There must be more

[NPT]

to this than is in the article. It seems like a fishing expedition to me.... throw out a net and hope you catch the kind of fish you're wanting to catch but just possibly might catch other fish. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much about criminal law and the laws that pertain to warrants etc so some of you lawyers that understand better please comment on this... goat, I know you have an opinion.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

to this than is in the article. It seems like a fishing expedition to me.... throw out a net and hope you catch the kind of fish you're wanting to catch but just possibly might catch other fish. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much about criminal law and the laws that pertain to warrants etc so some of you lawyers that understand better please comment on this... goat, I know you have an opinion.

Google has a rigorous process they go through to protect the privacy of their users before they give the govt anything they want with no objection.

 

[UncleMark]

to this than is in the article. It seems like a fishing expedition to me.... throw out a net and hope you catch the kind of fish you're wanting to catch but just possibly might catch other fish. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much about criminal law and the laws that pertain to warrants etc so some of you lawyers that understand better please comment on this... goat, I know you have an opinion.

Same kind of stuff Snowden told us about.

 

[NPT]

Same kind of stuff Snowden told us about.

Never thought about it but that's true.

 

[UncleMark]

Never thought about it but that's true.

Secret warrants by secret judges in secret courts, all done in secret.

 

[NPT]

Secret warrants by secret judges in secret courts, all done in secret.

But I thought you had to have a good reason to get a warrant. Reading that article it seems, like I said previously... a fishing expedition. If you have good reason to suspect a person then I could see why they would ask Google to do that for that person but it sounds like they are making anyone who does a search for certain things turns into a suspect.

 

[bawlmer]

But I thought you had to have a good reason to get a warrant. Reading that article it seems, like I said previously... a fishing expedition. If you have good reason to suspect a person then I could see why they would ask Google to do that for that person but it sounds like they are making anyone who does a search for certain things turns into a suspect.

Same thing as searching a genetic or finger print database. Seems like rationale police work to me.

 

[NPT]

Same thing as searching a genetic or finger print database. Seems like rationale police work to me.

Except with fingerprints you don't come up with 30 different suspects because they happen to have the same fingerprints and that could happen when Google tells the government these are the people that searched using a certain criteria (address, name, etc).

 

[bawlmer]

Except with fingerprints you don't come up with 30 different suspects because they happen to have the same fingerprints and that could happen when Google tells the government these are the people that searched using a certain criteria (address, name, etc).

What's critical is why these warrants are issued. In the criminal case described in the article, I support the data dump. But if the White House starts setting the investigation agenda for the FBI, this becomes a problem.

 

[UncleMark]

Secret warrants by secret judges in secret courts, all done in secret.

But I thought you had to have a good reason to get a warrant. Reading that article it seems, like I said previously... a fishing expedition.

But there's the rub. When the entire process is secret, when even the existence of the warrants are denied, who is to say what a "good reason" is?

This is Stasi level stuff.

 

[Noodle]

Google has a rigorous process they go through to protect the privacy of their users before they give the govt anything they want with no objection.

LOL not really.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

to this than is in the article. It seems like a fishing expedition to me.... throw out a net and hope you catch the kind of fish you're wanting to catch but just possibly might catch other fish. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much about criminal law and the laws that pertain to warrants etc so some of you lawyers that understand better please comment on this... goat, I know you have an opinion.

Not sure why you mentioned me, but for the record, my gut reaction is that this is a terrible violation of privacy. I could easily be convinced I'm wrong, of course, but on spec, I don't like this practice.

 

[TomEric4756]

Thoughts are not supposed to be crimes.
Keywords can betray those thoughts.
Centralized collection of search terms puts thoughts on record.

Keywords can betray one’s thoughts to Cromwell.
Cromwell would not presume Sir Thomas More Was innocent.
Will today’s police assume innocence?

From a ‘Man For All Seasons’
Cromwell: Yet how can this be? Because this silence betokened, nay, this silence was, not silence at all, but most eloquent denial!

More: Not so. Not so, Master Secretary. The maxim is "Qui tacet consentire"; the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If, therefore, you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied.

Cromwell: Is that in fact what the world construes from it? Do you pretend that is what you wish the world to construe from it?

More: The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law.

https://www.quotes.net/movies/a_man_for_all_seasons_13626

 

[NPT]

Not sure why you mentioned me, but for the record, my gut reaction is that this is a terrible violation of privacy. I could easily be convinced I'm wrong, of course, but on spec, I don't like this practice.

I mentioned you because I know you know a lot more about the law than I do. What they are doing just seems illegal to me.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

not all searches are equal, but are being treated so here.

someone searching the name of a non famous person within a tight time frame and within a tight geographic area, is not the same as someone searching "terrorism", or marijuana, or Taliban or Trump or election or voting machines.

if someone not well known has gone missing, and someone who isn't law enforcement recently has been asking around locally about the address and phone number of that missing individual, law enforcement has always been interested in knowing about that type thing, and i wouldn't classify that as a fishing expedition..

could subpoenaing search histories become a slippery slope and turn into fishing expeditions, absolutely.

scope matters, and our beyond corrupt judges and the corrupt system that put them on the bench, have failed to protect the citizenry from the govt.

don't we all believe in law enforcement, just as we believe in capitalism.

and if free market capitalism is the best capitalism, then isn't free market law enforcement the best law enforcement?

after all, the name implies "freedom", right, so it must be good?

but freedom of whom, to do what, must always enter into the equation as well.

free market law enforcement, like free market capitalism, has no off switch, and will always go as far as it's allowed to go, then several steps farther.

where lines are drawn is always the operative factor, and corruption is the enemy of proper line drawing, be it law enforcement or economic regulation.

in an inherently corrupt political system, which exists anytime money is allowed to buy govt, literally everything encompassed in that political system becomes corrupt as well, with no way to stop it other than remove the corrupting influence from the equation, which is money in our case.

if or when that "slippery slope" emerges in the govt subpoena search thing, i guarantee you money would take over controlling what is and isn't being sought after in investigating search histories.