There must have been an operational bottleneck with handling the LEOs requests that they decided to prevent the data requested from even existing in order to not be able to reply to such requests. Surely this came down to business and not alturism.
this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2023
336 points (97.5% liked)
Technology
59378 readers
3844 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
I doubt operational bottlenecks were the issue, more likely the rising volume of requests made Google reassess the policy.
LEOs already press the boundaries of the permissible, and as much as I hate giving props to the big G, good on Google for taking the initiative.
Cops only investigate people they think are guilty, and despite being objectively terrible at their jobs, they have ridiculous amounts of self confidence.
So to them, if they suspect someone of a crime, they can "bend" any rules for stuff like this because "the suspect is clearly guilty anyways, we just don't have proof".
Wouldn't the inability to process the volume of request from LEOs be an apt example of an operational bottleneck?
The article didn’t state that Google had problems responding to LE requests.
Also, Google can have as much capacity as God, whenever they decide to put their will to something.
They also consume data like mortals consume chips, and one bar chart would be all it took for them to address a potential bottleneck, and rising liability, by finally eliminating it.
Or self preservation.
Regardless of low you look at it, this is great news.
It's not a reason to switch back to Google indeed, but people inside this ecosystem just got a little less surveillance.
Use GrapheneOS and stop giving power to Google. Google is not a friend of the people for offering "free" services, the user is the product and the companies and the surveillance state are the customer.
Surveillance states demand that Google gives all their data, but corps pay Google for all their data
Are there any phones supported that I can install an SD card on?
No, for security concerns GrapheneOS team only support Pixel devices (unfortunately)
the surveillance state are the customer.
Except it would seem not, since you know this news.
why not? the quote is in the present tense - while article claims Google will change policy
and are you sure this is the only service Google is offering to the surveillance state?
Well that's an odd and inflammatory headline to use for the issue
Not really. Google is making this change so they have no way to share incidental bystanders location data when its requested/demanded by law enforcement. Google is the only tech company cooperating with police to provide this type of "geofence/general area" location data.
The change comes three months after a Bloomberg Businessweek investigation that found police across the US were increasingly using warrants to obtain location and search data from Google, even for nonviolent cases, and even for people who had nothing to do with the crime.
Google will change its app so that it can no longer tell law enforcement its users location data, inline with more privacy focused companies like Apple and their maps app. This change comes after years of advocacy from digital rights groups, but appears to be mainly motivated by negative press coverage.
The headline is specifically about what the article is about.
Wow, surprising that for once Apple is the good guy here. There's a good reason this is a bad idea, and it's not reallt hard to see why. Circumstantial evidence isn't evidence of an actual crime for a reason.
Apple has been pushing digital privacy as a selling point for a while, and actually living up to it a bit.
pushing digital privacy as a selling point and living up to it doesn't add up when you do compromise privacy behind closed doors
- Apple and Google are both guilty of this. Frankly, however, neither of them are particularly “guilty”, as
- Both Apple and Google were legally obligated not do disclose this practice until recently. It was revealed by Apple as soon as this embargo was lifted.
I’m not sure what more they could have done in that situation. Did you expect them to break the (very fucked up) law just to alert the public? Can Signal no longer claim to be privacy-focused if the government forces them to log a suspect’s password?
That is even worse, they knew they were compromising privacy and still boasts about being privacy centric. It's like Saudi Arabia claiming to be a utopia while actively using modern slavery in the background.
Apple and Google are both guilty of this. Frankly, however, neither of them are particularly “guilty”,
Google doesn't claim to be a herald of digital privacy, nor its users claim Google is a saint.
Apple users every time any criticism comes up
Other companies do it too…
Ya no shit, we know other companies are bad, however, keeping Apple at the pedestal no matter what is annoyingly cringe.
The only argument I’ve ever heard is that Apple has comparatively better privacy practices than most companies we interact with. I frankly don’t think that argument is particularly unreasonable.
Google doesn't claim to be a herald of digital privacy, nor its users claim Google is a saint.
I never did, nor would, claim either of things about Apple.
Yall need to read the "a bit" part of that sentence too.
No, apple pushes "privacy" from companies that are not apple. They collect just as much data as the googs.
Well that’s an extreme exaggeration.
They do collect data, but a drop in the bucket to what Google collects lol.
Circumstantial evidence is all evidence except witness testimony.
Aha. For sure they won't do that anymore. Nah I won't buy it.
They're probably going to keep doing it even though they said they'd stop
The police are now required to say please and thank you.
That means they got better methods of tracking, or send the data straight to the accurate person, cutting the middleman.
Why would they. Don't like they gain anything by giving this information to the police.
They probably been forced by other countries to have some kind of effective data protection it's ridiculous employees have random access to this data.
As usual, I have to scroll down more than a page to get past all the generic "Google bad" comments to see any discussion of the topic at hand. Never change, Lemmy.
Nice contribution yourself asshole.