Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Helps Government Conduct Warrantless Searches, Alleges EPIC (tomshardware.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the I'm-feeling-lucky dept.

schwit1 quotes Tom's Hardware: The Electronic Privacy Information Center ("EPIC"), a civil liberties group based in Washington D.C., filed an amicus brief in the United States vs. Wilson case concerning Google scanning billions of users' files for unlawful content and then sending that information to law enforcement agencies.

EPIC alleges that law enforcement is using Google, a private entity, to bypass the Fourth Amendment, which requires due process and probable cause before "searching or seizing" someone's property.

As a private entity, Google doesn't have to abide by the Fourth Amendment as the government has to, so it can do those mass searches on its behalf and then give the government the results. The U.S. government has been increasingly using this strategy to bypass Fourth Amendment protections of U.S. citizens and to expand its warrantless surveillance operations further.

Google and a few other companies have "voluntarily" agreed to use a database of image hashes from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) to help the agency find exploited children.

More than that, the companies would also give any information they have on the people who owned those images, given they are users of said companies' services and have shared the images through those services.

18 of 69 comments (clear)

  1. Re: The 4th does not protect you from doxxing your by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    My gmail account is not, or should not be, considered public.

    You are a corporate shill and very dumb as well.

    The real answer here is google is evil. Government + corporations working together = fascism.

    The real fascism, not the bullshit nonsense where idiots scream nazi at anyone who disagrees with them.

    Welcome to your dystopian nom[rivacy future, today.

  2. Boycott Google by schklerg · · Score: 2

    Or as I have renamed them, "Be Evil"

    --
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    1. Re: Boycott Google by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      I have deleted the Google account on my Android phone. It works fine without a Google account. Make sure you save your contacts to a vcard file before you delete your Google account on your phone, because Google 'punishes' account deleters by wiping the local contacts list. You can import your contacts back onto your phone by running the vcard file on your new less-Google phone.

      You can get app updates and even some core service updates from Aptoide. Google REALLY doesn't like Aptoide.

    2. Re:Boycott Google by swillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or as I have renamed them, "Be Evil"

      Yes, trying to help missing and exploited children is the height of evilness.

      Seriously, I saw the headline and started to get pissed off, and continued getting angrier until I got to the line that says "Google and a few other companies have "voluntarily" agreed to use a database of image hashes from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) to help the agency find exploited children."

      Then I said "Oh, well, I agree with that. Automatically identifying kiddie porn and reporting it to the relevant agency makes a lot of sense." There is room for badness and abuse there, of course, but in the absence of any evidence of badness or abuse, I'm willing to give the NCMEC the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they only provide image hashes of actual exploited children, and that they handle subsequent investigations with appropriate regard to civil liberties and due process. (Cue someone to point out some case in which an overzealous law enforcement official did not demonstrate such appropriate regard; if data shows the NCMEC's program creates many such situations, I'll change my opinion about the NCMEC.)

      Yes, yes, "but what about the children!" is a dangerously overused argument, and blindly accepting any encroachment that can be justified as protecting kids is a very, very bad idea. But the reason it's such a powerful argument is that there are a lot of cases where it's a legitimately compelling argument. I think identifying child pornography sites on the web is such a case, and this article just says that there are people in the relevant division of Google who agree with me.

      (Disclaimer: I work for Google. I'm also an old-time cypherpunk and an ardent supporter of civil liberties, and generally very suspicious of centralized power in any form (though I worry a bit more about entities who also have the power to jail or kill me). I also don't want to live in Somalia. Generally, any view taken to its logical extreme becomes nonsense, and thoughtful balance is always required. I actually have a high degree of confidence that most of my Google colleagues do think carefully about these things, because I know I do, and so do the people I interact with directly. So, those are my biases, consider my comments in that light. Or just assume that anyone who works for Google and comments publicly is a shill, an SJW, and an asshole for believing that all advertising isn't immoral and evil. Your choice, though if you choose the latter perhaps you need to think more about my "thoughtful balance" point.)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:Boycott Google by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      Google told you, when you signed up for their free stuff, that they'd go through it all in the name of adverts. You said, "OK". So now when they're going through people's stuff, if they find things that point to illegal activity, you think they're evil if they send it to the police?

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
  3. Google makes money being evil by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

    So of course they side with the gestapo. Be it German American, or Chinese.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  4. Child Porn by bitchtits · · Score: 2

    Why do stories like this come conflated with things like missing/exploited children? It seems that "protecting children" is the gateway to all manner of surveillance. I think, perhaps, they consider us to be those children.

  5. You agreed to have your email searched ... by drnb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My gmail account is not, or should not be, considered public.

    Nor should it be considered private. You did after all consent to google scanning your emails for keywords to better target advertisements towards you.

    Government + corporations working together = fascism. The real fascism, not the bullshit nonsense where idiots scream nazi at anyone who disagrees with them.

    What about the bullshit nonsense where idiots scream fascism anytime a corporation is involved?

    You don't understand fascism. Under fascism both the people and the corporations are under state/party control directly or indirectly. The two are often played off against each other to keep each other weak, to maintain government control of both.

    1. Re: You agreed to have your email searched ... by drnb · · Score: 1

      Mussolini was the fascist and he even wrote a book (mostly plagerized from older fascists) all about it. Hitler was a socialist and only reluctantly accepted fascism. Those are historical facts, deal with it libtard.

      Dear Anonymous "Genius", When I wrote
      "You don't understand fascism. Under fascism both the people and the corporations are under state/party control directly or indirectly. The two are often played off against each other to keep each other weak, to maintain government control of both."
      I was mostly thinking of Mussolini. Although it applies to Hitler as well.

      FYI, Hitler looked to Mussolini as a role model for many of the early years. There was nothing "reluctant" about Hitler's embrace of fascism.

      Also there is nothing inconsistent between fascism and socialism. Fascists will cherry pick bits and pieces of socialism, conservatism, capitalism, etc ... as long as the bit and pieces consolidate party control. For example labor organizations existed under Mussolini and Hitler, they were required, but most importantly they were organized under and through the party. A labor union being just an element of the party apparatus.

  6. Illegal by markdavis · · Score: 1

    >"As a private entity, Google doesn't have to abide by the Fourth Amendment as the government has to, so it can do those mass searches on its behalf and then give the government the results. The U.S. government has been increasingly using this strategy to bypass Fourth Amendment protections of U.S. citizens and to expand its warrantless surveillance operations further."

    This has always puzzled me. How can it be legal for the government to "buy" or "be given" information which collecting, itself, would be illegal. I would think as a FIRST STEP to start a privacy revolution, this should be shut down. I blame both for eroding our privacy and Constitutional protections, but don't blame the corporations as much as I do the government... it is the government that is not following the spirit (or word) of the Constitution, the corporations are not under that obligation.

    1. Re:Illegal by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"What's so controversial about that?"

      Because the governments are now contracting things to third parties intentionally to get around what is illegal for them to do themselves. That is an active role (requesting or buying info), not a passive one (being voluntarily notified). Big difference, in my mind.

    2. Re:Illegal by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"Calling 911 to report a crime happening in your own home or business, etc. are all legal for you to do without a warrant."

      Sorry, I should have been more specific in my original post. I was referring to cases where the government is now ASKING for or even contracting and PAYING for information it is not allowed to collect. I wasn't referring to businesses who voluntarily report information or crimes they have discovered or are in progress.

    3. Re:Illegal by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      If you work for the American Federal Government then you should be bound by the Constitution of the USA. If Google is being paid for spying, then they work for the American Federal Government.

    4. Re:Illegal by rv6502 · · Score: 1

      If they were given hashes by the government then they were acting at the request / hire of the government.
      That's probably where a at the very least a line should be drawn but it's not enough.

      Because it's easy to get companies or people to "volunteer" along.

      "it's a nice giant company you have here, would be a shame if laws were pushed that made your business more difficult... Btw, we have those hashes we'd like to run a search on."

  7. Re: Slashdot is DEAD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I remember the good old days when slashdot commenters used to be intelligent. So long 1998

  8. Why doesn't the 4th amendment apply? by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 2

    Here is what the 4th amendment actually says.

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    It doesn't say anything about who's performing the search. It says that being secure against searches is a right, and it "shall not be violated". Nothing in there about this only applying to searches by the government. How can anyone read that and claim it doesn't apply if the government gets a private company to do the searching for them?

    --
    "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
  9. Re: Slashdot is DEAD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Slashdot has had an influx of know-nothing, entitled, millennial shitbags who are wannabe computer "experts" (they think being able to plug together a modern, plug-n-play computer actually takes expertise). When you see corporate apologists like this, it's because it was posted by someone who wasn't alive back when most people frowned upon corporate abuse and invasion of privacy. They will also be the first to spout some naively idiotic line like "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear".

  10. Re: Third party doctrine strikes again by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    Evil math-geniuses decide to save a few bucks and attempt their own shilling? Results more humorous than expected?? ;)