Privacy Guides
In the digital age, protecting your personal information might seem like an impossible task. We’re here to help.
This is a community for sharing news about privacy, posting information about cool privacy tools and services, and getting advice about your privacy journey.
You can subscribe to this community from any Kbin or Lemmy instance:
Check out our website at privacyguides.org before asking your questions here. We've tried answering the common questions and recommendations there!
Want to get involved? The website is open-source on GitHub, and your help would be appreciated!
This community is the "official" Privacy Guides community on Lemmy, which can be verified here. Other "Privacy Guides" communities on other Lemmy servers are not moderated by this team or associated with the website.
Moderation Rules:
- We prefer posting about open-source software whenever possible.
- This is not the place for self-promotion if you are not listed on privacyguides.org. If you want to be listed, make a suggestion on our forum first.
- No soliciting engagement: Don't ask for upvotes, follows, etc.
- Surveys, Fundraising, and Petitions must be pre-approved by the mod team.
- Be civil, no violence, hate speech. Assume people here are posting in good faith.
- Don't repost topics which have already been covered here.
- News posts must be related to privacy and security, and your post title must match the article headline exactly. Do not editorialize titles, you can post your opinions in the post body or a comment.
- Memes/images/video posts that could be summarized as text explanations should not be posted. Infographics and conference talks from reputable sources are acceptable.
- No help vampires: This is not a tech support subreddit, don't abuse our community's willingness to help. Questions related to privacy, security or privacy/security related software and their configurations are acceptable.
- No misinformation: Extraordinary claims must be matched with evidence.
- Do not post about VPNs or cryptocurrencies which are not listed on privacyguides.org. See Rule 2 for info on adding new recommendations to the website.
- General guides or software lists are not permitted. Original sources and research about specific topics are allowed as long as they are high quality and factual. We are not providing a platform for poorly-vetted, out-of-date or conflicting recommendations.
Additional Resources:
- EFF: Surveillance Self-Defense
- Consumer Reports Security Planner
- Jonah Aragon (YouTube)
- r/Privacy
- Big Ass Data Broker Opt-Out List
view the rest of the comments
I’m fine with this. It’s specific to an actual crime that happened, and not targeting a known individual or preventing something that hasn’t happened yet, “for the children” or some nonsense like that.
It wasn't specific to an individual criminal, though. Police aren't allowed to get warrants for fishing expeditions, they're supposed to find leads themselves and then get a concise warrant to evidence to confirm that. They searched people they had no right to search, and violated their constitutional rights.
It wasn’t specific to the fire? Like, whoever googled the address is a suspect. That’s a pretty good way to solve a crime.
You're fine with not targeting an individual and using blanket warrants instead? Even a judge said it was unconstitutional due to it not being individualized, and the EFF says it can implicate innocents. Even Google, who tracks and collects most everything, was reluctant to hand it over.
Sure, this reinvigorated the case, but it has an "ends justify the means" feel to it, which is a slippery slope. But you're actively endorsing a less privacy friendly stance than Google, of all things. That blows my mind.
Everything must blow your mind. This is like going to a hotel and asking to see a list of people who stayed in the hotel last week because the suspect is probably staying nearby. Sounds like a pretty good way to get leads without asking for too much info.
Figuring out who searched for the address where the crime happened actually just sounds like good police work
Just people in a privacy community advocating for even less privacy than Google, who is decidedly anti-privacy, wants. The company who detests privacy and wants to collect data on everyone said, "this might be private and we shouldn't go with it," and you go "nope, it's not, give it over?" I feel like Google is a very low bar to pass for privacy, and you still tripped on it.
So yes, no matter how much I experience in the world, people advocating for being taken advantage of or having their rights violated (which is what's happening here) blows my mind, despite running into it semi-constantly.
That’s not what’s going on
Going to the hotel and asking is fine. It’s up to the hotel to protect their guests’ privacy in such a case. It’d probably be more productive if they asked the hotel staff about particular suspicious behavior that they’d personally seen, especially if they could narrow down the time frame, though. “Did anyone smelling like smoke come through after 11 PM last night?”
But the issue wasn’t what the police did - it was what the judge did. This situation would be more like if a judge issued a warrant for such a request without any evidence linking the hotel itself to the crime.
Getting a warrant for the entire guest list would not be appropriate, though - at least, not without specific evidence linking a suspect to that specific hotel. “The crime was committed nearby” isn’t sufficient. They need evidence the suspect entered the hotel, at minimum.
Sounds like a pretty good way to trample over the privacy rights of the hotel guests who’ve done nothing wrong.
Agree to disagree
Sure. On your side, you have your opinion. On my side I have legal precedent. You’re welcome to continue having your opinion, even though it’s unfounded and you’ve been told as much.
Do you agree with every legal precedent?
Do you have any basis for your opinion other than “it feels like this other thing that I think should be fine but that is also illegal?”
Do you agree with all legal precedent?
So you don't have a problem with the judge saying well this is illegal but since it was done with good intentions it's fine? I mean that is such a stupid legal precedent right there the cops are now allowed to do anything as long as their intentions are good.
Do you agree with all legal precedent?
And the hotel can deny to provide this information if it is an informal request. Only with a warrant will they forced to give up that list and a judge issuing the order will want some proof as why the police believe the suspect stayed in the hotel.
I am not a lawyer so I could be wrong about the criteria for the issue of warrants.
Right. Google could have just looked that shit up voluntarily. I mean, it can’t be a long list.
But Google didn't. They were forced by a warrant which was issued on grounds so weak, that judges themselves agreed that it was unconstitutional.
There was a fire and maybe people who looked up that address could be further investigated.
Do you think that’s weak grounds? How could that specific and very small list of IP addresses violate a persons privacy?
I obviously haven’t read the warrant request, and it could have been worded pretty poorly.
Yes I think that's weak grounds. And so does the judge who presided over the case as well as several other judges who deemed the warrant as unconstitutional. The only reason the evidence was allowed was because the judge declared that the justice system broke the rules in good faith. I haven't read the warrant request either just forming my opinion from articles on the issue.
I think that the warrant was issued on weak grounds because what the cops had was a hunch (a calculated one but still a hunch). They had no proof that the perpetrators/murderers searched for the apartment. It is not like they identified that searches for that addressed spiked at some point and served a warrant for those ip addresses during that spike. They just asked for all ip addresses in the last 15 days and that was because they did not have evidence pointing towards a search just a calculated hunch.
Edit : This precedent will have a lot of avenues for misuse. In States were abortion is banned, police can request warrants for abortion searches without the warrant specifying who specifically they are searching for and then investigate women whose ip addresses show up on the list. These will be woman whom the cops had zero evidence against, women who were not even suspects before an unconstitutional warrant like this makes them one.
The police had a warrant for this information from Google. The problem isn't what Google did, it's that a judge signed off on a bad warrant and that the evidence obtained from it was still allowed to be used.
My comment was in context of the comment above and not in the context of the article.
What you said is all true and is what I was trying to explain to the guy above that usually warrants need proof/probable cause to be issued.
Yeah, it's a specific enough request that I don't see any problem here.
Although, why the IP address? I would imagine most people using Google products would be logged into Google accounts. They'd probably know the exact account who made the search, rather than a vague IP that could belong to multiple people in.
Well, sometimes I google but I don’t have an account. And if I did, it wouldn’t have my real info.
Fair enough. I don't think it's common for someone to be doing Google searches without having an account linked to other services, though.
Anyone using YouTube, Gmail, etc. would be logged in.
And everyone with an android phone who uses google search would very likely be linked to an account, for example.
I just thought it would cut to the chase for Google to provide account holder info and not just IP addresses.
Then again, the arsonists could have very well used any of the other search engines to look up the address. So... maybe police aren't aware that other search options exist.
It’s a shot in the dark for sure, but if it did have a hit, that’s probably the arsonist.