That headline misses the big problem. It’s not that Google was forced to give up search history data. If Google gets a warrant, they will comply. The real problem is that the justices acknowledged that the warrant was unconstitutional and permitted the evidence anyway. They claim the police “acted in good faith” while violating the constitution, which is a horrifying precedent.
If you’re thinking “alls well that ends well,” because they caught the arsonists who murdered a family of five, I can sympathize with that feeling, but consider that the murderer may have his conviction overturned on subsequent appeals.
The police obtained a warrant for everyone who searched for a thing from Google, and the search information was used against the accused in court. 14 states currently outlaw abortion, and there’s some cousin-fucking conservative prosecutor in Dipshit, Alabama, just salivating over the prospect of obtaining the IP addresses of every person looking up directions to clinics.
I wonder how many companies like Cambridge analytica or TPUSA just have access to these. It wouldn’t surprise me if there’s some social engineering dark arts underground of pretending to be police and getting this data to study
This is in fact a thing
https://cyberhoot.com/blog/fake-emergency-search-warrants-becoming-a-problem/
Not long after Dobbs, someone posted a guide on r/WitchesVsPatriarchy on how to securely find* this information without opening yourself up to potential harm. Terrifying that that’s even a thing that needs to exist.
Lemmy needs a witches vs patriarchy- or is there one already? Im too lazy to check rn
Cool, I’m too lazy to answer!
Damn. Guess I’ll just have to live in ignorance. (Clearly there’s no other choice)
Here. I have lots of energy since the patriarchy can’t fuck me without being gay. Sadly it’s empty
Subbed because… why not. Maybe we can make it a thing?
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn’t work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: [email protected]
“Ahhh gosh oh golly I guess i better comply with this police warrant” says the company that actively engages in one of the largest tax fraud operations in human history.
Tax fraud? What am I missing?
Assuming they’re talking about what most businesses, especially large ones with huge legal resources, do: exploit loopholes to not pay, or pay reduced, taxes.
How is it fraud if they’re using loopholes?
I’m sure they mean fraud in the colloquial sense, not the legal sense.
From my personal lemmy experience, a lot of people would consider it actual (legal) fraud that’s just not being prosecuted because the perpetrator/s are wealthy.
That would depend on if the person were replying to meant actual/legal fraud, or just bad faith fraud. But I’m sure both happen.
In this specific instance, sure, but overall, my bet is on them meaning actual fraud.
Forced? Not at all. Google happily complied.
Stop using Google products, people. There are alternatives for every service they offer. They haven’t invented anything new in over a decade
deleted by creator
So, I have a few solutions for this.
First, I use GrapheneOS, so I can continue using Gboard and a few other Google products that do not warrant or require an internet connection, with network access disabled.
Alternatively, the next best keyboard is grammarly (also with network access dsiabled) and you can also use https://voiceinput.futo.org with that one.
Understanding that you probably paraphrased for brevity, it’s hard to respond with anything helpful because only you know where the goalposts of, “actually works,” are – same thing with, “reliable push messages,” and, “works for banking.” I’ve used swipe input on the native Samsung keyboard and SwiftKey and found that they work just fine, but not as good as GBoard. If you’re going from a Google-invested product to pretty much anything else, it’s likely going to be a worse user experience, so you just have to set your expectations appropriately and keep in mind that what you’re getting in return for that is intangible but important.
What have you tried so far, and how have they failed you with respect to the metrics you’ve stated?
deleted by creator
How feasible is it to interact with your bank or other necessary services in a browser vs using the play store app? I can see LineageOS being viable if you can make such a transition.
deleted by creator
honestly, having a spare phone that sits at home is a great solution. Your main phone can be a native pixel/grapheneos (not lineage, graphene has no issues with feature comparability). And the spare phone at run all the apps for, idk, your robot vaccum, smart home, etc. At home you have more control of data and connectivity.
we all have old phones that can be used as spares. My 8 yr old phone is the “remote control” for my house. Using accounts that don’t tie to me, on it’s own vlan, pi-holed, etc
Sounds like you’re on Android but there are still options. I am no subject matter expert but there are many who are and they are just a quick duckduckgo search away. Good luck!
for speech recognition there is “futo voice” which not only works better than Google’s speech talk-to-type by allowing the user to fluently speak, but it also works offline and doesn’t upload voice recordings anywhere. You won’t be able to use it with gboard because google will not allow the use of another talk-to-speech engine with gboard, you’ll have to download another keyboard first.
mobile banking is an unnecessary luxary. Moving money around/paying CC biils often takes days to go through anyway so the urgency of “doing it now” mobily can wait until you’re at your desktop.
Push notifications, I’ll give you. Without any services some apps cannot recieve push notifications. As the other user suggested, using a pixel with grapheneos, you can install sandboxes google services or microG and then have full functionality.
On grapheneOS you can choose which apps have access to internet/data much more fine-grained that what google allows you.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Only because those are the phones most consistently open to modification
It’s actually because the Tensor chip is the most secure one available, and because Google promises several years of software updates, with a solid history to back it up.
You mean the Tensor chips that don’t appear until 6th gen, even though the project supports 5th and 4th gen?
They also literally state:
Devices need to be meeting the standards of the project in order to be considered as potential targets. In addition to support for installing other operating systems…
And
Devices with support for alternative operating systems as an afterthought will not be considered.
This pretty much rules out 99% of smartphones. I would argue this even rules out non-Pixel favourites such as the OnePlus lineup, even though I’m writing this on a Lineage-loaded OnePlus 7T. Support for other ROMs is there but it’s quite fucky. Add in what you said about firmware support and yeah, only the Pixel lineup would apply.
Yes, thank you for pointing that out
Is there a good alternative, maybe locally hosted, for location history?
While I’ve recently disabled it for Google, it actually was helpful for going back in time and remembering where I was on X day, on numerous occasions. Would be cool if there was a locally hosted, open source alternative.
Stop using Google products, people. There are alternatives for every service they offer.
Unfortunately many of the products they offer are a requirement for daily life.
It’s been my experience that for most people, Google services are not a requirement, but a luxury… especially for daily life. Now, most Google-esque services are a requirement for daily life, but as they said, there are alternatives that you can use that work.
If we aren’t committing any crimes, why should we care?
Good thing that laws are perfect, huh?
If you didn’t commit a crime, why should be part of the line up of suspects?
I guess it could sometimes be an unfortunate coincidence that you do something suspicious where a crime just occurred. But surely you’d be proven innocent after looking at other evidence.
In a perfect world, sure. This is not a perfect world. The justice system wrongly convicts people every day.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
This goes beyond coincidence. This is more like you being a suspect every time some crime is committed. I’m sure in a perfect world you would be proven innocent… but that world doesn’t exist and handing over this power to corporate entities and govts only opens it up for abuse.
“If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear.”
Privacy, freedom, and corruption? Like Trump banned international travel from how many Muslim countries? The fact that that happened at all is insane. You don’t think these tools will be abused? Like the UK banned fetish porn (which has been thankfully overturned). You would be fine if say… these tools were used to monitor your sexual habits?
if you’re not doing any weird shit at home, why have blinds in your windows?
deleted by creator
That was confounded because his mother’s ex boyfriend seemed to be the murderer and used his car. Am I the only person on Lemmy who DOESN’T obsess over privacy, demand FOSS, and refuse to use Windows? My mother doesn’t have a shady ex-boyfriend, and it seems like a pretty fair exchange otherwise to give up my data in exchange for great free services that generally work pretty well — it’s not like I could sell my data myself. Nor am I paying my own money to use them. I don’t feel like getting a worse experience for e.g. maps (saw another post about it) just for the sake of data that (for most intents and purposes) doesn’t affect me directly.
deleted by creator
That’s fair, we as a society are probably manipulated quite a lot. though I feel like law enforcement getting cases wrong is a somewhat separate issue from the “targeted ads” one. The alternative would be to use shittier evidence, potentially racism, or just let it go unsolved. I hate ads too and I block them so I don’t have to see them. I guess I’m tired that 1/3 of Lemmy posts seem to be about privacy/FOSS, I wish there was more variety like the R-site.
deleted by creator
the police acted in good faith, meaning the evidence will be allowed in court despite the warrant being legally flawed
I have no knowledge (or particular interest) in USA laws, but I guess that judges making this decision is a statement of future intent. I guess if you don’t want to be tracked then don’t use services which track you!
this just means the cops can do anything??
i mean shit i guess they can here anyway, but it’s stunning to see that written down. oh they thought they were doing the right thing? oh that’s fine then
Even worse, the court said what they did was wrong but they get to use the result anyway.
Over a decade ago they had devices called “sting ray” that act like antenna. It captures all text messages in the area.
It’s called qualified immunity.
The idea is that if a police officer accidentally violates someone’s rights while trying to do their job and wasn’t aware they are not at fault.
It’s not a law but the result of a court case. Many of us want a law passed to remove it.
In Colorado, until a new law overides the ruling, google must reveal your search history when subpoenaed. This doesn’t affect surrounding states or federal law until their own judges make a ruling or politicians make a law.
The issue here is not that they are required to reveal search history of suspects, the issue is that the police is browsing the search history of everyone in order to find a suspect. That’s not what warrants are for and violates the constitutional rights of nearly everyone they searched.
Opposite actually. The court decision says that all future reverse keyword search warrants in Colorado will have their evidence thrown out. This one, however, didn’t have precedent so the police acted in good faith.
Never ask Google a question you wouldn’t also ask the feds!
Never ask Google a question.
you wouldn’t also ask the feds!FTFY
I am conflicted on how I feel about that. Obviously information dragonets are bad because they’re specifically designed to produce false positives. In this case, however, they produced a definite positive that wouldn’t have been achieved otherwise.
Edit:
The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule provides that “evidence
obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment should not be suppressed in
circumstances where the evidence was obtained by officers acting in objectively
reasonable reliance on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate, even
if that warrant was later determined to be invalid.” Gutierrez, 222 P.3d at 941; see
also Leftwich, 869 P.2d at 1272 (holding that Colorado’s good-faith exception,
35
codified in section 16-3-308, C.R.S. (2023), is “substantially similar” to the Supreme
Court’s rule). The exception exists because there is little chance suppression will
deter police misconduct in cases where the police didn’t know their conduct was
illegal in the first place. Leon, 468 U.S. at 918–19. In such cases, “the social costs of
suppression would outweigh any possible deterrent effect.But the good-faith analysis in Gutierrez is distinguishable. True, we held
there that the good-faith exception did not apply, but we had already recognized
that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their financial records
when Gutierrez was decided. Id. at 933 (citing numerous cases and statutes
establishing that an individual’s financial records are protected under Colorado
law). So, the police were on notice that a nexus was required between a crime and
Gutierrez’s individual tax records. See id.38
¶70 By contrast, until today, no court had established that individuals have a
constitutionally protected privacy interest in their Google search history. Cf.
Commonwealth v. Kurtz, 294 A.3d 509, 522 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023) (holding that, under
the third-party doctrine, the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of
privacy in his search history). In the absence of precedent explicitly establishing
that an individual’s Google search history is constitutionally protected, DPD had
no reason to know that it might have needed to demonstrate a connection between
the alleged crime and Seymour’s individual Google account.In essence, the court is saying that this is the one and only time this will be allowed in Colorado.
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA12.pdf
The obvious potential harm in general outweighs the positive outcome in a specific case. Justifying broad surveillance because it works occasionally is the road to a police state.
Thus why it’s prohibited in the future.
The entire exeption, and the broader exclusionary rule, is based around the self-evidently incorrect assumption that what happens in court will effect behaviour of investigators.
search warrant that required Google to provide the IP addresses of anyone who had searched for the address of a home within the previous 15 days of it being set on fire
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.
Would you still feel the same way if the DMV was set on fire and you were a suspect because you’d searched for directions to the place?
Or if you had searched that home address because you were looking for homes in the area to compare with what you wanted?
It shouldn’t be enough to make a Google search to assume an individual is a suspect in a crime.
Yes exactly. This story has echos of the guy who was hounded by police (and maybe even charged and convicted?) because he took a different route while cycling and rode past a house where a crime was committed. That, too, was Google.
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
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.
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 get leads without asking for too much info.
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?”
Everything must blow your mind.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Another reason to use VPN/Tor.
Removed by mod
I always use Google anonymously as I always find alternative search engines to be lacking. Even without personalized search results, Google always works better for me.
Not even true anymore…
But if SEO trash is good enough for you, that is a nice cope
On the plus side, I meet less people like you when using their service, so it’s worth it to me.
Why is u hurt tho?
I’ve been using duck duck go for a while, and I’ve got a fresh Linux install on another machine I’m using as a server and I went to look something up. I was 2 pages in, thinking “ddg isn’t great, but this is ridiculous”, and I remembered i was on Google
Google has seriously fallen off lately
