1. 17

  2. 12

    Just one more reason to use DuckDuckGo?

    1. 4

      This sounds bad, but then I wondered how it differs from a warrant to obtain the video of a bank robbery. The video is going to show everybody in the bank, not just the robber.

      1. [Comment removed by author]

        1. 4

          I think that’s true, but maybe people should adjust their expectations? If you’re sending private information to a public service, reconsider? For all that it would be nice to expand the definition of private, I’ve found it works much better to expand the definition of what I consider public… Can’t look is better assurance than won’t look.

        2. [Comment removed by author]

          1. 2

            That’s more akin to asking for the private data of everyone who used an ATM and withdrew more than $1000 in the last five weeks because you have a theory that nobody would click trough facebook^W^W^W rob a bank before withdrawing a large sum of money from their ATMs.

            How certain are we that such warrants aren’t common? Whenever there’s a digital warrant/subpoena/wiretap/etc. story there’s always this narrative that the judge doesn’t understand and the law in the real world never works like this, but that seems like a shaky assumption. I think there’s a certain myopic selection bias where few people have sit in on all that many courtrooms to hear how judges rule in bank robbery cases.

            1. [Comment removed by author]

              1. 3

                I guess depends what you want to talk about. Every law thread goes about the same way. “I read Thomas Hobbes and here’s what should happen.” That can certainly be an interesting discussion, but it’s not the context in which judges rule, so it’s not great for understanding the legal system or determining whether a judges ruling was “wrong”.

          2. 3

            The video of a bank robbery is actual evidence of the commission of the crime. There is no Google Search, itself, that constitutes a crime (what you do with the results of that search may be criminal, and there may be search results that it is unlawful to view, like image searches for child pornography).

            That’s the difference.

            The standard criteria, as vague as it sounds, is that a warrant must be “reasonable and specific”. There’s centuries of case law that define them in more detail, but even in its simplest interpretation, there is nothing reasonable or specific about this search. There is nothing but supposition that the suspect used Google Search in the first place.

            To extend your analogy, this would be like if someone robbed a bank wearing a t-shirt for the band *Anglegrinderz", and the police demanded a list of anybody who bought a ticket for an Anglegrinderz show in the past five weeks.

            1. 2

              I think that might be the wrong comparison. It’s more the equivalence “the whole world [or certain parts of it] should give us their tapes, because the robber might be on them and it might contain interesting information related to the case” and in this case it’s also about people looking similar, because it’s also about all the people with that name.