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

Technology

59135 readers
2878 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
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
954
Google was ordered to identify people who watched certain YouTube videos. Privacy experts say the orders are unconstitutional. (www.forbes.com)
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by ForgottenFlux@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
123 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 53 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Neither of these is reasonable.

  1. There certainly are situations where this could be reasonable; however, when your parameters return 30,000 people it's not nearly tailored enough.

  2. To get a warrant you need probable cause that a person committed a crime, I don't see how a live stream could meet that burden unless it starts prior to the arrival of the police.

These are both abuses by law enforcement, or more clearly, a path that allows their job to be easier by infringing on people's rights.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You don't need probable cause that they committed a crime.

You need probable cause that the search will result in evidence of a crime.

Those aren't the same thing.

The first one is horseshit though.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, that's probably worded better.

Assuming all they had was a live stream of police responding, and that it didn't start before police arrived, which would demonstrate prior knowledge, I don't see probable cause. It's much more likely that a passer-by recorded it.