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.

  • mozz
    link
    fedilink
    438 months ago

    Well… the part they quoted is a little misleading.

    The two situations they talked about at least on the face of it were:

    1. An undercover agent was in contact with someone, and sent them a link to something in the expectation they’d click it and then that undercover agent could track down what was the IP/identity of the person who clicked the link. Pretty standard stuff. The only weird part is that it was a stock Youtube link and they asked Google to be involved to give them identifying information after (and that for whatever reason there were 30,000 people who watched the video and they asked for the info about all 30,000).
    2. Law enforcement got a bomb threat, then they learned that there had been a livestream of them while they were looking for the bomb. That doesn’t automatically mean anything about the person who was livestreaming (maybe they just saw something exciting happening?), but wanting to talk with that person makes 100% sense to me.

    So, to me both of those seem pretty reasonable. But of course the on-the-face-of-it explanation for #1 doesn’t completely make sense for a couple of different reasons. But I wouldn’t automatically class either of these as abuse by law enforcement without knowing more.

    • @metaldream@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      72
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      It’s crazy to me that this got 61 upvotes while the main concern here, that 30,000 unrelated people had their data handed over to the government, is just an aside in point 1.

      It really concerns me that people think any of this reasonable. If this is “reasonable” then there’s nothing stopping cops from getting all of our data, whenever they want it. All they have to do is find one suspect who watched one video.

      That’s fucking crazy and clearly unreasonable. Take my downvote for having an exceptionally bad opinion on this topic.

      • UltraMagnus0001
        link
        fedilink
        English
        158 months ago

        Most people don’t see the big picture. I remember people not supporting net neutrality.

      • mozz
        link
        fedilink
        38 months ago

        30,000 unrelated people had their data handed over to the government

        It doesn’t say it happened. It said Google received a court order. People challenge court orders sometimes, there’s just a process you have to go through to do it.

        The whole article is honestly just weird. E.g. “Privacy experts from multiple civil rights groups told Forbes they think the orders are unconstitutional because they threaten to turn innocent YouTube viewers into criminal suspects.” That is… that’s not what “unconstitutional” means at all. Sometimes cops will question innocent people or knock on doors when they’re investigating crimes. If they’re doing it without court oversight, that’s dangerous. If “crimes” include things that aren’t actually crimes, that’s dangerous. If “knocking on doors” includes more than just actually asking questions to investigate, that’s dangerous. But I’m a little doubtful that they showed up at anyone’s door just because that person watched a YouTube video and started asking them questions related or unrelated to the specific crime they were investigating.

        The article’s written in a way where you genuinely can’t tell some important details – they don’t say whether the video was public or unlisted, they don’t say whether the cops were the ones that uploaded it, there are important things like that that they don’t make clear. But the idea that the constitution says the cops can’t gather data under any circumstances to investigate a crime seems like just a knee-jerk “cops bad” reaction.

        I don’t even necessarily disagree with your broader point. If the cops took a publicly-listed YouTube video and asked a court for the identities of 30,000 people who happened to watch it, and then the court agreed, and then Google gave them the data instead of pushing back legally (which the article claims they do sometimes), then sure, that’s wrong. But literally every one of those elements is unclear from the article whether it happened.

        there’s nothing stopping cops from getting all of our data

        At the end of the article is an instance where the cops went to the court for a “geofencing” warrant and the court threw out their request because it was too broad. That’s the point of oversight and why having to get a warrant is an important step.

        Like I say I’m honestly not completely disagreeing with you here. I definitely think too much data gets harvested about what every person does online and the cops are too freely able to access it with too little oversight. Depending on the details, maybe that’s what happened here, or maybe it was legit. I’m just saying I’m don’t agree with the assertion that it’s always wrong.

      • RedFox
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -1
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        It’s not terribly different from law enforcement getting a search warrant for a video feed covering the apartment of a known pedo video distributor and then tracking down everyone.

        The problem would be violation of privacy for everyone who went there who wasn’t a pedo.

        Obviously, that’s not a perfect comparison for the Internet because it’s acceptable from anyone, but they’re following the same playbook.

        How much privacy are you willing to trade to stop pedos from hurting kids?

        Edit: in thinking about this, the save the kids stuff has been worn out by a certain group that even I’m tired of. I didn’t really think about that when I came up with the example, not that I expect it would matter to people’s personal feelings on the matter.

        • @systemglitch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          58 months ago

          If I had my way, none, the pedo part is irrelevant. Save the kids mentality is not justification for draconian overreach

          • RedFox
            link
            fedilink
            English
            38 months ago

            Yeah, I just edited the comment. That narrative is tired and political, and I honestly didn’t think of that at the time.

            Not that it really matters what the example is.

          • @systemglitch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            28 months ago

            You’re thinking and able to reconsider previous statements, I’d consider that a win. Far too I find we simply double down without the due consideration we owe ourselves.

    • @bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      538 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        68 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          18 months ago

          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.

            • @bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              48 months ago

              Being a passerby and actively engaging with the incident is way more than enough cause to identify and talk to them.

              Poisoning the well a bit by saying actively engaging. Sounds like they are passively watching.

              That warrant should absolutely be granted.

              Thoroughly disagree.

              It’s very different than geofencing an entire area. It’s specific…

              Ok.

              and directly connected to the crime, whether they committed it or not.

              Not so much, and they already, presumably have the video.

              That said, that person is also absolutely a suspect and should be looked at at minimum at surface level.

              Other than mere location, what reason do you have to suspect the person? You can look, sure, but I don’t see grounds for a warrant.

    • @marine_mustang@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      188 months ago

      Seems to me the undercover agent made an extremely poor choice in links to send. If you expect to track down whoever clicked it, a link to a private video would be the obvious choice.

    • @Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      16
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      My theory for #1 is that it’s an unlisted video targeted at extremists or maybe a “How to make an illegal item” guide

      Which I also think can be reasonable

      • @Scubus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        218 months ago

        It shouldn’t be illegal to learn how to make something illegal. I’m not allowed to build a nuke or a fully automatic assault rifle, but I should still be able to learn how they function.

      • mozz
        link
        fedilink
        178 months ago

        Sounds like it wasn’t really illegal (just a mapping / drone thing), as well as the behavior they were looking into wasn’t something that was for-certain illegal (just trading cash for crypto, which is I guess “illegal adjacent” but not in itself illegal). IDK. The story as it was told was a little confusing / didn’t completely make sense to me on the face of it as the complete story.

        • @OpenTTD@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          08 months ago

          Yeah, this is hella sketchy. I don’t plan on ever using Google’s services again, but now I legit have to worry about all centralized websites in the US? I’ve been impressed with Biden at many points and screw Trump, but this is not a good look for the Biden Administration.

    • @kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      6
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      and they asked Google to be involved to give them identifying information after

      If it was a court order, then it’s much more than simply “asking them to be involved”.

      It’s literally a legal order requiring them to comply or face legal consequences.

      I don’t see Google being the ones we should be the most angry at in this scenario. They were obeying a court order.