Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Then you might want to read the linked article and not the headline, because CNET asked that question and... got an affirmative response, that Google will try to notify users whose data has been shared.

Really almost all the top comments on this topic are people overreacting to the headline without realizing that the circumstances involved are emergencies and not just routine LE requests. Clickbait has ruined everything.



> the circumstances involved are emergencies and not just routine LE requests.

Fine, every routine LE request is now an emergency. Because one thing US LEOs are known for is their reserve in only requesting just the absolute minimum to do an investigation.


Try.

They'll try to notify users? After their data has been shared with police.

Well that's reassuring.


Consider the circumstances. The context in which this data is shared is imminent danger to life. That includes kidnapping.

If Google had a magic system for getting information to a kidnapping victim reliably, they wouldn't need to share user's private data with law enforcement, they could just share the information on where to reach the kidnap victim.


You don't fool me.

What this will predominantly be used for is abusive partners, who also happen to be law enforcement officers (police) to terrorise their victims, or, more generally, abuse of powers by LE.

Here in Australia the police already have 30% more domestic violence charges than the average, and have been caught way too many times abusing their powers as LE.


This was used 7 times in the USA. 7.

Also, a cop doing this would leave a trail of evidence of their irrefutable guilt.

You're being hyperbolic.


>The context in which this data is shared is imminent danger to life.

Not at all - it's merely somebody's _claim_ that there's some danger.


A subpoena is based on merely somebody's claim that there's reasonable suspicion of a crime. All this policy by Google does is shift the set of people who are making the decision of what "reasonable suspicion" looks like; one's reaction to that depends on one's relative threat models of judges (and time delay of interacting with judges) vs. Google employees.

FWIW, anyone still doing business with Google probably has a relatively high trust of Google, so that comparison is probably closer to equivalent than many might imagine for Google's users.


in 1984, it’s an emergency if you wrongthink


They will try but can be legally prohibited from notifying you. A server you control and have the keys to can be compelled by the police, but not without your knowledge.

Every supposed attempt to protect you is really just an attempt to justify an inherently unethical business model because it is profitable.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: