Technology

59534 readers

3195 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

954

Google was ordered to identify people who watched certain YouTube videos. Privacy experts say the orders are unconstitutional. (www.forbes.com)

submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by ForgottenFlux@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

123 comments fedilink hide all child comments

If the linked article has a paywall, you can access this archived version instead: https://archive.ph/zyhax

The court orders show the government telling Google to provide the names, addresses, telephone numbers and user activity for all Google account users who accessed the YouTube videos between January 1 and January 8, 2023. The government also wanted the IP addresses of non-Google account owners who viewed the videos.

“This is the latest chapter in a disturbing trend where we see government agencies increasingly transforming search warrants into digital dragnets. It’s unconstitutional, it’s terrifying and it’s happening every day,” said Albert Fox-Cahn, executive director at the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project. “No one should fear a knock at the door from police simply because of what the YouTube algorithm serves up. I’m horrified that the courts are allowing this.” He said the orders were “just as chilling” as geofence warrants, where Google has been ordered to provide data on all users in the vicinity of a crime.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 43 points 8 months ago (27 children)

Well... the part they quoted is a little misleading.

The two situations they talked about at least on the face of it were:

An undercover agent was in contact with someone, and sent them a link to something in the expectation they'd click it and then that undercover agent could track down what was the IP/identity of the person who clicked the link. Pretty standard stuff. The only weird part is that it was a stock Youtube link and they asked Google to be involved to give them identifying information after (and that for whatever reason there were 30,000 people who watched the video and they asked for the info about all 30,000).
Law enforcement got a bomb threat, then they learned that there had been a livestream of them while they were looking for the bomb. That doesn't automatically mean anything about the person who was livestreaming (maybe they just saw something exciting happening?), but wanting to talk with that person makes 100% sense to me.

So, to me both of those seem pretty reasonable. But of course the on-the-face-of-it explanation for #1 doesn't completely make sense for a couple of different reasons. But I wouldn't automatically class either of these as abuse by law enforcement without knowing more.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 53 points 8 months ago (6 children)

Neither of these is reasonable.

There certainly are situations where this could be reasonable; however, when your parameters return 30,000 people it's not nearly tailored enough.
To get a warrant you need probable cause that a person committed a crime, I don't see how a live stream could meet that burden unless it starts prior to the arrival of the police.

These are both abuses by law enforcement, or more clearly, a path that allows their job to be easier by infringing on people's rights.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 6 points 8 months ago (5 children)

You don't need probable cause that they committed a crime.

You need probable cause that the search will result in evidence of a crime.

Those aren't the same thing.

The first one is horseshit though.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, that's probably worded better.

Assuming all they had was a live stream of police responding, and that it didn't start before police arrived, which would demonstrate prior knowledge, I don't see probable cause. It's much more likely that a passer-by recorded it.

[+] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Being a passerby and actively engaging with the incident is way more than enough cause to identify and talk to them.

Poisoning the well a bit by saying actively engaging. Sounds like they are passively watching.

That warrant should absolutely be granted.

Thoroughly disagree.

It's very different than geofencing an entire area. It's specific...

Ok.

and directly connected to the crime, whether they committed it or not.

Not so much, and they already, presumably have the video.

That said, that person is also absolutely a suspect and should be looked at at minimum at surface level.

Other than mere location, what reason do you have to suspect the person? You can look, sure, but I don't see grounds for a warrant.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (23 replies)