this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
88 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

59398 readers
2541 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
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
88
Colorado court upholds Google keyword search warrant which led to arrests in fatal arson (apnews.com)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Colorado upheld a warrant’s reverse keyword search for directions to a house. They claim the search warrant, which was overly broad and without individual probable cause, did not violate Google’s millions of US users’ fourth amendment protections, because the court said the police were acting in good faith under what was known about the law at the time.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I don't have any hope for any of this improving.

The EU is currently working on legislation to search through all chat messages sent by everyone ever, so the only way to keep any privacy is to take it into your own hands.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Terrible minds think alike across the pond. The Cooper Davis Act, STOP CSAM Act, and EARN IT Act are similar proposals in US Congress regarding restrictions on messaging and encryption.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

given that the lawmakers who enact crap like that are usually tech-illiterate, we at least have high chances of loopholes.

At this point, I instinctively disagree with anyone who tries to "protect the children" or "fight terrorism". I tried challenging that prejudice many times, but never had any success.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

They are led by by the “protect paedos” and “create terrorism” gang. Unfortunately most people are too dumb or disinterested to look beyond the popularist slogans.