Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data(chicagotribune.com)
chicagotribune.com
Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/criminal-justice/ct-jussie-smollett-special-prosecutor-investigation-20200108-j3j3p2dypvf5vbbo5jpxrvcjsq-story.html
409 comments
The courts and law enforcement aren't the issue here. Google is.
Why do they even have this data-- deleted material, browsing histories, the content of voice calls? Why did they store it in the first place?
Google can't keep all of its own internal secrets private. The fact that information on you can be extracted via a targeted court order shouldn't be your greatest concern: The fact that they possess it means that it can likely be exploited or extracted in many different ways including via dragnet surveillance and espionage.
Why do they even have this data-- deleted material, browsing histories, the content of voice calls? Why did they store it in the first place?
Google can't keep all of its own internal secrets private. The fact that information on you can be extracted via a targeted court order shouldn't be your greatest concern: The fact that they possess it means that it can likely be exploited or extracted in many different ways including via dragnet surveillance and espionage.
From linked article[0]:
>— Cook County prosecutors drop all charges against Smollett, calling it an “appropriate resolution to this case.”
>“After reviewing all of the facts and circumstances of the case, including Mr. Smollett’s volunteer service in the community and agreement to forfeit his bond to the City of Chicago, we believe this outcome is a just disposition and appropriate resolution to this case,” the statement said.
WTF? Since when bribe constitutes a ground for dropping charges?
0. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-met-cb-jussi...
>— Cook County prosecutors drop all charges against Smollett, calling it an “appropriate resolution to this case.”
>“After reviewing all of the facts and circumstances of the case, including Mr. Smollett’s volunteer service in the community and agreement to forfeit his bond to the City of Chicago, we believe this outcome is a just disposition and appropriate resolution to this case,” the statement said.
WTF? Since when bribe constitutes a ground for dropping charges?
0. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-met-cb-jussi...
Is this different in any practical sense to an old fashioned request for physical paper documents?
The only difference I can think of is traditionally documents are destroyed after they are no longer needed. Now they can see “deleted” documents and document change history.
i.e. emails stored locally on a personal or company server can be permanently destroyed. Traditional email systems won’t have a change history of the email writing process)
(I imagine all sorts of games could be played by lawyers with access to this additional types of information.)
The only difference I can think of is traditionally documents are destroyed after they are no longer needed. Now they can see “deleted” documents and document change history.
i.e. emails stored locally on a personal or company server can be permanently destroyed. Traditional email systems won’t have a change history of the email writing process)
(I imagine all sorts of games could be played by lawyers with access to this additional types of information.)
I (and we should all) act as if this could happen to anyone. Essentially that the state can deputize any company to snitch on the digital ephemera that constitutes our daily lives, but especially those that we are deeply engaged: Google, Facebook, Lyft, Amazon.
As such, we should not self-censor, but instead disengage from these proxy-cops and move to more distributed spaces.
As such, we should not self-censor, but instead disengage from these proxy-cops and move to more distributed spaces.
I believe Smollette staged this, but the state should not be allowed to simply get a year's worth of his personal data without cause. This tantamounts to unlawful search and seizure and a gross violation of his right to privacy, both guaranteed by the Constitution.
As much as I disapprove of Smolette, we cannot let the state overstep it's boundaries and jurisdiction. They'll have to prove it while being compliant with the Constitution
As much as I disapprove of Smolette, we cannot let the state overstep it's boundaries and jurisdiction. They'll have to prove it while being compliant with the Constitution
On the flip side of the loss of privacy: location and similar data can be used as a solid alibi if you are accused incorrectly.
How many people have been silently tagged as innocent because of their data stored?
That said, ersonally I find the loss of privacy abhorrent, especially because I have fuck all rights in the US (not a citizen, so the US government and US corporations can abuse my personal information with very little recourse from me or my own government).
How many people have been silently tagged as innocent because of their data stored?
That said, ersonally I find the loss of privacy abhorrent, especially because I have fuck all rights in the US (not a citizen, so the US government and US corporations can abuse my personal information with very little recourse from me or my own government).
Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.
When convenience comes back to bite you in the ass. I’m interested to see if and what Google releases and if there would be any different if Apple was asked to release the same information.
Does the “Ad” company have more data on an individual versus the “privacy” company? Or does it actually depend on the user opting in to give this data to said company?
Does the “Ad” company have more data on an individual versus the “privacy” company? Or does it actually depend on the user opting in to give this data to said company?
This sounds more like a fishing expedition than a typical search warrant. I expect that Google fought or is fighting this request as stated as they have for others in the past.
"And if we believe a request is overly broad, we seek to narrow it -- like when we persuaded a court to drastically limit a U.S. government request for two months' of user search queries."[1]
If they refused to hand over 2 months of search queries, I guarantee they didn't just hand over a full year of all user data.
[1] - https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/7380434...
"And if we believe a request is overly broad, we seek to narrow it -- like when we persuaded a court to drastically limit a U.S. government request for two months' of user search queries."[1]
If they refused to hand over 2 months of search queries, I guarantee they didn't just hand over a full year of all user data.
[1] - https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/7380434...
[deleted]
"Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries"
Does anyone have an alternative source for this story please?
Does anyone have an alternative source for this story please?
For anyone like me who didnt know about the case, this info is burried half way down the article:
>
Smollett reported that two men attacked him near his high-rise apartment in the Streeterville neighborhood on a frigid night last Jan. 29, slipping a noose around his neck and shouting racist and homophobic slurs. Jussie Smollett files counterclaim against Chicago saying prosecution was malicious »
Smollett’s manager — whose Google account information has also been ordered turned over — called 911 to report the attack and met responding officers in the lobby of Smollett’s building. He can be seen on body camera footage reaching toward Smollett to grab the noose around his neck with disdain. “The reason I’m calling (police) is because of this s--- ,” he said.
But Smollett eventually turned from victim to suspect after an intense investigation by Chicago police detectives who used two brothers’ cellphone records, internet search history and text messages to corroborate their story that the actor paid them $3,500 to stage the attack.
Prosecutors alleged that Smollett staged the attack because he was unhappy with the “Empire” studio’s response to a threatening letter he received at work a week earlier. Chicago police took it a step further, accusing Smollett of faking the letter as well.
>
Smollett reported that two men attacked him near his high-rise apartment in the Streeterville neighborhood on a frigid night last Jan. 29, slipping a noose around his neck and shouting racist and homophobic slurs. Jussie Smollett files counterclaim against Chicago saying prosecution was malicious »
Smollett’s manager — whose Google account information has also been ordered turned over — called 911 to report the attack and met responding officers in the lobby of Smollett’s building. He can be seen on body camera footage reaching toward Smollett to grab the noose around his neck with disdain. “The reason I’m calling (police) is because of this s--- ,” he said.
But Smollett eventually turned from victim to suspect after an intense investigation by Chicago police detectives who used two brothers’ cellphone records, internet search history and text messages to corroborate their story that the actor paid them $3,500 to stage the attack.
Prosecutors alleged that Smollett staged the attack because he was unhappy with the “Empire” studio’s response to a threatening letter he received at work a week earlier. Chicago police took it a step further, accusing Smollett of faking the letter as well.
> not just emails but also drafted and deleted messages; any files in their Google Drive cloud storage services; any Google Voice texts, calls and contacts; search and web browsing history; and location data.
I've always assumed my email, Drive, Voice info, calls, contact lists, etc would be obtainable by a warrant.
But I wonder if Google would turn over things like browsing and search history, even if you never browsed while logged in to Google or searched, and also had explicitly turned off storing of this data in your Google privacy settings.
There is no doubt in my mind that Google, through the use of 3rd party trackers from "partners", analytics, and correlation can easily match my non-logged in web history and searches with the same computer and IP used when I log into Gmail or Maps.
Supposedly they don't tie this global "advertising profile" to your real identifying Google account, at least for the data provided to advertisers, but I would think it'd be trivial for Google to collect it all - every web page visited and for how long, every search you've made - and turn over the vast majority of it to the government, upon request.
In other words, Google probably does know nearly everything you do online, logged in or not, at this point.
I've always assumed my email, Drive, Voice info, calls, contact lists, etc would be obtainable by a warrant.
But I wonder if Google would turn over things like browsing and search history, even if you never browsed while logged in to Google or searched, and also had explicitly turned off storing of this data in your Google privacy settings.
There is no doubt in my mind that Google, through the use of 3rd party trackers from "partners", analytics, and correlation can easily match my non-logged in web history and searches with the same computer and IP used when I log into Gmail or Maps.
Supposedly they don't tie this global "advertising profile" to your real identifying Google account, at least for the data provided to advertisers, but I would think it'd be trivial for Google to collect it all - every web page visited and for how long, every search you've made - and turn over the vast majority of it to the government, upon request.
In other words, Google probably does know nearly everything you do online, logged in or not, at this point.
Things like this are why I think that as time goes on storing PII is going to be seen as a cost rather than a benefit to companies... It'll take several rounds of public outcry to shift the mindset though.
Most of this nonsense could have been dispensed with if the original prosecutors hadn't tried to make the whole thing go away when it became clear that the original narrative was fraudulent. Hate crime hoaxes are terrible, because they undermine credibility when the real thing does occur. For that he ought to be nailed to the wall.
I imagine that for pretty much each and every one of us, a full year of data will yield something actionable by law enforcement or at least by traffic law enforcement. Who didn’t speed once (even while flowing with the rest of traffic)?
If we include dhs, then who, knowingly or unknowingly (go ahead and prove that) did not spend a few moments in proximity with persons of interest?
“Give me six sentences written by the most honest of men and I’ll find a reason to hang them” is more relevant than ever and I’m just imagining how much more can be found in the full surveillance trail of google services.
If we include dhs, then who, knowingly or unknowingly (go ahead and prove that) did not spend a few moments in proximity with persons of interest?
“Give me six sentences written by the most honest of men and I’ll find a reason to hang them” is more relevant than ever and I’m just imagining how much more can be found in the full surveillance trail of google services.
Suddenly the inconvenience of moving to an encrypted email provider like ProtonMail doesn't sound too bad. I don't particularly have anything to hide, but I'm sure a prosecutor could find something suspicious in my emails if he looked hard enough.
It wouldn't make my email completely inaccessible to the government (they could subpoena the sender), but would make it a lot less convenient to go on a fishing expedition.
It wouldn't make my email completely inaccessible to the government (they could subpoena the sender), but would make it a lot less convenient to go on a fishing expedition.
For all people writing "is this different from physical documents?" the answer is yes. You have to think a little bit further than tomorrow. This is the perfect step for a totalitarian police government like China.
You don't want the government to control your money with taxes and your health with social insurance, so why do you want it to control every aspect of your private life?
You don't want the government to control your money with taxes and your health with social insurance, so why do you want it to control every aspect of your private life?
Alternative article for readers in the EU:
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/judge-orders-google-h...
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/judge-orders-google-h...
As I understand it, in summary: someone filed a police report, the police suspect the person staged the incident being reported (so now they're a suspect themselves) and subpoenas their data.
Okay? This is news, how? Should I know the person that allegedly staged it, or is it new that a judge approves a search warrant that allows time-limited access to a suspect's data? Does it matter that they're an actor? (An overloaded term that makes the title quite unclear)
And a little meta: should we change the link to something everyone can actually read or do we want to keep this discussion limited to people from certain continents?
Okay? This is news, how? Should I know the person that allegedly staged it, or is it new that a judge approves a search warrant that allows time-limited access to a suspect's data? Does it matter that they're an actor? (An overloaded term that makes the title quite unclear)
And a little meta: should we change the link to something everyone can actually read or do we want to keep this discussion limited to people from certain continents?
“If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.”
Interesting that commenters are talking about overreach with data collection. I'm not sure if that's in the article because the paper in question blocks people in the EU out of a desire not to comply with privacy laws. A little ironic.
That dude better get another garage for the tape library they're gonna have to send...
[deleted]
at what point does this projection of judicial power against individuals in the name of safety (whose safety? whats really at stake here even?) become terrorism?
What was that company that is no longer allowed to add google to their phones? Huh, sounds like they can use it as a selling point
degoogle as much as you can
If you are in the EU:
https://archive.li/LjNKy
https://archive.li/LjNKy
this is why many companies have no record of their own internal emails/conversations over a year or two. This is to cover their own tracks in case they get sued. I wonder if there are any email services where you can actually delete your data if it's older than some period?
Those who say that this is justified because warrants were obtained seem to miss the point that state’s ability and desire to gather information has grown exponentially over time. And that’s why we need data protection laws, alternatives to Google, and other privacy measures.
The philosophical concept of embodied cognition is a good place to start on this issue:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/embodied-cognition/