Google was ordered to identify people who watched certain YouTube videos. Privacy experts say the orders are unconstitutional. - eviltoast

If the linked article has a paywall, you can access this archived version instead: https://archive.ph/zyhax

The court orders show the government telling Google to provide the names, addresses, telephone numbers and user activity for all Google account users who accessed the YouTube videos between January 1 and January 8, 2023. The government also wanted the IP addresses of non-Google account owners who viewed the videos.

“This is the latest chapter in a disturbing trend where we see government agencies increasingly transforming search warrants into digital dragnets. It’s unconstitutional, it’s terrifying and it’s happening every day,” said Albert Fox-Cahn, executive director at the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project. “No one should fear a knock at the door from police simply because of what the YouTube algorithm serves up. I’m horrified that the courts are allowing this.” He said the orders were “just as chilling” as geofence warrants, where Google has been ordered to provide data on all users in the vicinity of a crime.

  • Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    My theory for #1 is that it’s an unlisted video targeted at extremists or maybe a “How to make an illegal item” guide

    Which I also think can be reasonable

    • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      8 months ago

      It shouldn’t be illegal to learn how to make something illegal. I’m not allowed to build a nuke or a fully automatic assault rifle, but I should still be able to learn how they function.

    • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      8 months ago

      Sounds like it wasn’t really illegal (just a mapping / drone thing), as well as the behavior they were looking into wasn’t something that was for-certain illegal (just trading cash for crypto, which is I guess “illegal adjacent” but not in itself illegal). IDK. The story as it was told was a little confusing / didn’t completely make sense to me on the face of it as the complete story.

      • OpenTTD@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah, this is hella sketchy. I don’t plan on ever using Google’s services again, but now I legit have to worry about all centralized websites in the US? I’ve been impressed with Biden at many points and screw Trump, but this is not a good look for the Biden Administration.