Google, Microsoft and Yahoo Back New York Ban on Controversial Search Warrants (techcrunch.com) 23
A coalition of tech giants, including Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, have pledged support for a New York bill that would ban the use of controversial search warrants that can identify people based on their location data and internet search keywords. From a report: In a brief statement, the coalition known as Reform Government Surveillance said it "supports the adoption of New York Assembly Bill A84A, the Reverse Location Search Prohibition Act, which would prohibit the use of reverse location and reverse keyword searches." The bill, if passed, would become the first state law to ban so-called geofence warrants and keyword search warrants, which rely on demanding tech companies turn over data about users who were near the scene of a crime or searched for particular keywords at a specific point in time. But the bill hasn't moved since it was referred to a committee for discussion in January, the first major hurdle before it can be considered for a floor vote.
Trying to see the evil... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't explain why it's evil. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The use of these warrants is also a constant reminder to the pubic that they leak data like crazy.
If the warrants continue, then that just provides incentive to the public to stop leaking, and the tech companies certainly don't want that. OTOH, if the warrants stop, then people can go back to leaking to (and forgetting about) all the Little Brothers, while feeling safe from Big Brother.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, ha ha. Where's my edit button?
Re: (Score:3)
Increasingly the government requires the use of the Internet, and People don't expect that by participating in society that they are automatically tracked and searched. Limiting the government's access to this data ameliorates some of the 4a problems with requiring Internet use. This goes double for the poor who only use cell data.
Now if these corps also promise to delete the data and not send it all to NSA in realtime we'd have some real progress. Remember, a warrant grants a power to search, not to succee
Re:Trying to see the evil... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the government shouldn't be held to a higher standard than any other customer. They'll need to work out a contract, remuneration, SOW's/SLA's, etc. . . . but they should be able to buy any data these guys have to sell. Anything else would be discrimination.
You already gave up your right to that data when you let the Big Boys become its custodian (sorry if they forced or fooled you into it; that's out of scope for this discussion). Why should Big Business be allowed to discriminate either for or against the Government? Both should simply agree that it's a matter for business negotiations and agree on a price.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the government shouldn't be held to a higher standard than any other customer.
It's actually already been settled in the supreme court that the government isn't allowed to request a corporation do something they themselves aren't allowed to do. A private corp isn't legally allowed to violate the fourth amendment and then sell that data to the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Weirdly, yes. Good news for people who value freedom and free enterprise. As for the American way . . . I know George Orwell was writing about Britain, not America; but since the start of the Digital Age, well . . . the American Way just isn't what it used to be. Probably never was.
Look on the bright side: it would be cheaper for LEOs to buy the data than to surreptitiously plant airtags on everyone - and no need for an agent to be exposed sticking an airtag to a suspect's vehicle.
Google, Microsoft and Yahoo to LEOs everywhere: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Google already charges law enforcement for the cost of complying with geofence warrants.
https://www.mediapost.com/publ... [mediapost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Are they getting paid? I hear those fees can be hard to enforce. It's not like they can stop complying until the past due bill gets paid.
Re: (Score:2)
Google also doesn't sell the data it collects. It sells ad targeting services, the data is kept secret because if they sold it then their business would be vastly less profitable and also illegal in some places.
Don't tar everyone with the same brush you quite rightly use to paint Facebook with.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I follow you. This isn't about ad targeting. This is about official police requests, compelled by court-ordered warrants.
And I don't consider it a problem that Google charges the police for complying with these requests. The original commenter was suggesting that the police were using warrants to get information for free. It's not free.
Doesn't want to stop (Score:4, Informative)
This bill, sponsored by Zellnor Myrie, has already been defeated once.
The government doesn't want to stop spying on people so tech giants admitting they don't want to work for the government, for free, is irrelevant.
There is a terrorist behind every bush (Score:2)
Good that these companies chose the right thing (even if their intentions aren't so noble) to push back against the ever increasing paranoia and heavy handed tactics of our police state.
What are these companies guilty of? (Score:2)
So it's alright for big companies to collect data (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between Google providing targeted ads for customers versus the Government getting the data unanonymized so they can prosecute you is pretty huge.
Re: (Score:2)