So you’re telling me that blanketing cities in CCTV over the past decade or so has failed to stop crime? And you’re telling me that you need more of it to stop crime?
What about session? It appears to connect to a peer-to-peer network and use onion routing in order to send and receive messages, does not require any kind of identification like a phone number, etc.
search warrant that required Google to provide the IP addresses of anyone who had searched for the address of a home within the previous 15 days of it being set on fire
I’m fine with this. It’s specific to an actual crime that happened, and not targeting a known individual or preventing something that hasn’t happened yet, “for the children” or some nonsense like that.
You’re fine with not targeting an individual and using blanket warrants instead? Even a judge said it was unconstitutional due to it not being individualized, and the EFF says it can implicate innocents. Even Google, who tracks and collects most everything, was reluctant to hand it over.
Sure, this reinvigorated the case, but it has an “ends justify the means” feel to it, which is a slippery slope. But you’re actively endorsing a less privacy friendly stance than Google, of all things. That blows my mind.
Everything must blow your mind. This is like going to a hotel and asking to see a list of people who stayed in the hotel last week because the suspect is probably staying nearby. Sounds like a pretty good way to get leads without asking for too much info.
Figuring out who searched for the address where the crime happened actually just sounds like good police work
This is like going to a hotel and asking to see a list of people who stayed in the hotel last week because the suspect is probably staying nearby.
And the hotel can deny to provide this information if it is an informal request. Only with a warrant will they forced to give up that list and a judge issuing the order will want some proof as why the police believe the suspect stayed in the hotel.
I am not a lawyer so I could be wrong about the criteria for the issue of warrants.
The police had a warrant for this information from Google. The problem isn’t what Google did, it’s that a judge signed off on a bad warrant and that the evidence obtained from it was still allowed to be used.
Yes I think that’s weak grounds. And so does the judge who presided over the case as well as several other judges who deemed the warrant as unconstitutional. The only reason the evidence was allowed was because the judge declared that the justice system broke the rules in good faith. I haven’t read the warrant request either just forming my opinion from articles on the issue.
I think that the warrant was issued on weak grounds because what the cops had was a hunch (a calculated one but still a hunch). They had no proof that the perpetrators/murderers searched for the apartment. It is not like they identified that searches for that addressed spiked at some point and served a warrant for those ip addresses during that spike. They just asked for all ip addresses in the last 15 days and that was because they did not have evidence pointing towards a search just a calculated hunch.
Edit : This precedent will have a lot of avenues for misuse. In States were abortion is banned, police can request warrants for abortion searches without the warrant specifying who specifically they are searching for and then investigate women whose ip addresses show up on the list. These will be woman whom the cops had zero evidence against, women who were not even suspects before an unconstitutional warrant like this makes them one.
This is like going to a hotel and asking to see a list of people who stayed in the hotel last week because the suspect is probably staying nearby.
Going to the hotel and asking is fine. It’s up to the hotel to protect their guests’ privacy in such a case. It’d probably be more productive if they asked the hotel staff about particular suspicious behavior that they’d personally seen, especially if they could narrow down the time frame, though. “Did anyone smelling like smoke come through after 11 PM last night?”
But the issue wasn’t what the police did - it was what the judge did. This situation would be more like if a judge issued a warrant for such a request without any evidence linking the hotel itself to the crime.
Getting a warrant for the entire guest list would not be appropriate, though - at least, not without specific evidence linking a suspect to that specific hotel. “The crime was committed nearby” isn’t sufficient. They need evidence the suspect entered the hotel, at minimum.
Sounds like a pretty good way to get leads without asking for too much info.
Sounds like a pretty good way to trample over the privacy rights of the hotel guests who’ve done nothing wrong.
Sure. On your side, you have your opinion. On my side I have legal precedent. You’re welcome to continue having your opinion, even though it’s unfounded and you’ve been told as much.
So you don’t have a problem with the judge saying well this is illegal but since it was done with good intentions it’s fine? I mean that is such a stupid legal precedent right there the cops are now allowed to do anything as long as their intentions are good.
Just people in a privacy community advocating for even less privacy than Google, who is decidedly anti-privacy, wants. The company who detests privacy and wants to collect data on everyone said, “this might be private and we shouldn’t go with it,” and you go “nope, it’s not, give it over?” I feel like Google is a very low bar to pass for privacy, and you still tripped on it.
So yes, no matter how much I experience in the world, people advocating for being taken advantage of or having their rights violated (which is what’s happening here) blows my mind, despite running into it semi-constantly.
Yeah, it’s a specific enough request that I don’t see any problem here.
Although, why the IP address? I would imagine most people using Google products would be logged into Google accounts. They’d probably know the exact account who made the search, rather than a vague IP that could belong to multiple people in.
Fair enough. I don’t think it’s common for someone to be doing Google searches without having an account linked to other services, though.
Anyone using YouTube, Gmail, etc. would be logged in.
And everyone with an android phone who uses google search would very likely be linked to an account, for example.
I just thought it would cut to the chase for Google to provide account holder info and not just IP addresses.
Then again, the arsonists could have very well used any of the other search engines to look up the address. So… maybe police aren’t aware that other search options exist.
It wasn’t specific to an individual criminal, though. Police aren’t allowed to get warrants for fishing expeditions, they’re supposed to find leads themselves and then get a concise warrant to evidence to confirm that. They searched people they had no right to search, and violated their constitutional rights.
Yes exactly. This story has echos of the guy who was hounded by police (and maybe even charged and convicted?) because he took a different route while cycling and rode past a house where a crime was committed. That, too, was Google.
if the firewall can be updated regularly then sure.
Mikrotik makes perfectly acceptable switches at a reasonable price with a variety of features, vlan compat is pretty common. A MikroTik CSS610-8P-2S+in will give you 2 10 Gb sfp , 8 x 1Gbe with PoE+ and vlans for under 300 bucks.
I’m not OP but that 'tik is almost perfect for me, going along with the RB5009 I already have. Is there something similar that can run RouterOS I wonder?
There definately is something. They have a ton of products. I’d have to look through my list as well. The CSS runs switchos lite, but honestly its fine. I can do CLI configs (brocade, cisco, cisco smb etc) but its whatever.
At my parents house i have been using a Mikrotik RB260GSP since about 2016 on their net. It also runs swos and im not doing anything crazy on it (in fact i never bothered with VLAN’s there though i probably should setup a guest vlan. But its been fine for years now.
People who use those characters benefit from it. I imagine 點看 is more useful than xn–c1yn36f to a Chinese person. That’s also why Google displays them that way.
It would be nice if browsers warned when International Domain Names were in use, and provided the option to disable punycode when first encountered.
Yes, because the internet is not restricted to English letters.
Just imagine you had to visit アップル instead of apple.com! And most importantly, would you trust yourself to see the difference that and say プッアル consistently without seeing the real reference?
Just to be clear, I hate it when the browsers hides part of the url too. Show me the https god damn! But internationalization is a good thing, as it makes the internet accessible to more people.
Most routers can have VLAN functionality if you flash them with custom firmware. You get allllll the settings then. I have a netgear router that now has an FTP server and a bunch of other stuff. All you have to do is make sure the model you buy has a chipset supported by the firmware. Firmwares include:
DD-WRT
Tomato
AdvancedTomato
OpenWRT
Chilifire
Gargoyle
I’m sure someone will come in and say that using a consumer grade router is naff, but in my (somewhat limited) experience working with managed switches in an industrial setting, a custom consumer router is much more feature-rich. Unless you need the IO of a managed switch (ie SFPs) I see no reason to go down that route.
If you are using SFPs, be sure to get the knock off ones that can be programmed - there should be places that sell them and program them at no extra cost. They can literally be 1/10 of the cost of the manufacturer’s own modules.
Well, there's a way to frame this as malicious. I'm not a fan of Brave, but it also installs, say, a spell checker without consent, or a Tor client. Sure, the code is there even if you don't use it, but... What's the actual harm?
The harm is that it’s installed. There is no reason for doing this. It can be done on demand in one second if the user subscribes to their VPN.
It also shows once once again that they keep on doing their shady shit and still cannot be trusted (or at least that they are a bunch of incompetent developers).
Firefox also installs telemetry and data reporting functions like most browsers, also libraries like libwebp, which are prone to critical vulnerabilities (as seen), encryption systems like Encrypted Client Hello, and software like Pocket, which some users never use, but it's still there.
Any browser will install many features that probably won't be used. Saying that a browser that installs a feature like Tor or VPN (which aren't even hidden, Brave publicly present those features) is automatically bad doesn't sound reasonable to me.
The point I'm making is that it's not like Brave installed the VPN in secret, hidden away to it's own devices. The code is there and a service is installed, sure, but it's dormant until the user activates it.
I mean, yes, it could've been differently, and as I understand it they're going to. But as a user, how is your life worse with this than without this? What's the impact of something being installed but not running?
They have failed one of their code jobs: validating advertisements are legitimate. I don't know why any legitimate company would advertise with google as you get associated with the scams they allow on their ad platform.
privacyguides
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.