize "every email message he sent to anyone ever."
    - thrownaway2424 13y ago
      I'm sure that will be of great interest if this person is ever charged with a crime. Until then, he has neither venue nor standing to challenge the warrant. Imperfect warrants are a problem for the state at trial. Outside of trial, any old warrant will do.
    - breck 13y ago
      Exactly. "All emails" negates all bullet points. It's like asking for 9 specific items in a real world warrant, and then point #10 is "and your whole house and everything in it".
      - rayiner 13y ago
        No, it's like "all documents in the office" which is fair game for a warrant. You think warrants require you to specifically mention every document?
    - rayiner 13y ago
      "betterunix's g-mail account" is plenty specific as a "place to be searched" and "e-mails" is plenty specific as "things to be seized." If you printed out every letter you've ever sent to someone and put it in a filing cabinet, it would be totally fair game for a warrant to get the contents of the filing cabinet. Or if you kept them on a hard drive, it would be totally fair game to get a warrant to get the hard drive. In this case, the problem is not investigators overreaching the law. The problem is the amount of information consolidation modern technology enables and encourages.
      - betterunix 13y ago
        "If you printed out every letter you've ever sent to someone and put it in a filing cabinet, it would be totally fair game for a warrant to get the contents of the filing cabinet" Except that people do not typically do that, and it is reasonable to expect that a filing cabinet will contain only important or current documents. With GMail, you typically see personal messages that date back years, probably long before whatever crime the person is suspected of. "The problem is the amount of information consolidation modern technology enables and encourages." I think for once, we might agree. The relevant laws were written with a very different model of communication in mind.
      - Zigurd 13y ago
        How is "everything in the computer" different from "everything in the house?" Or are we now writing search warrants for "everything in the house?"
        rayiner 13y ago
        Because a computer is a small self-contained thing that you can often fit in a bag? That's my point about information consolidation: the law is rooted in the physical (and necessarily so). You can wax philosophical about "virtual spaces" but at the end of the day a hard drive is a small physical object that is treated the same as any other small physical object.
        Zigurd 13y ago
- jholman 13y ago
  Google has a legal team whose full-time job is pushing back on these requests. At some point, they have to either obey the law, or go to prison themselves. Get off your high horse. It feels like some people won't be satisfied unless Google says "well, our existence has many benefits, but it also makes it slightly easier for the government to spy on people, so we're closing up shop".
  - breck 13y ago
    I think Google is doing a great job. I was offering a suggestion of one angle they could play.
  - throwaway10001 13y ago
    Google has a legal team whose full-time job is pushing back on these requests. At some point, they have to either obey the law, or go to prison themselves. Get off your high horse. Google has a business model whose entire premise is to push the envelope on privacy and to collect as much as possible and hold it forever--to make a few extra pennies per user. Get off your high horse. Google (and FB) is /are a menace to us all, even if only because they gather so much private data about us.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      How can they collect private data on you personally if you don't use their product?
      - throwaway10001 13y ago
        How can they collect private data on you personally if you don't use their product? How can NSA collect data if you don't use your phone, email or browse the internet? See Google's reach, especially via Analytics, Adsense, G+, Youtube etc. Yeah, we agree that people should think for using so many products from any one company.
  - malandrew 13y ago
    The warrant should detail the nature of the crime being investigated, the dates under which they believe a crime was committed and the range of dates that are reasonable to investigate based on the aforementioned facts. That's reasonable. A blanket warrant impacting all emails since the beginning of time is not reasonable. If the cant name a crime and give a date or dates then they shouldn't be asking for a warrant.
- rayiner 13y ago
  > It's way too broad. No way would that be considered an over-broad warrant. If, e.g., you suspected someone of financial fraud, it would be totally okay to get a warrant for the contents of all the filing cabinets in his office.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - breck 13y ago
    But I think "filing cabinets in the office" is a lot more specific. I think an equivalent would be "emails that contain the phrase X", or emails from these addresses, et cetera.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      You think filing cabinets in the office is more specific than e-mails in an account?
tjoff 13y ago
Well, it is an inherent flaw of "cloud" based services. If they are surprised by this then they obviously shouldn't have been using google in the first place.
betterunix 13y ago
The way I see it, Google set up a system that is easy to conduct surveillance on. Gigabytes of storage, no way to actually delete messages over IMAP or POP3, and in various subtle ways GMail discourages the use of encryption. This is all probably inadvertent, but it indicates that protecting users from this sort of surveillance is not a priority.
- thrownaway2424 13y ago
  I believe you made this claim twice in this thread. Kindly visit your gmail settings, which offers these choices: When a message is marked as deleted and expunged from the last visible IMAP folder: * Archive the message (default) * Move the message to the Trash * Immediately delete the message forever Ok then.
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    You don't know that actually deletes anything, and defaults matter. Also, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5929421 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5929421
    - chaz 13y ago
      If you don't believe that they delete it when you tell them to delete it, then using Gmail is already a non-starter. Also, yes, defaults do matter: the outcry from users from not being able to undelete an email would be much louder than those wanting instant deletion.
      - betterunix 13y ago
        "the outcry from users from not being able to undelete an email would be much louder than those wanting instant deletion." [citation needed] Seriously, I have trouble believing that anyone would complain about "delete" carrying any meaning other than "delete." I also find it hard to take such people seriously, given the existence of a Trash folder as a first stop for deleted messages, and All Mail as a second stop (and what is the default for deleting from All Mail? Having the message come right back to All Mail! Brilliant...). Thanks for the tip on how to fix this behavior. It is an easy option to miss...
senjmccarthy 13y ago
They could have done what they thought was right in the interests of the Internet as a free, unregulated medium and by extension their business which depends on the Internet, even if that course of action (or inaction) was not clearly legal. Then they could have used some of their billions in cash on hand and their team of lawyers to defend themselves against prosecution. They, instead of some random sysadmin, could be the ones bringing this issue of Internet spying to the fore. Now, before you say "What, do you expect them to break the law?", consider that they routinely push the boundaries of US law (securities law, copyright law, tax law, etc.) and lo and behold they are usually successful. Now, I expect you might say "What you're suggesting is still nonsensical because resisting orders related to national security is, among other things, far too controversial and not in the interests of shareholders." And I would not disgaree with you. My point is simply that Google, with its vast resources, is in a much better position than Ed Snowden to take on this fight for the future of the Internet and privacy of communications. You could even argue Google has more skin in the game than Mr. Snowden, or any of us individually (aside from those who exploit others' private information for profit, of course)... because if this controversy brings about knee-jerk changes in privacy law, it could materially affect their bottom line.
subsystem 13y ago
What they should have done, and what this might lead to, is have the data in a local jurisdiction under a local company.

What could Google have done better? (Specifically in regards to this case. And assuming they pushed back on orders like this, like they claim to do.)

by Jabbles 13y ago

What could Google have done better? (Specifically in regards to this case. And assuming they pushed back on orders like this, like they claim to do.)

bobbydavid 13y ago

don't forget to mention that Google is also the entity reporting that the information was handed over.

breck 13y ago

Push back more on the request? The 4th amendment includes this part: "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" Describing what you want as " all e-mails " is exactly the type of description this part of the amendment is meant to prevent. It's way too broad.

thrownaway2424 13y ago
There is a 10-bullet list of the particular things to be seized. How would you have made it more specific?
- betterunix 13y ago
  By not having such broad categories of things to be seized. It is not "specific" to seize "every email message he sent to anyone ever."
  - thrownaway2424 13y ago
    I'm sure that will be of great interest if this person is ever charged with a crime. Until then, he has neither venue nor standing to challenge the warrant. Imperfect warrants are a problem for the state at trial. Outside of trial, any old warrant will do.
  - breck 13y ago
    Exactly. "All emails" negates all bullet points. It's like asking for 9 specific items in a real world warrant, and then point #10 is "and your whole house and everything in it".
    - rayiner 13y ago
      No, it's like "all documents in the office" which is fair game for a warrant. You think warrants require you to specifically mention every document?
  - rayiner 13y ago
    "betterunix's g-mail account" is plenty specific as a "place to be searched" and "e-mails" is plenty specific as "things to be seized." If you printed out every letter you've ever sent to someone and put it in a filing cabinet, it would be totally fair game for a warrant to get the contents of the filing cabinet. Or if you kept them on a hard drive, it would be totally fair game to get a warrant to get the hard drive. In this case, the problem is not investigators overreaching the law. The problem is the amount of information consolidation modern technology enables and encourages.
    - betterunix 13y ago
      "If you printed out every letter you've ever sent to someone and put it in a filing cabinet, it would be totally fair game for a warrant to get the contents of the filing cabinet" Except that people do not typically do that, and it is reasonable to expect that a filing cabinet will contain only important or current documents. With GMail, you typically see personal messages that date back years, probably long before whatever crime the person is suspected of. "The problem is the amount of information consolidation modern technology enables and encourages." I think for once, we might agree. The relevant laws were written with a very different model of communication in mind.
    - Zigurd 13y ago
      How is "everything in the computer" different from "everything in the house?" Or are we now writing search warrants for "everything in the house?"
      - rayiner 13y ago
        Because a computer is a small self-contained thing that you can often fit in a bag? That's my point about information consolidation: the law is rooted in the physical (and necessarily so). You can wax philosophical about "virtual spaces" but at the end of the day a hard drive is a small physical object that is treated the same as any other small physical object.
        Zigurd 13y ago
jholman 13y ago
Google has a legal team whose full-time job is pushing back on these requests. At some point, they have to either obey the law, or go to prison themselves. Get off your high horse. It feels like some people won't be satisfied unless Google says "well, our existence has many benefits, but it also makes it slightly easier for the government to spy on people, so we're closing up shop".
- breck 13y ago
  I think Google is doing a great job. I was offering a suggestion of one angle they could play.
- throwaway10001 13y ago
  Google has a legal team whose full-time job is pushing back on these requests. At some point, they have to either obey the law, or go to prison themselves. Get off your high horse. Google has a business model whose entire premise is to push the envelope on privacy and to collect as much as possible and hold it forever--to make a few extra pennies per user. Get off your high horse. Google (and FB) is /are a menace to us all, even if only because they gather so much private data about us.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    How can they collect private data on you personally if you don't use their product?
    - throwaway10001 13y ago
      How can they collect private data on you personally if you don't use their product? How can NSA collect data if you don't use your phone, email or browse the internet? See Google's reach, especially via Analytics, Adsense, G+, Youtube etc. Yeah, we agree that people should think for using so many products from any one company.
- malandrew 13y ago
  The warrant should detail the nature of the crime being investigated, the dates under which they believe a crime was committed and the range of dates that are reasonable to investigate based on the aforementioned facts. That's reasonable. A blanket warrant impacting all emails since the beginning of time is not reasonable. If the cant name a crime and give a date or dates then they shouldn't be asking for a warrant.
rayiner 13y ago
> It's way too broad. No way would that be considered an over-broad warrant. If, e.g., you suspected someone of financial fraud, it would be totally okay to get a warrant for the contents of all the filing cabinets in his office.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- breck 13y ago
  But I think "filing cabinets in the office" is a lot more specific. I think an equivalent would be "emails that contain the phrase X", or emails from these addresses, et cetera.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    You think filing cabinets in the office is more specific than e-mails in an account?

tjoff 13y ago

Well, it is an inherent flaw of "cloud" based services. If they are surprised by this then they obviously shouldn't have been using google in the first place.

betterunix 13y ago

The way I see it, Google set up a system that is easy to conduct surveillance on. Gigabytes of storage, no way to actually delete messages over IMAP or POP3, and in various subtle ways GMail discourages the use of encryption. This is all probably inadvertent, but it indicates that protecting users from this sort of surveillance is not a priority.

thrownaway2424 13y ago
I believe you made this claim twice in this thread. Kindly visit your gmail settings, which offers these choices: When a message is marked as deleted and expunged from the last visible IMAP folder: * Archive the message (default) * Move the message to the Trash * Immediately delete the message forever Ok then.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  You don't know that actually deletes anything, and defaults matter. Also, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5929421 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5929421
  - chaz 13y ago
    If you don't believe that they delete it when you tell them to delete it, then using Gmail is already a non-starter. Also, yes, defaults do matter: the outcry from users from not being able to undelete an email would be much louder than those wanting instant deletion.
    - betterunix 13y ago
      "the outcry from users from not being able to undelete an email would be much louder than those wanting instant deletion." [citation needed] Seriously, I have trouble believing that anyone would complain about "delete" carrying any meaning other than "delete." I also find it hard to take such people seriously, given the existence of a Trash folder as a first stop for deleted messages, and All Mail as a second stop (and what is the default for deleting from All Mail? Having the message come right back to All Mail! Brilliant...). Thanks for the tip on how to fix this behavior. It is an easy option to miss...

senjmccarthy 13y ago

They could have done what they thought was right in the interests of the Internet as a free, unregulated medium and by extension their business which depends on the Internet, even if that course of action (or inaction) was not clearly legal. Then they could have used some of their billions in cash on hand and their team of lawyers to defend themselves against prosecution. They, instead of some random sysadmin, could be the ones bringing this issue of Internet spying to the fore. Now, before you say "What, do you expect them to break the law?", consider that they routinely push the boundaries of US law (securities law, copyright law, tax law, etc.) and lo and behold they are usually successful. Now, I expect you might say "What you're suggesting is still nonsensical because resisting orders related to national security is, among other things, far too controversial and not in the interests of shareholders." And I would not disgaree with you. My point is simply that Google, with its vast resources, is in a much better position than Ed Snowden to take on this fight for the future of the Internet and privacy of communications. You could even argue Google has more skin in the game than Mr. Snowden, or any of us individually (aside from those who exploit others' private information for profit, of course)... because if this controversy brings about knee-jerk changes in privacy law, it could materially affect their bottom line.

subsystem 13y ago

What they should have done, and what this might lead to, is have the data in a local jurisdiction under a local company.