Keyword Warrants

[Keith_Indy]

The government outsourcing of civil rights violations to private entities doesn't absolve them of culpability. It has to stop.

You don't got no argument from me on that.

Isn't this the very definition of fascism/corporatism.

“Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” Benito Mussolini

Corporations, voluntarily doing for the state, that which the state desires.

Government can't make vaxx mandates stick in court, but they can persuade/coerce private companies to do it without passing a law.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

LE doesn't troll through data, Google does. Oh what a relief.

Im sorry, but the temptation has been to nibble away at rights and privacy in the name of justice, or safety, or whatever cliche excuse those in authority choose at the present. It needs to stop. So hypothetically, could one use facial recognition software and AI to troll through everyone's security camera video since if it's transmitted electronically in search of someone; video inside and outside everyone's homes? I mean if you have a warrant of course and the compliant third party would do the trolling, you know to protect privacy.

Is it news to you that Google trolls through the data Google owns? You know that's literally what Google was built on, data mining it's users in order to make money, right? Troll through your data then sell the results as targeted advertising?

I'm not going to bother chasing the goalposts your moving. You said "LE gets to troll through data from ostensibly every person in the country with a singal warrant." and I showed you why that's incorrect.

 

[buckwacker]

Is it news to you that Google trolls through the data Google owns? You know that's literally what Google was built on, data mining it's users in order to make money, right? Troll through your data then sell the results as targeted advertising?

I'm not going to bother chasing the goalposts your moving. You said "LE gets to troll through data from ostensibly every person in the country with a singal warrant." and I showed you why that's incorrect.

So because Google does unethical things with user's data, the government should take advantage of such unethical practices and blame them for your civil rights violations? The government should be protecting us from this behavior, not taking advantage of it. It's not Google's data any more than its the bank's money when I make a deposit into my account.

You can call it chasing moving goalposts all you want. It's simply a rhetorical device used to avoid addressing a point.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

It still makes me very uneasy

Could not government note that a person was murdered with a 9mm, cite a study that criminals seldom stockpile ammunition and one indicating how close to a crime scene criminals commonly live, and then seek a warrant for data from Visa, Mastercard, Amex and Discover for everyone who bought 9mm ammunition in the past X months while living within a radius of Y of the crime scene?

Would you not acknowledge perhaps a search could be over broad, or, like the FISA warrants, be designed to elicit information that could not be gotten in a more straight-forward way such as who likely possesses a 9mm firearm in a broad geographic area

The whole process seems devoid of oversight as well as checks and balances

I know you're not familiar with Indy gun shops, but do you think a gangbanger is going to use a charge card to go in Don's Guns and buy 10 rounds of 9mm in a ziploc baggie?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

So because Google does unethical things with user's data, the government should take advantage of such unethical practices and blame them for your civil rights violations? The government should be protecting us from this behavior, not taking advantage of it. It's not Google's data any more than its the bank's money when I make a deposit into my account.

You can call it chasing moving goalposts all you want. It's simply a rhetorical device used to avoid addressing a point.

But the bank then takes your money and invests it in the stock market or mutual funds, etc.. That's how they can pay you interest on your savings account, CD, etc., so when you deposit it, while technically you're protected by FDIC or whatever up to a certain amount, it very much *is* the bank's money to invest as they see fit to meet their interest obligations to their customers. They're not investing it on your behalf. They're investing it on their behalf.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So because Google does unethical things with user's data, the government should take advantage of such unethical practices and blame them for your civil rights violations? The government should be protecting us from this behavior, not taking advantage of it. It's not Google's data any more than its the bank's money when I make a deposit into my account.

You can call it chasing moving goalposts all you want. It's simply a rhetorical device used to avoid addressing a point.

An interesting proposition that Google is doing something unethical by using the data you've freely given them in exchange for use of their services. Did you not realize that's how they made money? They aren't some humanitarian non-profit running a free search engine for the betterment of mankind, they are a market research and advertising company.

No, it absolutely is Google's data. You are not giving Google your search terms to store and your bank analogy is nonsense.

You need the government to protect you from Google? A company that you can freely choose not to do business with? Another interesting proposition.

You're sprinting with those goalposts now.

 

[ditcherman]

I know you're not familiar with Indy gun shops, but do you think a gangbanger is going to use a charge card to go in Don's Guns and buy 10 rounds of 9mm in a ziploc baggie?

Well, I mean, if it were to happen it would happen at Dons guns.

 

[buckwacker]

But the bank then takes your money and invests it in the stock market or mutual funds, etc.. That's how they can pay you interest on your savings account, CD, etc., so when you deposit it, while technically you're protected by FDIC or whatever up to a certain amount, it very much *is* the bank's money to invest as they see fit to meet their interest obligations to their customers. They're not investing it on your behalf. They're investing it on their behalf.

No, if I let a buddy use my truck to move his furniture, the truck does not become his. It doesn't matter what the bank does with my money, it's still mine, and if I tell them to give it back, they must.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

No, if I let a buddy use my truck to move his furniture, the truck does not become his. It doesn't matter what the bank does with my money, it's still mine, and if I tell them to give it back, they must.

Which is what I said. It's why FDIC exists. If they blow their investments and lose money, you can get your money back.

Let me ask you this. Whose money do you think they're making their investments with? You're insured against loss if they make bad decisions, but for all intents and purposes the money you deposit is theirs to use as they want.

 

[buckwacker]

An interesting proposition that Google is doing something unethical by using the data you've freely given them in exchange for use of their services. Did you not realize that's how they made money? They aren't some humanitarian non-profit running a free search engine for the betterment of mankind, they are a market research and advertising company.

No, it absolutely is Google's data. You are not giving Google your search terms to store and your bank analogy is nonsense.

You need the government to protect you from Google? A company that you can freely choose not to do business with? Another interesting proposition.

You're sprinting with those goalposts now.

You know as well as I that Google has not been forthright with their users about privacy or how their data is used. They have court judgements against them for this. They purposely obfuscate what they're doing so most users have no idea what they're doing with their data and privacy.

I don't use Google, or use it as sparingly as possible, because I found out a long time ago what they were doing. I've turned off every bit of permission I can find on my phone, and then we get stories, that they went around the permissions you set to take data anyway. It's wrong, but they get by with it because they've got a symbiotic relationship with many governments that are supposed to be protecting users, so they look the other way. It's not ethical, I don't care how vociferously you dismiss it.

So there's no need for any government regulation at all, because you can choose who to do business with? Come on man!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

But the bank then takes your money and invests it in the stock market or mutual funds, etc.. That's how they can pay you interest on your savings account, CD, etc., so when you deposit it, while technically you're protected by FDIC or whatever up to a certain amount, it very much *is* the bank's money to invest as they see fit to meet their interest obligations to their customers. They're not investing it on your behalf. They're investing it on their behalf.

The whole bank thing is a red herring. WTF does depositing money in a bank have to do with entering search terms in Google. Does anybody think Google is putting those words in a lockbox and keeping them safe for you? Is that why you're putting words in that little box? Storage?

No, you're putting words in the box so that Google can sift through their data to find a website that matches the information you asked for. It's more akin to asking the panhandler on the street where the nearest bus station is. The memory of you asking is now his and he can do with it as he pleases. Whoever hands him a quarter and asks what you asked about will probably find out.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Okay **** it. I'm an idiot and everyone else is right. I'm out.

 

[ditcherman]

OK, 3 parts -

The tool they are using, as described, seems reasonable to me, ie we are presenting you with a warrant for anyone searching for victim AAAA or their address in the weeks/months leading to their murder.

I get it.

---

Tools will be misused, always have, and probably always will be. When a new tool is brought to bare, of course we should be skeptical of its use. We (really the judges/lawyers/activists paying attention) should be on the lookout for abuse. Above all we should be distrustful when things are not open and above board.

I agree.
I don’t trust them.
There’s no way they’re going to not keep moving forward.
“4473’s aren’t a registration”. Until they are.

---

So, if one believes we wont vote ourselves out of this, what are the solutions for such a person?

Do we have to have immediate solutions? Can we be content living in an imperfect world, without some of the answers? I can, I’ve known people that couldn’t stand it, they’d rather jump to a wrong conclusion and pretend like they had an answer.

Tear it all down, or hide in a "bunker" and just hope you don't get caught in a fabricated charge. I suppose flee the country for some other place is another option. ANTIFA, boogaloo bois, some militias, etc. want to tear the whole system down, eliminationism/accelerationism.

They are under the bad assumption that the result would be in their favor, or even better than what we have now.

Agree. And once again, just because I don’t think we’ll vote ourselves out of a heavy handed government doesn’t mean I have to do any of those things. Especially when I agree with you that those things make us worse off!
I can wait for another option.

---

I don't advocate for that. I don't want to see this country slide into open conflict between tribes. So, for me at least, that means we do our best to push for accountability for those misusing the tools and make sure individual rights are upheld.

Too late, we’re already there in many ways.

 

[Tombs]

An interesting proposition that Google is doing something unethical by using the data you've freely given them in exchange for use of their services. Did you not realize that's how they made money? They aren't some humanitarian non-profit running a free search engine for the betterment of mankind, they are a market research and advertising company.

No, it absolutely is Google's data. You are not giving Google your search terms to store and your bank analogy is nonsense.

You need the government to protect you from Google? A company that you can freely choose not to do business with? Another interesting proposition.

You're sprinting with those goalposts now.

I disagree with this sentiment entirely.

You are a set of eyeballs on valuable realestate for companies to pay google to advertise for them.

And yes, when a corporation predates on the American citizen with nefarious objectives, the government should be involved to handle matters. They are in almost every other instance, but in tech the government is woefully naive and childish.

 

[BugI02]

OK, 3 parts -

The tool they are using, as described, seems reasonable to me, ie we are presenting you with a warrant for anyone searching for victim AAAA or their address in the weeks/months leading to their murder.

---

Tools will be misused, always have, and probably always will be. When a new tool is brought to bare, of course we should be skeptical of its use. We (really the judges/lawyers/activists paying attention) should be on the lookout for abuse. Above all we should be distrustful when things are not open and above board.

---

So, if one believes we wont vote ourselves out of this, what are the solutions for such a person?

Tear it all down, or hide in a "bunker" and just hope you don't get caught in a fabricated charge. I suppose flee the country for some other place is another option. ANTIFA, boogaloo bois, some militias, etc. want to tear the whole system down, eliminationism/accelerationism.

They are under the bad assumption that the result would be in their favor, or even better than what we have now.

---

I don't advocate for that. I don't want to see this country slide into open conflict between tribes. So, for me at least, that means we do our best to push for accountability for those misusing the tools and make sure individual rights are upheld.

I'm more a pitch forks and torches kind of guy. You don't have to tear it all down, just the Frankenstein parts of it

 

[buckwacker]

Which is what I said. It's why FDIC exists. If they blow their investments and lose money, you can get your money back.

Let me ask you this. Whose money do you think they're making their investments with? You're insured against loss if they make bad decisions, but for all intents and purposes the money you deposit is theirs to use as they want.

No, that doesn't make it their money. This isn't hard to understand. Just becsuse I deposit it in their banks with the understanding that they pay me a usage fee for loaning it out, doesn't make it theirs. If I put a stack of cash in a safe deposit box, it's not theirs. It's never theirs.

 

[ditcherman]

You know as well as I that Google has not been forthright with their users about privacy or how their data is used. They have court judgements against them for this. They purposely obfuscate what they're doing so most users have no idea what they're doing with their data and privacy.

I think the print is just very, very fine.

I don't use Google, or use it as sparingly as possible, because I found out a long time ago what they were doing. I've turned off every bit of permission I can find on my phone, and then we get stories, that they went around the permissions you set to take data anyway. It's wrong, but they get by with it because they've got a symbiotic relationship with many governments that are supposed to be protecting users, so they look the other way. It's not ethical, I don't care how vociferously you dismiss it.

So there's no need for any government regulation at all, because you can choose who to do business with? Come on man!

 

[BugI02]

I know you're not familiar with Indy gun shops, but do you think a gangbanger is going to use a charge card to go in Don's Guns and buy 10 rounds of 9mm in a ziploc baggie?

No, but in the hypothetical I set up I don't think that would be the primary target, either

Do you for moment think Carter Page was the target of the FISA warrant and the capture of Trump campaign communications was some kind of unfortunate accident? Or do you think the legitimate system was gamed to achieve the results they wanted

Why would this type of warrant be any different. Also, are the actual results turned over by Google subject to verification? What if the search was for white supremacist terms and Google happened to have some internal target they wanted tarred and feathered or the party in power with whom Google is aligned wanted a hit made on a target? It sounds like the 'truth' would be whatever Google says it is

 

[BugI02]

You know as well as I that Google has not been forthright with their users about privacy or how their data is used. They have court judgements against them for this. They purposely obfuscate what they're doing so most users have no idea what they're doing with their data and privacy.

I don't use Google, or use it as sparingly as possible, because I found out a long time ago what they were doing. I've turned off every bit of permission I can find on my phone, and then we get stories, that they went around the permissions you set to take data anyway. It's wrong, but they get by with it because they've got a symbiotic relationship with many governments that are supposed to be protecting users, so they look the other way. It's not ethical, I don't care how vociferously you dismiss it.

So there's no need for any government regulation at all, because you can choose who to do business with? Come on man!

 

[buckwacker]

View attachment 161965

Sadly, this is accurate. Just because it's so, doesn't mean that it is right.