Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
dailymail.co.uk
dailymail.co.uk
AFAIK a warrant usually is tied to a specific person or a specific crime. In other words, if an explosion killed Harry McHarryface, then it would be constitutional to ask for names of people who searched for Harry.
Or if the fertilizer used in the bomb was shown to have been purchased on March 10, then maybe a search for "fertilizer" in the weeks before March 10 would be allowed.
But not a generic search.
Just my opinion that's not legal advice.
Edit: why am I being downvotes? The president explicitly stated his plan to ignore another SCOTUS ruling
People only think executive overreach is cool as long as they can ignore the downsides.
> The president knows this. He told the press that his administration had surveyed the opinions of constitutional scholars, and that most thought an extension would be unlawful. Yet under political pressure from the left, Biden nevertheless ultimately decided to issue the extension.
In other words: SCOTUS wrote words clearly indicating a ban would be illegal. By a technicality (expiration date), they didn't issue an explicit ruling. Biden did it anyway, while admitting he knew it was illegal.
And the administration gets to say they did all they could and it’s up to congress now.
Nobody alleged anything was unconstitutional. The question was whether the CDC exceeded the authority Congress gave it. The Court declined to answer that question when it was first raised. It answered it, definitively, the second time, striking down the moratorium extension.
Seems like they are kind of picking and choosing what rules they'll follow, and which rights they think people deserve
The Court originally declined to vacate the stay in a 5-4 decision. The fifth vote was from Kavanaugh, who wrote that he thought the stay should be vacated, but wasn't voting to do so because the moratorium was about to expire anyway. That concurrence is certainly informative, but doesn't override his actual vote to maintain the stay.
The second moratorium was quickly overturned, with Kavanaugh voting this time in accordance with his opinion. In any case, the administration did actually follow that ruling.
This is taken directly from the actual decision (the first round is discussed on page 4): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf
> The president knows this. He told the press that his administration had surveyed the opinions of constitutional scholars, and that most thought an extension would be unlawful. Yet under political pressure from the left, Biden nevertheless ultimately decided to issue the extension.
In other words: SCOTUS wrote words clearly indicating a ban would be illegal. By a technicality (expiration date), they didn't issue an explicit ruling. Biden did it anyway, while admitting he knew it was illegal.
SCOTUS said the moratorium exceeded the CDC's legal authority, but declined to strike it down given it was soon expiring [1]. (They also strongly suggested that if POTUS tried renewing, they would strike it down.) POTUS tried renewing. SCOTUS struck it down.
None of this is properly construed as POTUS ignoring SCOTUS. When SCOTUS struck down the law, POTUS obliged.
[1] https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/divided-court-leaves-evic...
At least other administrations justify their attempts to break the law and mount some defense.
for example, if the Court ruled that the Controlled Substances Act were unconstitutional, the government would be forced to free prisoners convicted of violating it, since the law was illegitimate the whole time. but if Congress repealed the act, they'd have no such obligation, since it was still a crime when the felony was committed.
The court doesn’t get to make law by threatening to make law. They have to actually do it.
You can't really avoid this either without throwing out judicial precedent because "knowing how the court will rule on subsequent cases" is basically the same as law.
But that's not law. That's consistent interpretation of law. Very different.
There isn't a mechanism to stop unconstitutional laws from being passed or left on the books.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-supreme-court-st...
I could certainly see the argument that it's ill-advised, and indeed, it was struck down a few weeks later. However, I don't think concurring opinions are binding and you could imagine certain fact patterns that might have changed Kavanaugh's mind: Congress agrees on a similar extension, but there's a short gap before it comes into effect, the situation worsens dramatically, the extension is much more narrowly tailored, etc.
It's not illegal at all. Making it illegal would never work in practice.
It is however supposed to be politically embarrassing and should in theory hurt your party.
However right now, in practice, due to the polarized two-party shit show that is US politics at the top level, it doesn't matter. The constituents haven proven to lack both will and tools to hold their elected representatives accountable, who in turn have learned they can get away with pretty much anything.
What could they have done to avoid a president who would behave that way? Elect Trump? Hah.
If I were placing blame here, I'd put at least part of it on the SC for not giving a real ruling on it in the first place. There was speculation about an extension in the air already at the time, and they could have cut that short.
We can probably figure out how to extract such data and cross reference it without making any of it available to random government employees.
Say you take pictures of license plates, store the data some place safe and allow a query of 5 recent armed robbery locations. If the result contains multiple cars matching 2 locations no results are returned. The moment a 6th robbery happens and a single car matches 3 out of 5 law enforcement can start looking for it immediately.
Sure, you'd get pretty mad if every time you get robbed the police searches your vehicle but they don't need to break anything and you will get over it.
Or I'll stop calling the police, especially if that first invasive experience doesn't end with my belongings returned.
Oh my sweet summer child. Calling the police is never about getting the belongings back. Calling the police is only about striking the perpetrator with violence, hoping that it would equalize the karma levels.
Or, you know, prevent them from doing crimes again.
It's a vengeance based system.
It should count for anything.
Unfortunately. But the criminal still can't commit crimes while in prison though. Vengeance just also means that solving the problem of any individual criminal is usually only temporary.
I often think we need to bring back something like monks who selflessly deliver a service in exchange for an isolated life of study and meditation.
We have way to many shit people who cant be trusted with anything and make poor company.
* A dude who managed solid D grades throughout elementary and middle school despite a good & supportive family life & voluntarily chose to hold himself back a grade (8th grade) to "have a better chance of a football career to get into the NFL"
* A dude who, for as long as I can literally remember, talked about how he was going to be some kickass marine. Talked about it all the time, for years. He was also a solid D (even in shop class) student & football player. Not only did he fail, to my knowledge, in every metric required to be a marine - he managed to fail, which I truly didn't know was possible, every metric required to be an army grunt - except presumably the physical requirements. It wouldn't be hard for me to imagine him failing a cardio requirement tho.
This dude couldn't get in the lowest levels of our fucking army. I really only thought you could be disqualified for things like admitting to drugs or having felonies, but he managed to fuck up some test of intelligence they require.
* & several generations of people who are similar fuckups like these two.
Now, what do people like this on a police force manage to get up to?
Last month, there was a domestic violence call somewhere in the town. By the time the cops got there, dude was out on the curb, in his car, with his kid (wife had said he had a gun and threatened her with it, he did not have a gun)
Police haphazardly blocked him into the curb with their cruisers, and surrounded him with their guns out, in a crossfire with themselves. Proceeded to scream absolutely incoherent shit at the dude, while he's in the turned off & parked car with his hands clearly visible on the wheel - kid in the back seat, for about 10 minutes. Dude finally decides nothing good is going to come out of this & decides to attempt to leave. Turns car on, very slowly tries to turn out of how they'd blocked him in, and very slightly bumps a cruisers bumper (nobody was in the cruiser)
One cop then randomly decides to shoot. Keep in mind, I earlier mentioned the cops put themselves in their own crossfire. I have absolutely no fucking idea how, but one cop shot the other cop in the shoulder. This was the very first bullet fired by anybody, and as stated, the perp didn't even have a gun.
Cop yells out he's hit, and then all cops present go fish in a fucking barrel on the car, with the child in it, to the tune of 67 bullets IIRC.
The local news &, as you can assume, all Facebook groups, report that the man opened fire on police, and that the cops had then killed him. All comment sections swarmed with the local painkiller addicted retirement community saying "good, he should be dead" - and that reporting is now unchallengeable canon in their dementia ridden but still able to vote minds.
There's still an ongoing investigation by the state as to how the chucklefuck cop managed to go full retard enough to blast his buddy, but having gone on so long I'm sure it's going to end up as another "we've investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing"
The service isn't "worthless"
It's downright fucking dangerous to anything and everything around it, like the person legally in the crosswalk, who was hit at 120mph+ by a cop SUV and turned into mostly red mist, no significant body parts to be found, by one of the squadrons of cops responding to the aforementioned call.
We could especially do without "the local painkiller addicted retirement community" saying and "their dementia ridden but still able to vote minds". That's a slur, and those are not welcome here, regardless of how wrong other people are or you feel they are.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
The article itself doesn't mention the speed anywhere - though this is my first time actually reading it. The reason I'm otherwise aware of the speed is because a family member is on the city council and also the head of our emergency department.
The officer driving died (at the aforementioned emergency room), first time I'm seeing of that. I was aware he was badly injured, but didn't think it was death. The front of the SUV looks just about like what you'd presume 100mph+ does.
> A cop going 120mph in response do a domestic incident doesn’t sound normal.
This is part of the point I'm trying to make. It's a common feature amongst small towns, especially in the MidWest, of cops being complete and utter menaces to society. He hit two other cars as well, fortunately no passengers were injured. None of which had to happen, all of which happened because of a cop wanting to go hero mode and break laws for a measly domestic call he wasn't even needed at. Responding to shots fired they say, not telling him it was his own men's shots...
Hilariously, not a singular article of many states anything about the fact it was entirely his fault. Box truck he slammed into was crossing the intersection with a green light, unaware of the cop barreling down the street without even turning his sirens on until he'd nearly hit him. Small town reporting for you I guess. Incident "still under investigation" by the highway patrol...
Tell us the one about the Long Night and the Others, Old Nan!
A lot of people I know who carry renter's insurance were unaware it covered their stuff like that. YMMV on what is and is not covered though.
Sure, though it’s worth noting that nothing prohibits the police from walking down the street and asking people. Those people don’t have to talk to the police, but…
Google will fight warrants like this. AT&T doesn’t. Other companies have varying policies on this.
Obviously, one can’t assume data is not available to law enforcement merely because the police would need a warrant to get it over a possessor’s objections.
How many keyword-search warrants have they fought? The article seems to suggest google has been providing data to the us government in the past and that this is an on-going collaboration.
They are already complying. It's right there in the article.
Maybe that is where the warrant comes in, to make it plausible that it is required?
I guess we'll find out when they arrest the first EU citizen based on this data.
See https://gdpr-info.eu/art-6-gdpr/ (6)(1)(c) (6)(3)(a/b) and https://gdpr-info.eu/art-48-gdpr/ (48)
That's not to say I know how a Google would react to a US warrant about an EU citizen (especially given the CLOUD act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_Act) but from what I can tell it's not permitted under GDPR
German law uses this to allow "non-public" controllers/processors (aka companies) to give data to German (and EU) law enforcement[1]. The police still needs to specify legal grounds, e.g. the investigation of a concrete alleged crime, and "drag net" investigations are generally not legal. The controller/processor has no obligation to give data to the police if they just ask, but it can if the police request is narrow enough and names the legal grounds. If there is a court order, that's another matter, then the company is obligated to provide the data.
But what about the US law enforcement wanting data about some German citizen within the scope of the GDPR and German law? A service provider is not allowed to give US law enforcement such data[2][3], but in this case the US law enforcement will usually use the mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) between the US and Germany to ask the German police for help, and the German police will then essentially ask for the data and (provided there are legal grounds) the service provider is allowed to pass data to the German police, which passes it back to the US law enforcement.
Legislation in other EU member states is mostly quite similar.
[0] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-23-gdpr/
[1] https://dsgvo-gesetz.de/bdsg/24-bdsg/
[2] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-48-gdpr/
[3] But it really becomes complicated when the service provider is under US jurisdiction (in this example). Then the service provider is caught between competing law of two different jurisdictions and is in the unfortunate position to decide what law to break.
This isn't really true. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act prohibits third parties from sharing electronic communications without a warrant. It doesn't matter if they are the legal owner of the data, if it is about a third party that has fourth amendment protections.
Search history, and Google's analytics about you, are a gray area, because you are communicating with Google, not using Google as a transport layer with an expectation of privacy.
Like, if the FBI asked me for my text messages with person X, I can hand them over if I want since they are my communications, but if they want the texts from my phone company they are legally protected. Using search is like texting Google.
Yet they always do! Weird how that works out.
This isn't a hypothetical situation - according to the LA Times, it's how they ended up cracking the Austin bombing case that involved the Google warrant [1]:
> Trying to find the buyer of the nails, officials “went to every hardware store” in the area to find customers who had made large purchases, and they struck gold with a Home Depot store in the Austin suburb of Round Rock, McCaul said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times.
> “The fatal mistake that led law enforcement to him — because he was pretty good at evading surveillance cameras — was when he walked into Home Depot,” McCaul said. Investigators obtained surveillance video of Conditt walking into the store in a wig and walking back out to a vehicle with a license plate connected to his name.
So I think there's a little more nuance here. Certainly matching a list of generic terms seems too broad. But a warrant for specific keywords that was limited to a specific city and time frame might be analogous to going to all the hardware stores in the city and pulling security footage?
[1] https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-austin-bombings-suspect...
Come back with a warrant
I'd get one, but I'm afraid someone would steal it.
Scenario: Hello fellow criminals. Instead of point to point communication, we will make random posts/pages that have our combination of words on them. So if you want to read our communication, do a google search for the exact quote "purple antelope shoe couch can squirrel."
Though some of those bomb searches could easily be made by anyone curious about past bombing incidents. I've certainly had some curiousity-based searches about how the Unibomber did his work.
How do we end up defining naturally? That's a question the court would ask, and want to be able to provide a litmus test for going forward. I'm not sure how we do that here... Statistical probability at some specific threshold? It's a difficult question.
I also looked up whether PLA can be made conductive and if it shows up normally in x-rays, to determine if I could legally 3D print the lower receiver for a handgun in my state.
...come to think of it, I wouldn't be surprised if I tripped some queries, and they just realized I'm an insatiably curious but harmless nerd and left me be.
But it's for a somewhat meta-reason: there have been numerous cases where something strikes me as blatantly unconstitutional, but the SCOTUS has allowed it anyway.
This is so difficult, more or less impossible. Prosecutors and LE will likely not bring forward a criminal case based on this sort of unlawful search, as the discovery would detonate the case if brought before a mildly competent defense. The defense would have a really great speaking season following the court proceedings if they were to catch such a windfall.
I speculate that these sort of illegal searches are conducted regularly, and serve to fuel parallel construction.
In the OP article, it says that LE "did not need to use these search warrants to find the bomber" whose picture is inline, instead they correlated his "unique pink construction gloves" to some home depot footage of his purchase, linking his identity to the purchase with video evidence.
I think it is very possible for parallel construction to provide the required leads to locate this video footage. The search warrants can be as illegal as the day is long, but their effect may remain invisible so long as it generates a lead which is not obviously poisoned fruit.
Honestly, my feeling is the moment judges and congress felt OK with actions even pondering such acts we had a fundamental democratic problem in our hands.
As they say if you put a cop car on someone's tail they are going to get a ticket.
"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime." -Lavrenti Beria, ironically, before his 1953 trial and execution.
Beria was a monster, hated by many of his countrymen. Who would argue against such a puppet trial? So long as justice is served.
I don't think putting people that want to inform themselves under suspicion is feasible and it probably should not be legal. This isn't conductive to solving crimes and has severe chilling effects.
This is historical - it is disclosure.
Talk about the constitution all you like, but was anyone in any doubt that they were already doing this? That they suck up all the data from media companies to have a mega-graph? That they are running accurate simulations of us (Sentient World Simulation), in order to better manage us?
And don't expect anything to change - Google et al could change this is a minute - they have the lobbyists to get whatever they want. They don't want. This is good for the government and the corporations. In fact, what's the difference? We are living in technocratic fascism.
It's not clear to me what would happen next but I can't imagine Pichai would be arrested. Maybe a datacenter would be raided (could FBI even guess where this data might be physically located?) but at least then some public action would have to happen and break the secrecy.
It's entirely plausible he was crooked, but he also claimed the NSA backed out of a deal with Qwest and then the insider trading charges showed up after he refused to comply with their (illegal) requests to spy on their customers.
Read the charge sheet [1]. Is it possible that the NSA walked over to the SEC and asked them to prioritise this? Sure, why not. Is it also pretty clear cut that he insider traded? Yes.
Read through Tesla’s history with the SEC, specifically Musk being immature and committing securities fraud on Twitter. They’ve fined him and the company, and there is no love lost between the two, but TSLA is still going up.
The twitter outrage over elon's comments are nothing more than a woefully uninformed public hoping to remove the tip without addressing the iceburg underneath.
If every one of your competition doesn't have to play by the rules, you'll find it hard to beat them playing honestly and you'll find that over time the only winners left are the cheaters.
- flow internalization which reduces liquidity on venues and widens spreads
- dark pools which is liquidity only available to institutions, therefore removing liquidity from venues that retail trades on
- market fragmentation which harms retail investors who don't have the execution sophistication of HFT or execution algos
- short sale restriction which harms retail traders who incur excess slippage
- allowing market makers to naked short sell but not retail investors which harms retail investors because they have to pay rents to access it
- trading halts which benefit institutions (over retail) who have the execution sophistication to handle unhalts and who can price warrants etc better while the product is halted
This is problematic not just because of the violations of those customers' rights, but also because it creates perverse incentives for the government to encourage the success of dirty tech companies as means to circumvent constitutional protections.
Thus while I don't doubt Nacchio's guilt, I absolutely think that he should have atleast been allowed to use that argument as a defense in his court case so that the Government is somewhat discouraged from using such tactics by the knowledge that it can come to light in court.
I do too. We just have no evidence this happened.
Any evidence regarding that was suppressed by the judge due to the possible revealing of classified information. This sort of suppression is precisely my objection as it effectively allows the government to operate with impunity.
I don't claim to know if the claims were true, I just think they should have been assessed in court.
If you want to see actual symbiotic entities, go look at social media in China or American defense contractors.
There is real downside to Google if it decided to go against USG's de facto interests, even if it technically has the de jure ability to do so. What is the upside? The only large company that has made an attempt to rebuke the general desires of USG is Apple, which has since backpedaled with its on device spyware.
Could this relationship be reformed through the little bit of leverage that US citizens have over USG? Perhaps. If you've got another concrete proposal aimed at doing do, then bring it up. But unless we're discussing a specific proposal, it's prudent for individual citizens to model the two as cooperating attackers rather than getting distracted with hopeful dichotomies such as "government" vs "private company".
You've defined symbiosis in a way that incorporates every person, company--and hell protected species--that touches American law. That makes the term useless for purposes of discussion.
A corporation literally cannot exist without a government charter.
Google is able to collect all this surveillance data with impunity due to the state. Google is able to wash its hands of responsibility for the results of its actions due to the state. Google is able to force its workers to be loyal (eg not embezzle for themselves or competitors) due to the state. Google wouldn't have such outsized financial resources without the state printing reams of fiat money.
Heading off the common retort that a private person can do whatever a corporation can do - the relevant issue is scale. It's simply impractical for an individual or a simple group of individuals to scale up to the level of a large corporation.
And yes, this definition does end up catching any corporation as an intrinsic organ of the state. While jarring (because in the US power flows both ways), this is still a fundamental truth. For example if you attempt to set up an LLC or corporation that operates at odds with government policy (eg selling drugs), you'll find out how quickly a corporate veil will be discarded. Actions that are at odds with government policy are defined criminally, and thus all corporate activity is inherently government chartered.
Of course all of this is only useful as a lemma to reach another conclusion. But that's what I was doing - why would Google ever choose to rock the boat? It's not impossible (cf Apple), it's just that there would need to be some explicit incentive for Google beyond mere citizens' hope.
Why don't we just condemn both? I mean... Google is going down the same path as the defense contractors and instead of stopping it from evolving into something like them, you're essentially arguing to look the other way
Ummmm, no. Correct response is courts and then comply. Pichai would lose his job in a minute.
The Board is not going to fire Pichai over this, provided he appears to be fighting through the courts rather than practicing outright defiance.
So if you followed https://www.google.com/search?q=my+asshole+boss+joe+schmoe to get to the .mil hosted bio page, they got to see that.
it never ever goes this far
This bullet killed Vicki Weaver, who was standing behind the door in the cabin where Harris entered.[108] Vicki was holding the Weavers' 10-month-old baby Elisheba.
Vicky Weaver was killed through a door by a sniper firing at someone else.
A sentence before the quoted one attributes the bullet to the sniper.
"Yeah in my last project I developed a web app based on BinLaden Framework and IsisDB"..
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2001/05/31/what_are_those_words/
They pulled this directly from "Die Hard", the Glock 26 is just a cut-down Glock 19, with a big fat metal slide being integral to the gun's functionality.
Unfortunately even in my circle of nerd friends, I was the only tech nerd. Everyone else was either an anime nerd or a M:TG nerd.
In all the years I played, I never really learned what "Type 1" and "Type 2" deck building rules were. I basically only played during lunch in high school.
After Snowden, it'd be naive to assume that the US government isn't still vacuuming up every possible source of data that it can.
It is also naive to assume that the various data brokers doing the same thing for commercial purposes aren't also open books to the various 3-letter agencies.
> ("fragmentation") AND ("bomb" OR "explosive" OR "ied" OR "explosion" OR "pipebomb" OR "pipe bomb" OR "PVC bomb")
Yet every time something happens it seems like the suspect was on law enforcement's radar and they did nothing. Odd. Oh well, I'm sure a bigger data haystack to find needles in will solve that. /s
That seems a little tinfoil hat to me. Like there are government people with lots of time on their hands to chase leads on things that are not related to a case. OTOH there seems to be a lot of pre-emptive searching going on, particularly in the area of terrorism related activity. On the other other hand, in that case I think we want them to foil plots before they are enacted right? It seems to be a hard set of concerns to balance. We could opt for the most privacy oriented approach, but I don't think there's much public data on what the consequences of that would be in terms of bad things happening.
Of course Daily Mail stripped that context.
> The information requested in this Application is being sought by the FBI, in part, to establish who searched for the Google Search Terms between January 1, 2018 to March 2, 2018.
> While I believe that a pool of individuals searching for these bomb components or methods during the time frame prior to the explosions at the victim addresses will be limited, the pool of individuals will be minimal if limited to searches originating from Texas. By identifying the users of the Google accounts or IP addresses of the devices that searched Google for these terms and cross-referencing that data with other investigatory steps such as cellular telephone records, a suspect(s) or witness(es) may be identified.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21077351/google-keywo...
My concern is moreso with the courts at this point. Nothing stops the fbi from fabricating a crime or having an agent go undercover and post something potentially harmful which could could be used to obtain a warrant on these broad keywords.
Basically: wide keyword searches periodically with overlapping time frames gets you continuous data while making it seem just like a standard home depot purchase and video review warrant. I'll admit it's tin foil, but my default assumption these days is that the gov is already sniffing any and all data; their challenge comes in generating legal pretense for having it when they want to take action or get caught with it.
I do miss the !bangs, so I have a browser shortcut to access those when I need them.
[0] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/04/goog-n04.html
It seems that they've recently removed some search terms from the blacklist. If I remember correctly, the terms I had searched originally were "qanon" and "pizzagate" , but those are no longer censored. "pedo" and "jailbait" still trigger the censor though.
I would not cite this as an example of why to use one search engine over another. It's a good example of why to use more than one search engine.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/10/04/googl...
https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-ci...
There's also a screenshot of one warranted search in the article that had no names/addresses/phone numbers. They wanted everyone that searched for combinations of "cardboard", "bomb", etc: https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/10/06/15/48837793-10063665... That's very "thought crime" to me.
Pre-internet, it feels like a warrant for anyone that ran their finger down page xyz of the phone book.
More like inquiring for / looking at certain books in the library. Which is something I'm sure happened all the time, historically.
Maybe, if "in the library" means "in almost every library in the nation for each warrant".
DISCLAIMER: We do not endorse bombs, explosives, (insert other key words).
FMD MI5 Pork AMTRAK New Federation Erosion Ansar al-Islam Suicide
attack Avian Hazmat MSCJ Chemical weapon ATF SABC CollapseIt's sort of like the license plate readers some communities have installed at the entryways to their community. Not only does it track people who aren't part of the community, it tracks all the comings and goings of the members, too. Oops.
If the information is there, it'll be used.
How we have fallen.
Of course it is not stupid to search for 'bombing mission' as there are thousands of benign contexts to do so. It is a crime to put people under suspicion like that.
It is wrong that you need to justify yourself before authorities. It is the other way around actually. In democracies at least.
https://sfpl.org/about-us/confidentiality-and-usa-patriot-ac...
We must take dramatic action, even at the cost of convinence and comfort.
This is one of the leading reasons why I think Firefox is a better browser than competitors because they don't allow this level of customization without hacking on the source code, like say Brave does. However not even Brave or Ungoogled Chromium is hardened as much as Firefox is with this user.js.
Is this verified though? I ask because Brave is known for some shady things, like pushing their alt coin or sneaking affiliate links into internet browsing.
Next up, "winnie the pooh" and "tank man".
These leaks seem... like they would get someone indicted...
There was a bomb cyclone off the coast of California recently. How many people searched for that I wonder?
social credit style systems can make a lot of sense here, eg: micro punishments and rewards
[0] Well, until you actually find CP - it will be placed in your browser cache then, so technically it's on your hard drive now, not a pleasant situation from a legal point of view.