Privacy

31799 readers

266 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
Don't promote proprietary software
Try to keep things on topic
If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
Be nice :)

Related communities

Chat rooms

[Matrix/Element]Dead
Discord

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

180

Feds Ordered Google To Unmask Certain YouTube Users. Critics Say It’s ‘Terrifying.’ (www.forbes.com)

submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by MediaSensationalism@covert.nexus to c/privacy@lemmy.ml

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://covert.nexus/post/20450

Summary:

Federal investigators have requested Google to provide information on all users who watched specific YouTube videos within a certain timeframe, sparking privacy concerns from civil rights groups. The videos had collectively been watched over 30,000 times.

The case involves undercover agents sending tutorial links for mapping via drones and augmented reality software to an individual, “elonmuskwhm,” who is suspected of violating money laundering laws and unlicensed money transmitting.

Court orders obtained by Forbes show that the government instructed Google to disclose user data, including names, addresses, telephone numbers, account activity for Google account holders, and IP addresses for non-account holders who watched the videos. The government argues that this data collection was relevant to their criminal investigation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] catloaf@lemm.ee -8 points 7 months ago (2 children)

If they have a warrant, which is at least in theory overseen by a judge to be respectful of someone's constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure, what's the issue?

[–] Theharpyeagle@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

This assumes the judge A) understands enough about the technology to question the scope of information requested and B) is acting in good faith. I'd like to believe both, but I'm not confident in either. The article specifically mentions that this possibly breaches 1st and 4th amendment rights, so it's not certain that the warrant was constitutionally sound.

Letting this pass without pushback would open the door to any such investigation that potentially honey pots people into giving up their information without knowledge or consent. I don't trust law enforcement with gathering mass information about people to catch one person that may be connected to a crime completely unrelated to the video on question.

[–] MediaSensationalism@covert.nexus 7 points 7 months ago

The indiscriminate collection of large amounts of data may be abused, as it enables law enforcement to bypass 4th amendment protections by accessing an individual's private information already on file from a prior unrelated investigation, for example. Otherwise, the article was shared to inform readers about unconventional deanonymizing methods.