The deeper problem is that old laws are being used to deal with new behaviors. This inadequacy will continue to grow as human beings and computers slowly merge over the next century or two, where at some point, “your Google data” will be more-and-more equivalent to “all of your thoughts.”
Those who say that this is justified because warrants were obtained seem to miss the point that state’s ability and desire to gather information has grown exponentially over time. And that’s why we need data protection laws, alternatives to Google, and other privacy measures.
The philosophical concept of embodied cognition is a good place to start on this issue:
I'd say that very much depends on why you believe the warrant process exists in the first place. I honestly don't know that much about the historical context of search warrants. Do they exist because philosophers of old believed in a right to privacy as an end unto itself? Or do they exist for some more practical reason, like because they were used for extra legal retaliation against enemies of the state, or for intimidation, or to go on fishing expeditions.
Or, why does the protection from self-incrimination exist? Is it because we are concerned that the government might have access to your thoughts? Or is it because the government would torture people to get confessions, and the people wanted to remove the incentive to do so?
Depending on your belief about this, you might feel differently about what should be done about this Google situation. If you believe the latter view in the second paragraph, for example, you might have no problem with the breadth of the search. In fact, you might not even have a problem with involuntary brain scans, provided they were proven accurate. As long as the rule of law is strong and the materials were used only for a defined and limited purpose, you might think it would be better if the government could compel the true personal perspective of the accused.
So this really enters into questions about each individual's perspective on the purpose and value of privacy. I think it might not be accurate to say that people who say it is justified are missing the point. They might just think the point is different from what you think it is.
The courts and law enforcement aren't the issue here. Google is.
Why do they even have this data-- deleted material, browsing histories, the content of voice calls? Why did they store it in the first place?
Google can't keep all of its own internal secrets private. The fact that information on you can be extracted via a targeted court order shouldn't be your greatest concern: The fact that they possess it means that it can likely be exploited or extracted in many different ways including via dragnet surveillance and espionage.
Just because law enforcement asks for it doesn't mean Google has it. They might just ask for it because many companies actually do keep that data, but Google provides in its privacy policy some fairly strong guarantees on data deletion. The documentation at https://policies.google.com/technologies/retention?hl=en is a good read to get an idea of what is kept and for how long.
Disclaimer: I work at Google, some of my work relates to privacy infrastructure, but I don't speak for the company.
Because you can sell targeted ad space for a lot more money.
Also they allow people to opt out of tracking, which is probably how they kept the govt off their backs thus far. But of course few people are aware and savvy enough to opt out of systems which allow it, which is why many want to change organ donation to an opt-out system rather than opt-in for example.
To the extent that Google has any of that data, they have it because the user wanted them to retain it. You probably never read your old email drafts, but people would be upset if Google deleted it without them saying to do so.
Everything Google knows about you is available for you to retrieve, delete, and often even change. You totally can selectively edit your location history. It's not a forensic log because that's not the utility users get from it. The fact that courts want to use it as a forensic log is their own damn problem.
Because their business model relies on your personal data?
The question is not why Google has your data, it's why you chose to continue using Google despite the awareness of such a scenario happening. As someone else commented, this article should be circulated far and wide, and people need to be educated on privacy friendly alternatives like ProtonMail.
Lastly, the courts and law enforcement are a problem if they knowingly overreach their limits. Protections against unlawful search and seizure and right to privacy are guaranteed by the Constitution
>— Cook County prosecutors drop all charges against Smollett, calling it an “appropriate resolution to this case.”
>“After reviewing all of the facts and circumstances of the case, including Mr. Smollett’s volunteer service in the community and agreement to forfeit his bond to the City of Chicago, we believe this outcome is a just disposition and appropriate resolution to this case,” the statement said.
WTF? Since when bribe constitutes a ground for dropping charges?
> WTF? Since when bribe constitutes a ground for dropping charges?
You mean fines? I mean, fines have been around forever, and everyone from the President down to the little guy has paid fines to have charges dropped. This is not a modern thing, nor is it rare.
It's more surprising that you are surprised by this.
Is this different in any practical sense to an old fashioned request for physical paper documents?
The only difference I can think of is traditionally documents are destroyed after they are no longer needed. Now they can see “deleted” documents and document change history.
i.e. emails stored locally on a personal or company server can be permanently destroyed. Traditional email systems won’t have a change history of the email writing process)
(I imagine all sorts of games could be played by lawyers with access to this additional types of information.)
> Is this different in any practical sense to an old fashioned request for physical paper documents?
Just that the measure of recorded data is perhaps several orders of magnitude larger that it was merely ~20-30 years ago.
I think back to my life in the 90s, and what information was recorded about me as I went about my day-to-day life, and it was minuscule compared to today. You could track who I called, but not what I said. You could track some of my purchases, but I used electronic forms of payment much less then.
Now, I text or message much more than I voice call, so that is all recorded. Every now and then if I want to get really freaked out I go to myactivity.google.com (I've got an Android phone and am otherwise "all in" on Google services) and, say, playback my location history, search history, or everything I've said to Google assistant.
I think we are really just coming to terms with the fact that "ephemera" no longer really exists, and the deep impact this will have on society.
Quality of the record keeping is vastly higher. Imagine a subpoena for every paper mail you sent in a year. You can't get that from the US Postal service.
No. The only difference is that you typically don’t put papers in the custody of a third party.
My dad at one point was an inspector general at a government agency. They would use records and “physical metadata” like building logs and receipts for the purposes of their work. The difference today is that your allowing many third parties to gather that data.
That’s the key thing. If you store data in the custody of a third party, it isn’t yours.
I (and we should all) act as if this could happen to anyone. Essentially that the state can deputize any company to snitch on the digital ephemera that constitutes our daily lives, but especially those that we are deeply engaged: Google, Facebook, Lyft, Amazon.
As such, we should not self-censor, but instead disengage from these proxy-cops and move to more distributed spaces.
State has a duty to prosecute law breakers. This is a load bearing wall of civil society. Everywhere.
Making sweeping general statements is good for riling up the mobs but I would implore HN readers to be more pragmatic about these things.
Look at the context. This person sought to ignite racial tensions for personal gain. He was given a sweetheart deal. The State is going after him and those protected him. They (the State prosecutors) have every right to collect and gather evidence to build the case.
>the state can deputize any company to snitch on the digital ephemera that constitutes our daily lives
this is not true, but in the way that makes your point much, much worse.
In the US, case precedent is already set that digital data that you don't physically own is not yours. IANAL, but my understanding is that the standards for digital search-and-seizure are lower for cloud services, not equivalent or (god-forbid) higher.
Queue the Google alternative posts. This is some terrifying stuff.
> not just emails but also drafted and deleted messages; any files in their Google Drive cloud storage services; any Google Voice texts, calls and contacts; search and web browsing history; and location data.
It’s clear you have no idea what this actor did. He staged a hate crime in Chicago and the main cook county attorney dropped the case after CPD proved it was fake. With your radical views, where do you draw the line? Will you vote to protect criminals, child abusers, rapist? All in an effort for “privacy”?
Whether it's Google, Microsoft, your ISP, a databroker, a webscraper, an unscrupulous app developer, or even your TV, I think it's safe to assume that one day or the next, every piece of content you produce, or topic you discuss will leak its way onto a major adcorp's servers.
I can hardly think of anyone I know that can't attest to the experience of discussing something as a non-sequitur, only to receive ads about it shortly thereafter. Even visiting an old friend with vastly different interests, never enabling location services, or connecting to their WiFi, I've noticed vast changes in my ad regime.
Decentralising your web activity can only make you less easily monetizable, but you'll never escape the panopticon, and Google can release data it got from third-parties just as easily as the data it collected itself.
If you want to say something you don't want Facebook, Amazon, MS, Google, or the state to hear about, do it in the woods or a private room away from anything digital.
I imagine that being distributed makes it easier to obtain the data for a person. If a court can't get data on a user from the the main server's owner, they might go after more vulnerable server owners that happened to be federated with the main server (vulnerable, as in less disposable income for lawyers).
> the [US] state can deputize any [US-incorporated] company to snitch
FTFY. I don't believe they have the same legal authorities to compel companies incorporated outside of their country jurisdiction to do the same, correct me if I'm wrong. This isn't the same as a sharing agreement done as a diplomatic quid-pro-quo however, which I'm sure also happens.
It could but it's more than likely not. In this case a crime was committed and possibly covered up. As much as I agree with you to move to distributed spaces and increased privacy, I think Google has an obligation to comply here.
I believe Smollette staged this, but the state should not be allowed to simply get a year's worth of his personal data without cause. This tantamounts to unlawful search and seizure and a gross violation of his right to privacy, both guaranteed by the Constitution.
As much as I disapprove of Smolette, we cannot let the state overstep it's boundaries and jurisdiction. They'll have to prove it while being compliant with the Constitution
if you were a witness or had a document that proved he was/wasn't at x place, you, as an individual, would be forced to testify. Maybe this is way overbroad but odds are that Google knows what happened, either by location data or via a search. I think Google should NOT be able to keep this data so such requests are mute by definition.
On the flip side of the loss of privacy: location and similar data can be used as a solid alibi if you are accused incorrectly.
How many people have been silently tagged as innocent because of their data stored?
That said, ersonally I find the loss of privacy abhorrent, especially because I have fuck all rights in the US (not a citizen, so the US government and US corporations can abuse my personal information with very little recourse from me or my own government).
Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.
When convenience comes back to bite you in the ass. I’m interested to see if and what Google releases and if there would be any different if Apple was asked to release the same information.
Does the “Ad” company have more data on an individual versus the “privacy” company? Or does it actually depend on the user opting in to give this data to said company?
This sounds more like a fishing expedition than a typical search warrant. I expect that Google fought or is fighting this request as stated as they have for others in the past.
"And if we believe a request is overly broad, we seek to narrow it -- like when we persuaded a court to drastically limit a U.S. government request for two months' of user search queries."[1]
If they refused to hand over 2 months of search queries, I guarantee they didn't just hand over a full year of all user data.
For anyone like me who didnt know about the case, this info is burried half way down the article:
>
Smollett reported that two men attacked him near his high-rise apartment in the Streeterville neighborhood on a frigid night last Jan. 29, slipping a noose around his neck and shouting racist and homophobic slurs.
Jussie Smollett files counterclaim against Chicago saying prosecution was malicious »
Smollett’s manager — whose Google account information has also been ordered turned over — called 911 to report the attack and met responding officers in the lobby of Smollett’s building. He can be seen on body camera footage reaching toward Smollett to grab the noose around his neck with disdain. “The reason I’m calling (police) is because of this s--- ,” he said.
But Smollett eventually turned from victim to suspect after an intense investigation by Chicago police detectives who used two brothers’ cellphone records, internet search history and text messages to corroborate their story that the actor paid them $3,500 to stage the attack.
Prosecutors alleged that Smollett staged the attack because he was unhappy with the “Empire” studio’s response to a threatening letter he received at work a week earlier. Chicago police took it a step further, accusing Smollett of faking the letter as well.
> not just emails but also drafted and deleted messages; any files in their Google Drive cloud storage services; any Google Voice texts, calls and contacts; search and web browsing history; and location data.
I've always assumed my email, Drive, Voice info, calls, contact lists, etc would be obtainable by a warrant.
But I wonder if Google would turn over things like browsing and search history, even if you never browsed while logged in to Google or searched, and also had explicitly turned off storing of this data in your Google privacy settings.
There is no doubt in my mind that Google, through the use of 3rd party trackers from "partners", analytics, and correlation can easily match my non-logged in web history and searches with the same computer and IP used when I log into Gmail or Maps.
Supposedly they don't tie this global "advertising profile" to your real identifying Google account, at least for the data provided to advertisers, but I would think it'd be trivial for Google to collect it all - every web page visited and for how long, every search you've made - and turn over the vast majority of it to the government, upon request.
In other words, Google probably does know nearly everything you do online, logged in or not, at this point.
Things like this are why I think that as time goes on storing PII is going to be seen as a cost rather than a benefit to companies... It'll take several rounds of public outcry to shift the mindset though.
Most of this nonsense could have been dispensed with if the original prosecutors hadn't tried to make the whole thing go away when it became clear that the original narrative was fraudulent. Hate crime hoaxes are terrible, because they undermine credibility when the real thing does occur. For that he ought to be nailed to the wall.
I imagine that for pretty much each and every one of us, a full year of data will yield something actionable by law enforcement or at least by traffic law enforcement. Who didn’t speed once (even while flowing with the rest of traffic)?
If we include dhs, then who, knowingly or unknowingly (go ahead and prove that) did not spend a few moments in proximity with persons of interest?
“Give me six sentences written by the most honest of men and I’ll find a reason to hang them” is more relevant than ever and I’m just imagining how much more can be found in the full surveillance trail of google services.
Suddenly the inconvenience of moving to an encrypted email provider like ProtonMail doesn't sound too bad. I don't particularly have anything to hide, but I'm sure a prosecutor could find something suspicious in my emails if he looked hard enough.
It wouldn't make my email completely inaccessible to the government (they could subpoena the sender), but would make it a lot less convenient to go on a fishing expedition.
For all people writing "is this different from physical documents?" the answer is yes. You have to think a little bit further than tomorrow. This is the perfect step for a totalitarian police government like China.
You don't want the government to control your money with taxes and your health with social insurance, so why do you want it to control every aspect of your private life?
[+] [-] keiferski|6 years ago|reply
Those who say that this is justified because warrants were obtained seem to miss the point that state’s ability and desire to gather information has grown exponentially over time. And that’s why we need data protection laws, alternatives to Google, and other privacy measures.
The philosophical concept of embodied cognition is a good place to start on this issue:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/embodied-cognition/
[+] [-] asdfasgasdgasdg|6 years ago|reply
Or, why does the protection from self-incrimination exist? Is it because we are concerned that the government might have access to your thoughts? Or is it because the government would torture people to get confessions, and the people wanted to remove the incentive to do so?
Depending on your belief about this, you might feel differently about what should be done about this Google situation. If you believe the latter view in the second paragraph, for example, you might have no problem with the breadth of the search. In fact, you might not even have a problem with involuntary brain scans, provided they were proven accurate. As long as the rule of law is strong and the materials were used only for a defined and limited purpose, you might think it would be better if the government could compel the true personal perspective of the accused.
So this really enters into questions about each individual's perspective on the purpose and value of privacy. I think it might not be accurate to say that people who say it is justified are missing the point. They might just think the point is different from what you think it is.
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nullc|6 years ago|reply
Why do they even have this data-- deleted material, browsing histories, the content of voice calls? Why did they store it in the first place?
Google can't keep all of its own internal secrets private. The fact that information on you can be extracted via a targeted court order shouldn't be your greatest concern: The fact that they possess it means that it can likely be exploited or extracted in many different ways including via dragnet surveillance and espionage.
[+] [-] delroth|6 years ago|reply
Disclaimer: I work at Google, some of my work relates to privacy infrastructure, but I don't speak for the company.
[+] [-] unishark|6 years ago|reply
Also they allow people to opt out of tracking, which is probably how they kept the govt off their backs thus far. But of course few people are aware and savvy enough to opt out of systems which allow it, which is why many want to change organ donation to an opt-out system rather than opt-in for example.
[+] [-] tylerl|6 years ago|reply
Everything Google knows about you is available for you to retrieve, delete, and often even change. You totally can selectively edit your location history. It's not a forensic log because that's not the utility users get from it. The fact that courts want to use it as a forensic log is their own damn problem.
[+] [-] throwGuardian|6 years ago|reply
The question is not why Google has your data, it's why you chose to continue using Google despite the awareness of such a scenario happening. As someone else commented, this article should be circulated far and wide, and people need to be educated on privacy friendly alternatives like ProtonMail.
Lastly, the courts and law enforcement are a problem if they knowingly overreach their limits. Protections against unlawful search and seizure and right to privacy are guaranteed by the Constitution
[+] [-] hamhand|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ComodoHacker|6 years ago|reply
>— Cook County prosecutors drop all charges against Smollett, calling it an “appropriate resolution to this case.”
>“After reviewing all of the facts and circumstances of the case, including Mr. Smollett’s volunteer service in the community and agreement to forfeit his bond to the City of Chicago, we believe this outcome is a just disposition and appropriate resolution to this case,” the statement said.
WTF? Since when bribe constitutes a ground for dropping charges?
0. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-met-cb-jussi...
[+] [-] jasonlotito|6 years ago|reply
You mean fines? I mean, fines have been around forever, and everyone from the President down to the little guy has paid fines to have charges dropped. This is not a modern thing, nor is it rare.
It's more surprising that you are surprised by this.
[+] [-] zadokshi|6 years ago|reply
The only difference I can think of is traditionally documents are destroyed after they are no longer needed. Now they can see “deleted” documents and document change history.
i.e. emails stored locally on a personal or company server can be permanently destroyed. Traditional email systems won’t have a change history of the email writing process)
(I imagine all sorts of games could be played by lawyers with access to this additional types of information.)
[+] [-] hn_throwaway_99|6 years ago|reply
Just that the measure of recorded data is perhaps several orders of magnitude larger that it was merely ~20-30 years ago.
I think back to my life in the 90s, and what information was recorded about me as I went about my day-to-day life, and it was minuscule compared to today. You could track who I called, but not what I said. You could track some of my purchases, but I used electronic forms of payment much less then.
Now, I text or message much more than I voice call, so that is all recorded. Every now and then if I want to get really freaked out I go to myactivity.google.com (I've got an Android phone and am otherwise "all in" on Google services) and, say, playback my location history, search history, or everything I've said to Google assistant.
I think we are really just coming to terms with the fact that "ephemera" no longer really exists, and the deep impact this will have on society.
[+] [-] raldi|6 years ago|reply
If it's sitting on a backup tape in a vault somewhere, they delete all copies of the corresponding one-time personal decryption key instead.
[+] [-] keanzu|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Spooky23|6 years ago|reply
My dad at one point was an inspector general at a government agency. They would use records and “physical metadata” like building logs and receipts for the purposes of their work. The difference today is that your allowing many third parties to gather that data.
That’s the key thing. If you store data in the custody of a third party, it isn’t yours.
[+] [-] 0xADADA|6 years ago|reply
As such, we should not self-censor, but instead disengage from these proxy-cops and move to more distributed spaces.
[+] [-] drevil-v2|6 years ago|reply
Making sweeping general statements is good for riling up the mobs but I would implore HN readers to be more pragmatic about these things.
Look at the context. This person sought to ignite racial tensions for personal gain. He was given a sweetheart deal. The State is going after him and those protected him. They (the State prosecutors) have every right to collect and gather evidence to build the case.
[+] [-] kryogen1c|6 years ago|reply
this is not true, but in the way that makes your point much, much worse.
In the US, case precedent is already set that digital data that you don't physically own is not yours. IANAL, but my understanding is that the standards for digital search-and-seizure are lower for cloud services, not equivalent or (god-forbid) higher.
[+] [-] abbadadda|6 years ago|reply
> not just emails but also drafted and deleted messages; any files in their Google Drive cloud storage services; any Google Voice texts, calls and contacts; search and web browsing history; and location data.
[+] [-] ryanmccullagh|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crocodiletears|6 years ago|reply
Whether it's Google, Microsoft, your ISP, a databroker, a webscraper, an unscrupulous app developer, or even your TV, I think it's safe to assume that one day or the next, every piece of content you produce, or topic you discuss will leak its way onto a major adcorp's servers.
I can hardly think of anyone I know that can't attest to the experience of discussing something as a non-sequitur, only to receive ads about it shortly thereafter. Even visiting an old friend with vastly different interests, never enabling location services, or connecting to their WiFi, I've noticed vast changes in my ad regime.
Decentralising your web activity can only make you less easily monetizable, but you'll never escape the panopticon, and Google can release data it got from third-parties just as easily as the data it collected itself.
If you want to say something you don't want Facebook, Amazon, MS, Google, or the state to hear about, do it in the woods or a private room away from anything digital.
[+] [-] judge2020|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] auiya|6 years ago|reply
FTFY. I don't believe they have the same legal authorities to compel companies incorporated outside of their country jurisdiction to do the same, correct me if I'm wrong. This isn't the same as a sharing agreement done as a diplomatic quid-pro-quo however, which I'm sure also happens.
[+] [-] Simulacra|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Y-Bopinator|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] throwGuardian|6 years ago|reply
As much as I disapprove of Smolette, we cannot let the state overstep it's boundaries and jurisdiction. They'll have to prove it while being compliant with the Constitution
[+] [-] onetimemanytime|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robocat|6 years ago|reply
How many people have been silently tagged as innocent because of their data stored?
That said, ersonally I find the loss of privacy abhorrent, especially because I have fuck all rights in the US (not a citizen, so the US government and US corporations can abuse my personal information with very little recourse from me or my own government).
[+] [-] frandroid|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] titzer|6 years ago|reply
Except you don't control them and could be faked and used to frame you. The power imbalance here is absolutely astonishing.
[+] [-] lonelappde|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bryanrasmussen|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vuln|6 years ago|reply
Does the “Ad” company have more data on an individual versus the “privacy” company? Or does it actually depend on the user opting in to give this data to said company?
[+] [-] gundmc|6 years ago|reply
"And if we believe a request is overly broad, we seek to narrow it -- like when we persuaded a court to drastically limit a U.S. government request for two months' of user search queries."[1]
If they refused to hand over 2 months of search queries, I guarantee they didn't just hand over a full year of all user data.
[1] - https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/7380434...
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sjcsjc|6 years ago|reply
Does anyone have an alternative source for this story please?
[+] [-] novaleaf|6 years ago|reply
>
Smollett reported that two men attacked him near his high-rise apartment in the Streeterville neighborhood on a frigid night last Jan. 29, slipping a noose around his neck and shouting racist and homophobic slurs. Jussie Smollett files counterclaim against Chicago saying prosecution was malicious »
Smollett’s manager — whose Google account information has also been ordered turned over — called 911 to report the attack and met responding officers in the lobby of Smollett’s building. He can be seen on body camera footage reaching toward Smollett to grab the noose around his neck with disdain. “The reason I’m calling (police) is because of this s--- ,” he said.
But Smollett eventually turned from victim to suspect after an intense investigation by Chicago police detectives who used two brothers’ cellphone records, internet search history and text messages to corroborate their story that the actor paid them $3,500 to stage the attack.
Prosecutors alleged that Smollett staged the attack because he was unhappy with the “Empire” studio’s response to a threatening letter he received at work a week earlier. Chicago police took it a step further, accusing Smollett of faking the letter as well.
[+] [-] hiram112|6 years ago|reply
I've always assumed my email, Drive, Voice info, calls, contact lists, etc would be obtainable by a warrant.
But I wonder if Google would turn over things like browsing and search history, even if you never browsed while logged in to Google or searched, and also had explicitly turned off storing of this data in your Google privacy settings.
There is no doubt in my mind that Google, through the use of 3rd party trackers from "partners", analytics, and correlation can easily match my non-logged in web history and searches with the same computer and IP used when I log into Gmail or Maps.
Supposedly they don't tie this global "advertising profile" to your real identifying Google account, at least for the data provided to advertisers, but I would think it'd be trivial for Google to collect it all - every web page visited and for how long, every search you've made - and turn over the vast majority of it to the government, upon request.
In other words, Google probably does know nearly everything you do online, logged in or not, at this point.
[+] [-] munk-a|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thrower123|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrei_says_|6 years ago|reply
If we include dhs, then who, knowingly or unknowingly (go ahead and prove that) did not spend a few moments in proximity with persons of interest?
“Give me six sentences written by the most honest of men and I’ll find a reason to hang them” is more relevant than ever and I’m just imagining how much more can be found in the full surveillance trail of google services.
[+] [-] Johnny555|6 years ago|reply
It wouldn't make my email completely inaccessible to the government (they could subpoena the sender), but would make it a lot less convenient to go on a fishing expedition.
[+] [-] aledalgrande|6 years ago|reply
You don't want the government to control your money with taxes and your health with social insurance, so why do you want it to control every aspect of your private life?
[+] [-] mellosouls|6 years ago|reply
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/judge-orders-google-h...