Sure, though it’s worth noting that nothing prohibits the police from walking down the street and asking people. Those people don’t have to talk to the police, but…
Google will fight warrants like this. AT&T doesn’t. Other companies have varying policies on this.
Obviously, one can’t assume data is not available to law enforcement merely because the police would need a warrant to get it over a possessor’s objections.
This isn't really true. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act prohibits third parties from sharing electronic communications without a warrant. It doesn't matter if they are the legal owner of the data, if it is about a third party that has fourth amendment protections.
Search history, and Google's analytics about you, are a gray area, because you are communicating with Google, not using Google as a transport layer with an expectation of privacy.
Like, if the FBI asked me for my text messages with person X, I can hand them over if I want since they are my communications, but if they want the texts from my phone company they are legally protected. Using search is like texting Google.
Maybe that is where the warrant comes in, to make it plausible that it is required?
I guess we'll find out when they arrest the first EU citizen based on this data.
German law uses this to allow "non-public" controllers/processors (aka companies) to give data to German (and EU) law enforcement[1]. The police still needs to specify legal grounds, e.g. the investigation of a concrete alleged crime, and "drag net" investigations are generally not legal. The controller/processor has no obligation to give data to the police if they just ask, but it can if the police request is narrow enough and names the legal grounds. If there is a court order, that's another matter, then the company is obligated to provide the data.
But what about the US law enforcement wanting data about some German citizen within the scope of the GDPR and German law? A service provider is not allowed to give US law enforcement such data[2][3], but in this case the US law enforcement will usually use the mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) between the US and Germany to ask the German police for help, and the German police will then essentially ask for the data and (provided there are legal grounds) the service provider is allowed to pass data to the German police, which passes it back to the US law enforcement.
Legislation in other EU member states is mostly quite similar.
[0] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-23-gdpr/
[1] https://dsgvo-gesetz.de/bdsg/24-bdsg/
[2] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-48-gdpr/
[3] But it really becomes complicated when the service provider is under US jurisdiction (in this example). Then the service provider is caught between competing law of two different jurisdictions and is in the unfortunate position to decide what law to break.
See https://gdpr-info.eu/art-6-gdpr/ (6)(1)(c) (6)(3)(a/b) and https://gdpr-info.eu/art-48-gdpr/ (48)
That's not to say I know how a Google would react to a US warrant about an EU citizen (especially given the CLOUD act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_Act) but from what I can tell it's not permitted under GDPR
Yet they always do! Weird how that works out.
They are already complying. It's right there in the article.
How many keyword-search warrants have they fought? The article seems to suggest google has been providing data to the us government in the past and that this is an on-going collaboration.
This isn't a hypothetical situation - according to the LA Times, it's how they ended up cracking the Austin bombing case that involved the Google warrant [1]:
> Trying to find the buyer of the nails, officials “went to every hardware store” in the area to find customers who had made large purchases, and they struck gold with a Home Depot store in the Austin suburb of Round Rock, McCaul said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times.
> “The fatal mistake that led law enforcement to him — because he was pretty good at evading surveillance cameras — was when he walked into Home Depot,” McCaul said. Investigators obtained surveillance video of Conditt walking into the store in a wig and walking back out to a vehicle with a license plate connected to his name.
So I think there's a little more nuance here. Certainly matching a list of generic terms seems too broad. But a warrant for specific keywords that was limited to a specific city and time frame might be analogous to going to all the hardware stores in the city and pulling security footage?
[1] https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-austin-bombings-suspect...
Scenario: Hello fellow criminals. Instead of point to point communication, we will make random posts/pages that have our combination of words on them. So if you want to read our communication, do a google search for the exact quote "purple antelope shoe couch can squirrel."
Though some of those bomb searches could easily be made by anyone curious about past bombing incidents. I've certainly had some curiousity-based searches about how the Unibomber did his work.
How do we end up defining naturally? That's a question the court would ask, and want to be able to provide a litmus test for going forward. I'm not sure how we do that here... Statistical probability at some specific threshold? It's a difficult question.
I also looked up whether PLA can be made conductive and if it shows up normally in x-rays, to determine if I could legally 3D print the lower receiver for a handgun in my state.
...come to think of it, I wouldn't be surprised if I tripped some queries, and they just realized I'm an insatiably curious but harmless nerd and left me be.
Come back with a warrant
I'd get one, but I'm afraid someone would steal it.
We can probably figure out how to extract such data and cross reference it without making any of it available to random government employees.
Say you take pictures of license plates, store the data some place safe and allow a query of 5 recent armed robbery locations. If the result contains multiple cars matching 2 locations no results are returned. The moment a 6th robbery happens and a single car matches 3 out of 5 law enforcement can start looking for it immediately.
Sure, you'd get pretty mad if every time you get robbed the police searches your vehicle but they don't need to break anything and you will get over it.
Or I'll stop calling the police, especially if that first invasive experience doesn't end with my belongings returned.
A lot of people I know who carry renter's insurance were unaware it covered their stuff like that. YMMV on what is and is not covered though.
Oh my sweet summer child. Calling the police is never about getting the belongings back. Calling the police is only about striking the perpetrator with violence, hoping that it would equalize the karma levels.
Or, you know, prevent them from doing crimes again.
It's a vengeance based system.
Unfortunately. But the criminal still can't commit crimes while in prison though. Vengeance just also means that solving the problem of any individual criminal is usually only temporary.
It should count for anything.
I often think we need to bring back something like monks who selflessly deliver a service in exchange for an isolated life of study and meditation.
We have way to many shit people who cant be trusted with anything and make poor company.
* A dude who managed solid D grades throughout elementary and middle school despite a good & supportive family life & voluntarily chose to hold himself back a grade (8th grade) to "have a better chance of a football career to get into the NFL"
* A dude who, for as long as I can literally remember, talked about how he was going to be some kickass marine. Talked about it all the time, for years. He was also a solid D (even in shop class) student & football player. Not only did he fail, to my knowledge, in every metric required to be a marine - he managed to fail, which I truly didn't know was possible, every metric required to be an army grunt - except presumably the physical requirements. It wouldn't be hard for me to imagine him failing a cardio requirement tho.
This dude couldn't get in the lowest levels of our fucking army. I really only thought you could be disqualified for things like admitting to drugs or having felonies, but he managed to fuck up some test of intelligence they require.
* & several generations of people who are similar fuckups like these two.
Now, what do people like this on a police force manage to get up to?
Last month, there was a domestic violence call somewhere in the town. By the time the cops got there, dude was out on the curb, in his car, with his kid (wife had said he had a gun and threatened her with it, he did not have a gun)
Police haphazardly blocked him into the curb with their cruisers, and surrounded him with their guns out, in a crossfire with themselves. Proceeded to scream absolutely incoherent shit at the dude, while he's in the turned off & parked car with his hands clearly visible on the wheel - kid in the back seat, for about 10 minutes. Dude finally decides nothing good is going to come out of this & decides to attempt to leave. Turns car on, very slowly tries to turn out of how they'd blocked him in, and very slightly bumps a cruisers bumper (nobody was in the cruiser)
One cop then randomly decides to shoot. Keep in mind, I earlier mentioned the cops put themselves in their own crossfire. I have absolutely no fucking idea how, but one cop shot the other cop in the shoulder. This was the very first bullet fired by anybody, and as stated, the perp didn't even have a gun.
Cop yells out he's hit, and then all cops present go fish in a fucking barrel on the car, with the child in it, to the tune of 67 bullets IIRC.
The local news &, as you can assume, all Facebook groups, report that the man opened fire on police, and that the cops had then killed him. All comment sections swarmed with the local painkiller addicted retirement community saying "good, he should be dead" - and that reporting is now unchallengeable canon in their dementia ridden but still able to vote minds.
There's still an ongoing investigation by the state as to how the chucklefuck cop managed to go full retard enough to blast his buddy, but having gone on so long I'm sure it's going to end up as another "we've investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing"
The service isn't "worthless"
It's downright fucking dangerous to anything and everything around it, like the person legally in the crosswalk, who was hit at 120mph+ by a cop SUV and turned into mostly red mist, no significant body parts to be found, by one of the squadrons of cops responding to the aforementioned call.
We could especially do without "the local painkiller addicted retirement community" saying and "their dementia ridden but still able to vote minds". That's a slur, and those are not welcome here, regardless of how wrong other people are or you feel they are.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
The article itself doesn't mention the speed anywhere - though this is my first time actually reading it. The reason I'm otherwise aware of the speed is because a family member is on the city council and also the head of our emergency department.
The officer driving died (at the aforementioned emergency room), first time I'm seeing of that. I was aware he was badly injured, but didn't think it was death. The front of the SUV looks just about like what you'd presume 100mph+ does.
> A cop going 120mph in response do a domestic incident doesn’t sound normal.
This is part of the point I'm trying to make. It's a common feature amongst small towns, especially in the MidWest, of cops being complete and utter menaces to society. He hit two other cars as well, fortunately no passengers were injured. None of which had to happen, all of which happened because of a cop wanting to go hero mode and break laws for a measly domestic call he wasn't even needed at. Responding to shots fired they say, not telling him it was his own men's shots...
Hilariously, not a singular article of many states anything about the fact it was entirely his fault. Box truck he slammed into was crossing the intersection with a green light, unaware of the cop barreling down the street without even turning his sirens on until he'd nearly hit him. Small town reporting for you I guess. Incident "still under investigation" by the highway patrol...
Tell us the one about the Long Night and the Others, Old Nan!