Google, Microsoft and Yahoo Back New York Ban on Controversial Search Warrants

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...

[NicknameUnavailable]

...but it's just not there in this one - what gives?

Re:

[YVRGeek]

Well, it's simple really: it costs Google time and thus money to fulfill these requests and, more importantly, undermines their ability to SELL THAT DATA instead of giving it to LEOs. QED.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Sloppy]

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:

[Sloppy]

the pubic

Yes, ha ha. Where's my edit button?

Re:

[bill_mcgonigle]

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

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[NicknameUnavailable]

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:

[Otis B. Dilroy III]

This would cut into their ability to sell it. This would mean giving it away. Like most whores, they don't like this, it would cut into their profits.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Tony Isaac]

Google already charges law enforcement for the cost of complying with geofence warrants.

https://www.mediapost.com/publ... [mediapost.com]

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

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:

[Tony Isaac]

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

[NotEmmanuelGoldstein]

... the bill hasn't moved ...

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

[Malays2 bowman]

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?

[zkiwi34]

Opposing lawful warrants. Epic.

So it's alright for big companies to collect data

[nothinginparticular]

on people and sell to the highest bidder but not ok for the government to use it for potentially solving crime? Don't get me wrong, I'd rather there was no personal data collection but it seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black

Re:

[JackieBrown]

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:

[nothinginparticular]

It's not just targeted ads though is it, it's selling your info to potentially anyone. Lets take Grindr as a notable example who've sold highly sensitive info to third parties. That sort of info as about is good as it gets for blackmail and anyone can get it if they're willing to pay. I can't really see many upsides to the likes of google having your data, but it at least the government can potentially use it to catch criminals. At least the government are theoretically accountable to their electorate, unli