this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
952 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

59039 readers
3763 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 90 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Why, would you look at that - apparently surveillance is fine and dandy, as long as it's the US doing it. Fucking hypocrites.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The article LITERALLY says the opposite

[–] [email protected] 44 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Someone with enough reading comprehension to take that tone would have understood it was criticism of the federal government's hypocrisy and that critics complaining is not the same thing as a law or the courts agreeing.