Vault 7: Wikileaks Release on CIA Hacking Tools

That's a very misleading article title. They are not asking for a blanket search history. They are asking for a search of a specific term, between specific dates. I can see where this could turn into a slippery slope, but I personally don't have a problem with that warrant. It's like an Internet version of an APB for a specific car. If you're driving that make/model/color, you're probably going to get stopped and questioned to see if you are who they are after.

I'm having a difficult time agreeing with your thought process, especially the bolded. I think it is very different then being pulled over because I was driving a newer model black 4-Runner, similar to whomever "they" are looking for is driving. Say for example I am writing a book about a kinky sex murder and the scenarios I have been extensively researching on Google (and watching videos of) are strikingly similar to something that happens locally. Local PD get a warrant with specifics about the murder and my name pops up?

- Now I have to explain to them that I'm just writing a book and that it is a coincidence that my book is very similar to what just happened for real ?

- Now I am forced to come up with some type of alibi the time of the murder ? What if I don't have one, now I am a suspect???

- At a minimum I am going to feel the need to hire an attorney.

Seeking the browsing history for a specific person is one thing, but reversing that and doing a broad search of specific terms in the hopes of finding a suspect? That is something else all together.

I've been reading the links @Board and Seize posted on page one of this thread and am slowing changing my thinking on the whole privacy issue.


Police got search warrant for everyone who Googled Edina resident's name

According to the warrant application, Lindman said he had reason to believe the suspect used Google to find a picture of the person they believed to be the account holder.

Larson signed off on the search warrant on Feb. 1. According to court documents, Lindman served it about 20 minutes later.

McGeveran said it’s unusual for a judge to sign off on a warrant that bases probable cause on such few facts.

“It’s much more usual for a search warrant to be used to gather evidence for a suspect that’s already identified, instead of using evidence to find a suspect,” he said. “If the standards for getting a broad warrant like this are not strong, you can have a lot of police fishing expeditions.”
 
I'm having a difficult time agreeing with your thought process, especially the bolded. I think it is very different then being pulled over because I was driving a newer model black 4-Runner, similar to whomever "they" are looking for is driving. Say for example I am writing a book about a kinky sex murder and the scenarios I have been extensively researching on Google (and watching videos of) are strikingly similar to something that happens locally. Local PD get a warrant with specifics about the murder and my name pops up?

- Now I have to explain to them that I'm just writing a book and that it is a coincidence that my book is very similar to what just happened for real ?

- Now I am forced to come up with some type of alibi the time of the murder ? What if I don't have one, now I am a suspect???

- At a minimum I am going to feel the need to hire an attorney.

Seeking the browsing history for a specific person is one thing, but reversing that and doing a broad search of specific terms in the hopes of finding a suspect? That is something else all together.

I've been reading the links @Board and Seize posted on page one of this thread and am slowing changing my thinking on the whole privacy issue.


Police got search warrant for everyone who Googled Edina resident's name

According to the warrant application, Lindman said he had reason to believe the suspect used Google to find a picture of the person they believed to be the account holder.

Larson signed off on the search warrant on Feb. 1. According to court documents, Lindman served it about 20 minutes later.

McGeveran said it’s unusual for a judge to sign off on a warrant that bases probable cause on such few facts.

“It’s much more usual for a search warrant to be used to gather evidence for a suspect that’s already identified, instead of using evidence to find a suspect,” he said. “If the standards for getting a broad warrant like this are not strong, you can have a lot of police fishing expeditions.”

How is it not the same? They don't have a specific suspect, they have a suspect vehicle. Here, they have a suspect search term.

In your scenario, yeah, why shouldn't you be questioned? That's not enough PC to warrant some follow up questioning? I think so. If it's searching for a specific term, then it's not a broad search, is it? If they already knew who this guy was, they wouldn't need to try and figure out this piece of puzzle. Cops have a difficult enough job as it is. Now they gotta get raked over the coals because people want to pretend their Google search history is sacrosanct? Come on man. You know how many companies/people have access to that shit anyways? It's hardly private information.
 
You know how many companies/people have access to that shit anyways? It's hardly private information.

That may be the case, but I do not knowingly consent to it. In addition, it is one thing for companies to have access to my search history, it is another thing altogether for the police to find my name during a broad Internet search and suddenly make me a suspect in a crime where I need to hire a lawyer.

To add, I am not "raking the cops over the coals" in fact I am about as "pro-cop" as anybody I know, but just because the technology is available, does not mean it should be used for fishing expeditions.
 
How is it not the same? They don't have a specific suspect, they have a suspect vehicle. Here, they have a suspect search term.

In your scenario, yeah, why shouldn't you be questioned? That's not enough PC to warrant some follow up questioning? I think so. If it's searching for a specific term, then it's not a broad search, is it? If they already knew who this guy was, they wouldn't need to try and figure out this piece of puzzle. Cops have a difficult enough job as it is. Now they gotta get raked over the coals because people want to pretend their Google search history is sacrosanct? Come on man. You know how many companies/people have access to that shit anyways? It's hardly private information.
I was going to write something along the same lines as @Ooh-Rah but got side tracked. An APB, or BOLO is used for officers to disseminate information quickly. It is not PC for officers to conduct a traffic stop in most cases. Depending on the specificity of the BOLO, it may or may not provide enough information to allow officers to pull over a vehicle. Example, a violent felony has occurred recently and a vehicle and suspect description has been given in addition to a license plate number. Given the recent nature of the crime, and the specific suspect and vehicle information, LE would be justified in conducting a traffic stop on a vehicle with a driver matching the given description and given plate number. On the other hand, if a considerable amount of time has passed, and the description is vague (ie general description of a vehicle and suspect), then officers would need solid PC (a traffic violation) to pull the vehicle over and investigate.

According to the Google article, the local agency is searching for a broad search term versus a specific term. The name "Douglas" is not specific enough under any reasonable definition. Furthermore, LE didn't just stop at the content of the term, but wanted to
"include, but [are] not limited to: name(s), address(es), telephone number(s), dates of birth, social security numbers, email addresses, payment information, account information, IP addresses, and MAC addresses of the person(s) who requested/completed the search."
According to the information provided, this information goes well beyond the scope of a warrant looking for something specific. If the term had been more defined, like "Douglas/fund/transfer" or something to that effect, and the above information only provided to those hits meeting a more narrowly defined criteria, then I would have no problem with further release of the specific user information. The problem is that the scope is so broad that it grants too much flexibility and access to the local agency. As it stands now, anyone searching on any name with Douglas in it (Douglas MacArthur, Michael Douglas, Douglas Adams, Kirk Douglas, Fredrick Douglas, ect...) are suspect in a wire fraud case. See where I am going? Anyone searching for actors, to historic figures would be a suspect in a felony investigation. The search term is entirely too broad. It would be akin to a judge granting a search warrant for "contraband" instead of something specific like, guns, narcotics, or something similar. Allowing this search to go forward sets a dangerous legal precedent that could later be used to go after "subversive thinking".

Oh, and while I agree peoples search history is not necessarily sacrosanct, searching for information is also not prima fascia evidence that a crime has occurred either. Companies had access to the information only because a user has visited that company's website and exchanged that information for whatever info is on the company site. I am not suggestion that the government not have access to that information, but they should be required to show due cause for the acquisition of that info.
 
Kinda sorta off-topic, but somewhat relevant -

If a person is pulled over because their vehicle fits a specific description, does that give probable cause so that they can they be arrested/charged for something else? ie: DWI, expired license, etc.

Same question then for internet searches. If the police don't find what they are looking for in their search, but they do see evidence of a different crime, can that info be used?

On that same line, is "incognito mode" on the iPhone really private, or does it simply not to tie your searches to your search history?
 
Kinda sorta off-topic, but somewhat relevant -

If a person is pulled over because their vehicle fits a specific description, does that give probable cause so that they can they be arrested/charged for something else? ie: DWI, expired license, etc.

Same question then for internet searches. If the police don't find what they are looking for in their search, but they do see evidence of a different crime, can that info be used?

On that same line, is "incognito mode" on the iPhone really private, or does it simply not to tie your searches to your search history?
For the first part, (and forgive me in advance cause the wording can be tricky) if they are pulled over because they match a BOLO (assuming the officer had PC to pull them over), but evidence of another crime is in plain view (drugs or guns in the seat or out in the open) then the officer can make an arrest based on the Plain View Doctrine. Using your example, the officer would have to use the DWI as the pretext for the stop, in which case he would be justified in pursing the DWI while confirming the BOLO. However, lets simplify your example. Lets say the vehicle is pulled over for a broken tag/tail light. While making contact with the driver they discover that the subject is not part of the active BOLO. The tag light in and of itself does not give the officer the authority to search the vehicle. If other evidence of a crime is observed in plain view (bloody instrument, guns, drugs, ect...) the the officer would have PC to search the vehicle. In essence, each crime must follow its own legal path before an arrest can be made. However, PC can grant permission, in limited circumstances, that allow other crimes to be investigated in parallel. For example, the broken tag/tail light would not grant PC for a search, but allows to become the pretext for a stop. Once the stop is made, and evidence of a crime is otherwise discovered legally, then those crimes can be pursued through other means. The delicate nature of our laws and procedures is why an entire case can hinge on a single, simple violation like a tag light. If the pretext for the stop is invalidated, then anythign discovered afterwards can be thrown out.

I hope that makes sense and I didn't confuse the question. It can sometimes confuse even the most seasoned LEOs (of which I am most certainly not). If others more seasoned than myself care to chime in and correct me then feel free to.

As to the second part, generally speaking, the same should apply to internet searches unless and until a court makes a ruling on that specific topic.
 
That may be the case, but I do not knowingly consent to it. In addition, it is one thing for companies to have access to my search history, it is another thing altogether for the police to find my name during a broad Internet search and suddenly make me a suspect in a crime where I need to hire a lawyer.

To add, I am not "raking the cops over the coals" in fact I am about as "pro-cop" as anybody I know, but just because the technology is available, does not mean it should be used for fishing expeditions.

No one knowingly consents to a search warrant either. That's why we have judges to provide the check and balance of whether or not the police request is valid enough to issue a warrant.

To clarify, I am not singling you out as raking cops over the coals. Apologies if it came off that way.
 
To clarify, I am not singling you out as raking cops over the coals. Apologies if it came off that way.

It didn't. In fact I need to take a step back from this whole topic and regroup...up until about a week ago I was of the mindset, "I don't care what they see, I didn't do anything wrong.". My thoughts on the subject are all over the place now.
 
In fact I need to take a step back from this whole topic and regroup...up until about a week ago I was of the mindset, "I don't care what they see, I didn't do anything wrong.". My thoughts on the subject are all over the place now.

Cognitive dissonance man. We've been indoctrinated (and I mean that purely descriptively, not pejoratively) into the orthodoxy (from the Greek, parses literally as proper thought - kind of makes you think of political correctness, as in toeing the literal party line, and New Speak) of modern, western society. This entails a whole range of doctrines, for example:
  • more education is the solution to ______ (everything?)
  • public education serves us, the citizenry
  • government is inherently benign, and shares interest with the citizenry
  • our systems aren't corrupt (maybe those 'unenlightened' people wherever else are... see point about education above)
  • our politicians wouldn't straight-up lie to us about major issues
  • our government wouldn't abuse our good faith with the powers we've granted it (or it has seized, or magicked out of thin air)
  • and so on
Now, I'm painting an extreme picture, but I think it demonstrates my point. Some deeply foundational (to your worldview / identity) belief(s) has just been shown false. You are in the process of reducing the dissonance now, and it sounds like you are doing it by changing that belief(s).

I've been through this process a couple of times myself - anyone committed to rationality must. We all have stuff buried deep down that is just, plain wrong.

Time for a digression into personal anecdote:
Back when I was instructing CQB, my school house was in the process of updating our TTPs which were basically unchanged from the late 80's. Remember hanging an ammo can around your neck and holding a canteen between your knees while you 'combat glide'? Yeah. Body mechanics, ergonomics, what?

Anyways, I had found and hired Mike Pannone, and planned a 1 week instructor sustainment training with him. I was so pleased with myself from being 'out of the box', finding Mike, and was excited for him to come out and confirm how awesome I was.

So he comes out, and we hang out and talk that first night. Wow. If you've never had the opportunity to train with Mike, you're missing out. His 'specialty' (my designation/description) is a radical pursuit of perfection/optimization. He critically assesses his performance in some task, and asks if he is doing it the best way possible. If not, why not, and how can he improve. This might not sound that radical, but the level Mike takes this process to is rare.

Finally, full of myself and ready for some cred/cool by association, we head out to the range. Incidentally it is my birthday. Over the next 8 hours or so, Mike exposed bad habit after bad habit. He exposed unconsidered dogmas that had been pounded into me since boot camp - I thought I had found and eradicated all of those. (Things like the commonly taught, and completely wrong/mis-characterized notion of fine and gross motor movement - "Don't use your thumb to release the bolt! That's fine motor movement!" Apparently, in a firefight, your thumb stops working so you should use your palm instead, never mind the convenient depression in the middle of your palm that will cause you to fail. Never mind that the location of the bolt release was intentionally located so that you could sweep your thumb whilst holding the mag well.)

Long story short, I suffered some fair amount of cognitive dissonance that day - I felt like crying. But in the end, I became a far better shooter and instructor as a result.

Return from digression:
@Ooh-Rah, I'd challenge you to take advantage of this opportunity. There aren't too many occasions in most of our lives when the socially constructed fabric of the world we live in seems to unravel. These are opportunities to peer behind the curtain, as it were, into yourself - what you believe and why.

Take this as a change to update and upgrade your Web of Belief (fascinating paper if you're into epistemology, but Section I, The Metaphor on pdf page 2 is all you need here - ~5 min read).

Interrogate your beliefs - especially the ones that normally you don't even notice.

Good luck to you, oh intrepid psychonaut! (not referencing drugs and altered mental states, but etymology - 'mental explorer' or 'navigator of the soul')
 
Trigger Warning: Apple users' sense of invulnerability to hacking is about to melt down... Oh, what a world, what a world!

Which I have "soapboxed" for years now causing the fanbois to lose their minds and provide the only rebuttal they know: bag on Microsoft. We aren't talking about MS, we're talking about how Apple isn't the magic bullet everyone states. MS v. Apple is like Obama v. Trump in the emotional content department.
 

Wow. First time I've been Wik Rolled. Text rolled?

MS v. Apple is like Obama v. Trump

It's the old false dichotomy. From the wikipedia page on Neal Stephenson's In the Beginning... Was the Command Line:
He compares four operating systems, Mac OS by Apple Computer to a luxury European car, Windows by Microsoft to a station wagon, Linux to a free tank, and BeOS to a batmobile. Stephenson argues that people continue to buy the station wagon despite free tanks being given away, because people do not want to learn how to operate a tank; they know that the station wagon dealership has a machine shop that they can take their car to when it breaks down... He compares Microsoft to Disney, in that both are selling a vision to their customers, who in turn "want to believe" in that vision.
 
Back
Top