Feds Ordered Google To Unmask Certain YouTube Users. Critics Say It’s ‘Terrifying.’
www.forbes.com
The federal government asked Google to turn over information on anyone who viewed multiple YouTube videos. Privacy experts say the orders are unconstitutional.

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.

  • bostonbananarama@lemmy.worldEnglish
    53·
    8 months ago

    Neither of these is reasonable.

    1. There certainly are situations where this could be reasonable; however, when your parameters return 30,000 people it’s not nearly tailored enough.

    2. To get a warrant you need probable cause that a person committed a crime, I don’t see how a live stream could meet that burden unless it starts prior to the arrival of the police.

    These are both abuses by law enforcement, or more clearly, a path that allows their job to be easier by infringing on people’s rights.

    • conciselyverboseEnglish
      6·
      8 months ago

      You don’t need probable cause that they committed a crime.

      You need probable cause that the search will result in evidence of a crime.

      Those aren’t the same thing.

      The first one is horseshit though.

      • bostonbananarama@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        8 months ago

        Yeah, that’s probably worded better.

        Assuming all they had was a live stream of police responding, and that it didn’t start before police arrived, which would demonstrate prior knowledge, I don’t see probable cause. It’s much more likely that a passer-by recorded it.

          • bostonbananarama@lemmy.worldEnglish
            4·
            8 months ago

            Being a passerby and actively engaging with the incident is way more than enough cause to identify and talk to them.

            Poisoning the well a bit by saying actively engaging. Sounds like they are passively watching.

            That warrant should absolutely be granted.

            Thoroughly disagree.

            It’s very different than geofencing an entire area. It’s specific…

            Ok.

            and directly connected to the crime, whether they committed it or not.

            Not so much, and they already, presumably have the video.

            That said, that person is also absolutely a suspect and should be looked at at minimum at surface level.

            Other than mere location, what reason do you have to suspect the person? You can look, sure, but I don’t see grounds for a warrant.