- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
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.
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?
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.
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.