this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
954 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

59378 readers
3617 users here now

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


Our Rules


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

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] [email protected] 72 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (11 children)

It's crazy to me that this got 61 upvotes while the main concern here, that 30,000 unrelated people had their data handed over to the government, is just an aside in point 1.

It really concerns me that people think any of this reasonable. If this is "reasonable" then there's nothing stopping cops from getting all of our data, whenever they want it. All they have to do is find one suspect who watched one video.

That's fucking crazy and clearly unreasonable. Take my downvote for having an exceptionally bad opinion on this topic.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

It's not terribly different from law enforcement getting a search warrant for a video feed covering the apartment of a known pedo video distributor and then tracking down everyone.

The problem would be violation of privacy for everyone who went there who wasn't a pedo.

Obviously, that's not a perfect comparison for the Internet because it's acceptable from anyone, but they're following the same playbook.

How much privacy are you willing to trade to stop pedos from hurting kids?

Edit: in thinking about this, the save the kids stuff has been worn out by a certain group that even I'm tired of. I didn't really think about that when I came up with the example, not that I expect it would matter to people's personal feelings on the matter.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If I had my way, none, the pedo part is irrelevant. Save the kids mentality is not justification for draconian overreach

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

Yeah, I just edited the comment. That narrative is tired and political, and I honestly didn't think of that at the time.

Not that it really matters what the example is.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)