Re:Google ‘pressure cooker,’ get a police visit? Maybe not.
by MrKurtz on Thursday August 01, 2013 @04:38PM
(#6143352)
There is a huge difference! if they visited her because of her web searches which are private then it's a big deal, if on the other hand the visit was due to her profile picture which is public then it's not as big of a deal.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Google ‘pressure cooker,’ get a police visit? Maybe not.
by thezilch on Thursday August 01, 2013 @04:46PM
(#6143405)
What's private about a web search, exactly? For unauthenticated sessions, Google does not use HTTPS by default. If I click through to a SERP link, my search referrer is passed to that party. They can do what they want with it, including alerting authorities. Not that authorities need alerting or warrant to capture all non-secure traffic.
I'm not convinced we know any of the reasons for the visit yet, but it's fairly disingenuous to consider ANYTHING done on an online property, that you don't own, is not public.
Re:Google ‘pressure cooker,’ get a police visit? Maybe not.
by MrKurtz on Thursday August 01, 2013 @04:59PM
(#6143495)
The distinction between public and private in this scenario is the difference between pictures posted so that everyone can see versus a string that only two parties can read directly or others might sniff indirectly.