zlacker

[return to "Google ordered to identify who watched certain YouTube videos"]
1. addict+J6[view] [source] 2024-03-23 02:39:20
>>wut42+(OP)
There are different incidents here.

The first one where the police uploaded videos and wanted viewer information is absolutely egregious and makes me wonder how a court could authorize that.

The next one, which I didn’t fully understand, but appeared to be in response to a swatting incident where the culprit is believed to have watched a specific camera livestream and the police provided a lot of narrowing details (time period, certain other characteristics, etc) appears far more legitimate.

◧◩
2. godels+Zb[view] [source] 2024-03-23 03:52:38
>>addict+J6
I don't understand how either of these are remotely constitutional. They sure aren't what is in the spirit.

They asked for information about a video watched 30k times. Supposing every person watched that video 10 times AND supposing the target was one of the viewers (it really isn't clear that this is true), that's 2999 people who have had their rights violated to search for one. I believe Blackstone has something to say about this[0]. Literally 30x Blackstone's ratio, who heavily influenced the founding fathers.

I don't think any of this appears legitimate.

Edit: Ops [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio

◧◩◪
3. mingus+kd[view] [source] 2024-03-23 04:10:21
>>godels+Zb
Cell phone tower data has been used for a decade now in pretty much the same way.

Did you happen to pass by a cell tower in a major city around the time a crime was committed? We all have.

Well, your IEMI was included in a cell tower dump. Probably dozens of times.

Did you happen to drive your car over any bridge in the Bay Area lately? Did a municipal vehicle pass you and catch your license plate with their ALPR camera?

Guess what? Your name went through a database of an LEO search if they wanted to find a perp for that time/location.

Privacy has been dead for a long time. The worst part is people don’t care.

The Snowden files changed nothing. If there was ever a point in history where people would have given up their cell phones for their civil liberties, that would have been the time to do it.

◧◩◪◨
4. godels+bg[view] [source] 2024-03-23 04:54:06
>>mingus+kd
> Cell phone tower data has been used for a decade now in pretty much the same way.

I was mad then. I'm more mad now. Stop these arguments because it isn't like one implies the other. And who the fuck cares if someone wasn't but is now. What's the argument, that you're a hipster? That's not solving problems. I don't want to gatekeep people from joining the movement to protect rights. I don't care if they joined as a tin foil hat or just yesterday after having literally been complacent in these atrocities. If you're here now, that's what matters.

> Privacy has been dead for a long time. The worst part is people don’t care.

Bull, and bull.

There are plenty of people fighting back. I'm pretty sure me getting ads in languages I don't speaks is at least some good sign. Maybe I can't beat the NSA, sure, but can I beat mass surveillance? Can I beat 10%? 50%? 80%? 1% is better than 0% and privacy will die when we decide everything is binary.

People care. People are tired. People feel defeated. These are different things. If people didn't care Apple (and even Google) wouldn't advertise themselves as privacy conscious. Signal wouldn't exist and wouldn't have 50 million users. It's not time to lay down and give up.

> mingus88 36 minutes ago | parent | context | flag | on: Google Ordered to Identify Who Watched Certain You...

Cell phone tower data has been used for a decade now in pretty much the same way.

Did you happen to pass by a cell tower in a major city around the time a crime was committed? We all have.

Well, your IEMI was included in a cell tower dump. Probably dozens of times.

Did you happen to drive your car over any bridge in the Bay Area lately? Did a municipal vehicle pass you and catch your license plate with their ALPR camera?

Guess what? Your name went through a database of an LEO search if they wanted to find a perp for that time/location.

Privacy has been dead for a long time. The worst part is people don’t care.

> The Snowden files changed nothing.

They didn't change enough, but that isn't nothing.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. alfied+op[view] [source] 2024-03-23 07:21:43
>>godels+bg
> > The Snowden files changed nothing. >They didn't change enough, but that isn't nothing.

The biggest change IMHO was the entire industry got off their collective assets to finally move to HTTPS.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. whatsh+Tu[view] [source] 2024-03-23 08:56:46
>>alfied+op
I wonder who's going to have to end up hiding out in a US-hostile part of the world for us to read this part of the cloudflare FAQ: https://developers.cloudflare.com/ssl/troubleshooting/faq/#w...
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. wutwut+vz[view] [source] 2024-03-23 10:11:55
>>whatsh+Tu
The world’s largest MITM
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. chgs+cA[view] [source] 2024-03-23 10:20:33
>>wutwut+vz
Tech bros love it. And tailscale. And saas as a whole. Data sovereignty means you can’t be kind by the adtech industry so it’s not cool.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. vitno+oH[view] [source] 2024-03-23 11:53:06
>>chgs+cA
Calling out tailscale here is odd considering it's peer-to-peer and encrypted.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. chgs+MH[view] [source] 2024-03-23 11:59:18
>>vitno+oH
With keys controlled by a central entity
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
11. Handpr+ML[view] [source] 2024-03-23 12:40:42
>>chgs+MH
do you have a source for that?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨
12. mikeho+yY[view] [source] 2024-03-23 14:43:30
>>Handpr+ML
Tailscale [0] says the private keys never leave the device.

“Security

Tailscale and WireGuard offer identical point-to-point traffic encryption.

Using Tailscale introduces a dependency on Tailscale’s security. Using WireGuard directly does not. It is important to note that a device’s private key never leaves the device and thus Tailscale cannot decrypt network traffic. Our client code is open source, so you can confirm that yourself.”

0. https://tailscale.com/compare/wireguard

[go to top]