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.
Here’s the article without the paywall
So basically, the police were trying to catch a single person, and so the requested the personal details for all the user accounts that made up 30,000 views on a youtube video. Obviously, some accounts could have viewed it more than once, but we’re still likely talking about 20,000+ users whose privacy they were going to violate because it might help catch one single person. Absolutely ridiculous.
It’s important to recognize that the privacy violation doesn’t end with that one investigation. Plenty of people will say “I don’t mind if you violate my privacy if you’re catching terrorists and pedophiles.”
Once your information is associated with an account or an IP address, anybody monitoring online activity will have that info. The police don’t give back anonymity. Looking for an abortion? Legal marijuana? Your local polling place? A satanic book club? Maybe you have strong feelings about police brutality, or want to organize a union, or think billionaires shouldn’t be able to hoard resources. And that’s just the stuff your local PD might want to know about you. Maybe they share with other agencies, or political action committees, or kommunity organizations to which they may be members.
The police have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted. Protect yourself, and protect the future.
The show The Wire basically showed the police destroying by the thousands US citizens’ privacy to catch a few drug dealers.
What they have done to the least of us they will do to all of us.
In the TV show Blue Bloods, my favorite scene occurs when the Chief of Police confronts a cell phone company CEO. They portray him as a strawman and attempt to guilt-trip him into providing them with backdoor access to everyone’s phones.
I don’t recall The Wire ever showing someone innocent getting wiretapped. They always need a judge to sign off that there is probable cause for every single wiretap they get. It’s even a plot point a few times that they aren’t sure how to prove probable cause for a particular SIM card. Obviously there’s the question of whether or not drug trafficking should be illegal, but you have to accept the premise that the characters in the show are fighting the war on drugs.
I thought each “view” was unique?
The practice of deanonymizing individuals by cross-referencing bulk webpage visitation data within known windows of time that they visited those separate pages, while previously known to be theoretically possible, has now been shown to be actively employed by law enforcement. This emphasizes the significance of employing a VPN at all times and maintaining a high degree of separation between online identities to hinder comparisons based on similarity.
I feel like there are instances where if you’re watching a video before it’s hit the algorithm there might be curiosity as to why you know about something happening…
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?
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.
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.
