I agree "harmless" is absolutely the wrong word.

I also think that data that might be harmful to a user because it could record them breaking a law should be thought of differently than data that could be harmful when used maliciously by a third party. Even allowing for the often oppressive and unfair application of the law, data that is harmful to the user when sent to the authorities should be considered differently than other data because there is obviously a balancing question around relative harms to different parties. If you witness a crime, reporting it might be good, but it isn't always.

Seems like you are arguing that it’s ok for Google to use the data they collect to actively report people for suspected crimes.

I wasn't saying what we should do[1], just saying that if the reason data collection hurts a person is that the data is evidence of a crime then the situation involves more than just that person and we should think about it that way. It stops being enough to say that we should avoid all harm to the user. Instead, we need to ask if the harm to the user in recording the data might prevent or address greater harms.

[1] Personally I feel like providers should be legally barred from doing anything other than responding to warrants for information related to a real person and they should, in that case, be prevented from including any information linked through statistical imputation.

I'd love to see some data to back your point.

Is browsing history being used as evidence in criminal prosecution? Where? How?

This is very common knowledge.

https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%22Browser%20history%22&typ...

This is really interesting, thank you.

If you were competent, you wouldn't make assumptive searches on an obviously subpoena-able device ala burner using Linux and Tor.

All any investigation on me would find is I can't for the life of me remember the order of in_array and google it way more often than I should.

Consider the UK is right now [0], as we speak, passing a bill that forces an ISP to hand over browsing data, without a warrant, to non-law enforcement agencies (a list of which is in the source below). Agencies like the DWP (who handle unemployment, and have been subject to much criticism on how they make decisions and handle clients) will have warrantless access to browsing data for specific people.

A little far fetched, but if you're employed by one of those agencies, your boss (or bosses boss etc) can access _your_ data, find out how often you're googling basic information and use that information against you.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26430266

it's cool that your life is perfect and free of danger. consider that you are an outlier

Since I didn't explicitly say it, I'm not okay with giving out browsing history and 100% stand behind privacy controls and laws that prevent this completely.

thank you. unfortunately your comment was frustratingly indistinguishable from the "i've got nothing to hide" fallacy often seen in comment threads like this. when there's no way to tell you're being humorous, your language does the work of someone being serious.

as the tumblr kids say, satire requires a clarity of purpose and target lest it be mistaken for and contribute to that which it intends to criticize.

Most people are not at risk for being unjustly harmed by law enforcement due to their online data. The people that are at risk are outliers, and still worthy of concern.

> Most people are not at risk for being unjustly harmed by law enforcement due to their online data.

This isn’t true. The risk is currently low of actually being targeted but that doesn’t mean people are not at risk.

Also law enforcement is not the only problem by a long shot. Civil suits, family court, etc, all routinely use browsing history data.

Here is something from 2021.

"Police confirms that Disha was arrested after Google shared details."

https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/disha-ravi-a...

This is like arguing that you don't need a right to a fair trial if you never break any laws.

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. (Cardinal Richelieu)

Our company has decided we no longer need whiteboard interviews as we just contract with Google for candidates' search history (filtered for technical issues only of course!).

(In case anyone thinks google sells search history retail: this is a joke...at least for now).

They wouldn't sell browsing histories; that data is a valuable asset. They would follow the model used by most "AI" products: an "AI"/"smart" service that launders candidates' history data into an opaque score. The hiring company's workload is reduced to mapping a score value onto their hiring plan, and Google will make a carefully worded claim that they are not selling personal information.

A shrewd distinction.