[HN Gopher] Google handed ICE student journalist's bank and cred...
___________________________________________________________________
Google handed ICE student journalist's bank and credit card numbers
Author : lehi
Score : 519 points
Date : 2026-02-10 17:48 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (theintercept.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (theintercept.com)
| jmclnx wrote:
| I left google search for duckduckgo a few years ago due to all
| the marketing drivel returned. I guess there is yet another,
| better reason, to avoid google.
|
| As for gmail, it joined my old yahoo mail as a dumping ground. If
| some site wants an email, they get my gmail address, which I
| never go to these days.
|
| But how did google get this person's info ? Are they spying on
| their emails, or worse yet, are they scraping data for apps you
| installed on your android phone ?
| Forgeties79 wrote:
| Just wish I could get off gcal. Too many friends/family on it
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Google Calendar is pretty cross-compatible.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICalendar
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| Fastmail's calendar works reasonably well. My two complaints
| with it:
|
| - There isn't a convenient calendar widget; Google's calendar
| widget only works with Google's calendar. I'd like something
| _exactly_ like Google 's calendar widget but working with
| Fastmail's calendar.
|
| - Sites that integrate with Google Calendar but not with
| arbitrary CalDAV servers.
|
| I could live without the latter, but the former is a
| dealbreaker; I'd switch given a functional widget that is
| fully self-contained and doesn't require some separate sync
| app.
| starik36 wrote:
| What do you think is going to happen when DDG or Fastmail gets
| a FISA warrant? You think they will stand their ground and go
| to prison to protect your info?
|
| History (like the PRISM project) says no.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| The article indicates even Meta pushed back on some of these:
|
| > Unlike Thomas-Johnson, users in that case were given the
| chance to fight the subpoena because they were made aware of
| it before Meta complied.
| yborg wrote:
| Fastmail is Australian, though?
| hsuduebc2 wrote:
| The famous "Don't be evil" ia more and more ironic. But to be
| honest, if they got the court order there is really nothing's
| they could do.
|
| In this case you should blame the game not the player.
| Anonbrit wrote:
| Several companies have resisted these court orders
| successfully. Google can afford a lawyer to go over the order
| with a fine tooth comb if they wanted to - it's just easier to
| roll over and let the government rub their belly.
|
| Trump has also repeatedly used government apparatus to
| illegally retaliate against companies and individuals for not
| going hos way, with no consequence, so it is hard to entirely
| blame corporations for behaving that way
| agilob wrote:
| They changed the motto to "do the right thing", because,
| apparently "evil" is too ambiguous. "Do the right thing" is
| more suitable motto for a company whos CEO was a buddy of
| Epstein. Tech CEOs helped get Trump elected and strengthen ICE
| regime to protect the billionaires, they were all involved.
| hsuduebc2 wrote:
| That was really their argument?
|
| Quite contrary, the "right thing" is the ambiguous one. I
| think that most people agree what is evil. Certainly much
| more than what is right.
| Filligree wrote:
| Were they legally required to?
| diego_moita wrote:
| Probably so. But what relevance does "legally required" have in
| a country sliding into autocracy?
| everforward wrote:
| It reflects even worse on Google for vacuuming up and keeping
| the data.
|
| They can't really refuse to hand over the data, but they
| could purge and stop collecting identifying data on
| Americans. As is, they are tacitly complicit by collecting
| data they know will be used against protesters.
| mikae1 wrote:
| _> they could purge and stop collecting identifying data on
| Americans._
|
| That's their entire business model though...
| wyager wrote:
| Let's be real, if a bigtech ignored judicial orders, whether
| you would describe it as "fighting autocracy" or "corporate
| fascism" is 100% dependent on who is currently in office
|
| Google is a multi trillion dollar company, not a scrappy
| libertarian upstart ready to gamble everything in court
| zzzeek wrote:
| giant private companies like Google are not ever going to be
| involved with defying court orders, especially ones that do
| lots of business with the federal government (which will be
| just about any company even half of google's size). You can
| say it's wrong or whatever but it's like asking a brick wall
| to do an Irish jig.
|
| The only solution to this problem is for the US to have a
| vastly more active anti-monopoly regime so that companies
| like Google, Facebook, Amazon etc. are simply not allowed to
| exist at such scales where consumers are locked into them.
| riku_iki wrote:
| it depends if potential reputation damage is high.
|
| Apple was fighting for user's privacy: https://en.wikipedia
| .org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d...
| semiquaver wrote:
| Because it's important context for understanding what the
| "point" of the article is. It could be any of:
|
| - reporting on google's violation of privacy laws or handing
| over info they weren't required to
|
| - reporting on the US government's abuse of existing process
| that Google was legally required to comply with but ought to
| have challenged
|
| - calling attention to investigatory legal practices that are
| normal and above-board but the author of the article wishes
| they were otherwise.
|
| Some of these are motives are closer to the journalism end of
| the spectrum and some of them are closer to advocacy. I
| interpret this article as the third bucket but I wish it were
| clearer about the intent and what they are actually
| attempting to convey. The fact that the article is not clear
| about the actual law here (for example, was this a judicial
| subpoena?) makes me trust it less.
| jmyeet wrote:
| According to the ACLU, they are not [1]. So Google
| _voluntarily_ handed over user information. It requires a court
| order to enforce it and that requires a judge to sign off on
| it.
|
| This is somewhat analogous to ICE's use of administrative
| warrants, which really have no legal standing. They certainly
| don't allow ICE to enter a private abode. You need a judicial
| warrant for that. That too requires a judge to sign off on it.
|
| [1]: https://www.aclu.org/documents/know-your-rights-ice-
| administ...
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > They certainly don't allow ICE to enter a private abode.
|
| I'd just note that ICE is (falsely) claiming otherwise these
| days.
|
| https://apnews.com/article/ice-arrests-warrants-
| minneapolis-...
|
| "Federal immigration officers are asserting sweeping power to
| forcibly enter people's homes without a judge's warrant,
| according to an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement
| memo obtained by The Associated Press, marking a sharp
| reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect
| constitutional limits on government searches."
| linkregister wrote:
| Indeed, law enforcement officers frequently lie about laws
| in order to accomplish their goals. This erodes public
| trust in law enforcement. As a society we should structure
| incentives such that agents of the government should be
| exposed to the externalities resulting from their actions.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| The government (=Stephen Miller) said ICE agents have
| "federal immunity," so good luck with applying
| "externalities resulting from their actions."
| FireBeyond wrote:
| And ICE/DHS leadership is openly issuing memos advising
| agents to ignore Federal Court rulings. It's so fucked up.
| legitster wrote:
| This is more aimed at individuals or smaller actors that may
| be getting subpoenas from ICE.
|
| There is actually a legal standing for DHS to issue these
| administrative warrants on corporations in this way.
| legitster wrote:
| For a normal subpoena from a court, yes.
|
| For an "administrative" subpoena from an agency, they take a
| risk in court.
|
| Judicial review is _deferred_. If Google thinks the subpoena is
| egregious, they can go to court and argue. But in the meantime
| they can either carry it out or risk being held in contempt if
| they don 't and lose in court.
| linkregister wrote:
| According to this article, it is treated as a request and
| often denied by the company. The target of the warrant did go
| to court to quash it, but that was already after Google
| declined to share the information.
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2026/02/03/hom.
| ..
|
| edit: it appears that either 1. the Washington Post is
| printing misinformation, or 2. I have made a grave
| misinterpretation.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Washington Post can be relied on to publish disinformation,
| not just misinformation:
|
| https://bsky.app/profile/cingraham.bsky.social/post/3mecltn
| b...
| bobmcnamara wrote:
| I mean, it is BezPost.
| cpncrunch wrote:
| I think that is a different case though.
| dathinab wrote:
| the only way to legally search a house, car or force companies
| to hand anything over is with a judge signing it off
|
| the article isn't clear about it but it implies that this was
| not approved by a judge but DHS alone, this is also indicated
| but the fact that the supona contained a gag order but Google
| still informed the affected person that _some_ information was
| hanged over
|
| now some level of cooperation with law enforcement even without
| a judge is normal to reduce friction and if you love in a
| proper state of law there is no problem Keith it.
|
| Also companies are to some degree required to cooperate.
|
| What makes this case so problematic is the amount of
| information shared without a judge order, that ICE tried to gag
| Google, that Google did delay compliance to give the affected
| person a chance to take legal action even through they could,
| and last but but least that this information seems to have been
| requested for retaliation against protestor which is a big no
| go for a state of law
| dmix wrote:
| Apparently around 300 students have been deported over pro-
| Palestine activism, similar to the person in the article who
| self-deported
|
| https://www.themarshallproject.org/2025/04/05/visa-
| immigrati...
|
| > Legally, the answer is murky, one expert told The
| Washington Post -- at least when it comes to combing through
| Supreme Court decisions for answers. The court has been clear
| that First Amendment protections from criminal or civil
| penalties for speech apply to citizens and noncitizens alike.
| What's less settled, however, is how those protections apply
| in the immigration context, where the executive branch has
| broad discretion to detain or deport.
| bovermyer wrote:
| This does not surprise me. The continued existence of Google is a
| net negative for humanity.
|
| Sadly, it didn't start out like this.
| hsuduebc2 wrote:
| I would say that it's just ordinary greed driven company. Which
| is basically normal corporation.
|
| Why net negative tho?
| bovermyer wrote:
| The "net" refers here to "the good that Google does" (e.g.,
| some pretty impressive networking research) is outweighed by
| "the bad that Google does," such as the linked article.
|
| Nothing is pure evil or pure good. Gauging where on the scale
| a person or group lies is really hard, and subjective.
|
| So, I try and keep score on the big players, but understand
| that my judgement is fallible.
| hsuduebc2 wrote:
| Oh I understand what you meant by net negative, I was more
| curious about the thing's you perceive negatively. I myself
| consider them net neutral but the trend itself is negative.
| hsuduebc2 wrote:
| Just out of curiosity. Are there any companies today that are
| seen the way Google used to be seen, as a generally "good"
| corporation/companies that are also a important player? Maybe
| Mozilla Foundation?
| agilob wrote:
| Blizzard, Microsoft come to mind
| saubeidl wrote:
| Blizzard is a bunch of sex pests and Microsoft is the guys
| with the AI upsells on every inch of their OS...
| agilob wrote:
| Wasn't Blizzard pretty alright back when Diablo 2 was
| released? and then LoD?
| SlightlyLeftPad wrote:
| All that was Blizzard North honestly. So it depended on
| locality.
| passwordoops wrote:
| How far back do you have to go for Microsoft to be seen as
| "good" the way Google was?
| agilob wrote:
| Windows XP for me
| cess11 wrote:
| .NET and VS Code gave some people the impression that
| MICROS~1 had become good and nice.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Blizzard ~10 years ago, maybe. Microslop has always been one
| of the worst. I don't understand why anyone would have a
| positive disposition towards Microslop.
| govideo wrote:
| yep re blizzard. they've gotten lots better since the msft
| acquisition, based on my (limited) experiences with the newer
| employees there.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| Anthropic seems to be chasing that angle (c.f. their run of "AI
| that doesn't advertise to you" commercials).
| nickthegreek wrote:
| They have contracts with Palantir.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| GP's question was about perception, not reality.
| skeptic_ai wrote:
| Come back in 2-3 years. I bet will be one of the worst if
| still around
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Maybe Valve?
| moogly wrote:
| Degenerate gambling company.
| SlightlyLeftPad wrote:
| Agreed. Nvidia too maybe? That said, Nvidia is highly
| competitive and has built a walled garden via their software
| so I have mixed feelings.
| skeptic_ai wrote:
| Maybe proton, but even that... is not great.
| rchaud wrote:
| There are no good mega-corporations, only a honeymoon period
| where they haven't grown large enough to start horse-trading
| for favorable treatment from the state.
| jeffbee wrote:
| There are exactly zero organizations that will refuse to comply
| with subpoenas and warrants. It isn't up to business to fix the
| national government.
| diego_moita wrote:
| Does anyone still remember when Western countries were scared of
| Huawei because the Chinese would use their hardware to spy on
| people?
|
| Well, guess what? The U.S. also has their own Huawei. But, at
| least, they're "democratic" and follow "the rule of the law" (for
| whatever these words mean nowadays).
| daveidol wrote:
| Didn't we all learn this with the Snowden files? Nothing new
| unfortunately
| jacquesm wrote:
| Both are wrong.
| rvz wrote:
| Like I said previously [0], Big Tech giants such as Google,
| Microsoft and Amazon cooperate with ICE just like how Palantir
| does.
|
| So when are you going to stop using Google? (You won't will you?)
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46407683
| barbazoo wrote:
| > So when are you going to stop using Google? (Never)
|
| Why the meta commentary? Obviously some of us have unFANGed
| their lives.
| JohnMakin wrote:
| These kind of condescending comments are a bit much, especially
| when not everyone has the luxury or know-how to deFAANG their
| lives. For instance, whether or not (I) personally want to
| avoid it, I use some of this for actual work, and there is no
| alternative. Comments like this seem to imply then I have no
| right to complain about it, which is frankly ridiculous - there
| is a world where FAANGs can exist without being far reaching
| apparatuses of an authoritarian regime. They do so because it
| is convenient and the existing power structure incentivizes it.
|
| Like what am I gonna do in a job interview - "Oh, you guys use
| gsuite? Sorry, I deFAANGed."
|
| Come on.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| It's almost like there should be some third party that
| represents people who could regulate companies like Google
| and prevent them from becoming too big. Maybe there are some
| examples from US history where some such third party existed.
| skrtskrt wrote:
| We're on the forum where people are most capable of doing
| this for themselves.
|
| And if your company uses GMail that is less than ideal for
| de-Googling, but it does not meaningfully impact the benefits
| of de-Googling your personal life.
|
| Refusing to run all your search history, personal
| transactions, and correspondences through one of the fascist
| state's pet companies is still beneficial.
| JohnMakin wrote:
| If you use a work google profile on your home network, tied
| to your real name, it definitely affects your personal life
| NetOpWibby wrote:
| I stopped using Google at least a decade ago.
|
| Boom, gotcha.
| x1ph0z wrote:
| What are some ways users can insulate themselves from something
| like this?
| Anonbrit wrote:
| Don't use products from large US tech companies?
|
| Apple has a slightly better track record than Google of
| fighting this stuff, but ultimately if you're using a product
| from a US tech company then it's likely ICE can get their
| grubby little mitts on everything that company knows about you
| pixl97 wrote:
| I'm guessing your constraint is impossible as living in the
| US pretty much requires banking and working with companies
| that will gladly give government agencies your information. I
| severely doubt that tech is the only group doing this.
| panarky wrote:
| Is there any evidence that Apple fights administrative
| subpoenas issued by US federal agencies?
|
| Or is Google just more transparent than Apple about the
| government orders it complies with?
|
| For example, after the Department of Justice demanded app
| stores remove apps that people use to track ICE deployments,
| Apple was the first to comply, followed later by Google.
| nomel wrote:
| It's a constitutional right to record them doing their
| duties, in public. That's clear.
|
| Here's a question: Is making a reporting _system_ around
| that, for the purpose of /approaches/is realtime tracking,
| also protected? Maybe related to "non-permanence"?
|
| (references welcome)
| frumplestlatz wrote:
| Sure it is. The same way it was legal to track and report
| on CIA "extraordinary rendition" flights using publicly
| available information.
|
| What is not protected is actual interference or
| obstruction, and first amendment protections can be lost
| if the system's design, stated purpose, or predictable
| use crosses from observation and reporting into
| intimidation or operational coordination that materially
| interferes or obstructs.
|
| Given how these systems are already being used, and the
| likely intent behind building one, that's a real risk if
| you're not careful.
| autoexec wrote:
| > It's a constitutional right to record them doing their
| duties, in public. That's clear.
|
| Less clear than it used to be
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Guevara_(journalist)
| frumplestlatz wrote:
| From the wikipedia article: "Guevara was ordered removed
| from the United States by an immigration judge in 2012"
| autoexec wrote:
| The removal case was administratively closed on appeal
| which meant that he was legally authorized to stay in the
| US while waiting for a green card application to go
| through.
|
| He was here on a work permit when the police arrested him
| for filming a protest. Journalism isn't a crime so all
| the charges connected to his arrest were dropped, but ICE
| placed a detainer on him to keep him locked up anyway. A
| judge granted him bond so that he could be released but
| ICE fought that too and continued to keep him locked up.
| Finally they reopened the 2012 case and used that to kick
| him out of the country.
| pear01 wrote:
| Are they going to stop because a company fights a subpoena?
| Or perhaps in the case of some touted alternatives, even if a
| subpoena were acted upon, no data would be intelligible?
|
| Maybe they'll just show up to your house next time. I'm not
| sure why people complain about US companies complying with US
| government subpoenas. Isn't that how it is supposed to work?
| Imagine if the opposite were routine, would you like that?
|
| People want to stop using Gmail to feel agency in a situation
| where the real problem is their own government. The real
| answer thus lies in deeply reforming a federal government
| that really both sides of the aisle (in their own way) agree
| has gotten too powerful and out of control.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| It's more nuanced than "the federal government is too
| powerful." I feel more like non-law-enforcement agencies
| like ICE are too powerful right now, but I also believe
| that the FBI and the DOJ had a good mandate that should be
| preserved. And I also believe that antitrust needs to be a
| high priority. Please don't lump me in with people who just
| want to tear it all down so they can live in a fiefdom.
| There are good people in the US government, and there are
| good things about it. It's just not all of it is good and
| none of us can agree at all times on what's bad here.
| philipallstar wrote:
| If you've had a 100%-tolerance policy to illegal
| immigration for years then that's the government not
| being powerful enough, or not using its power to the
| correct level for its citizens. If there's a better,
| gentler fix for illegal immigration then everyone would
| absolutely love that, but it's such a huge thing to
| tackle due to the previous years' encouraging of illegal
| migration.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Alternatively, use them pseudonymously? There's little reason
| any of these companies need to know your real identity. This
| will both reduce the likelihood of ICE finding your account
| from a real-life interaction, as well as reduce the
| likelihood of ICE finding your real-life identity if they do
| get your account data (they'd at least need to dig through it
| more than just going by first/last name on the account
| itself).
| JohnMakin wrote:
| > (they'd at least need to dig through it more than just
| going by first/last name on the account itself).
|
| FYI this is beyond trivial and automated to the nth degree.
| There is so much more to go off of than some form fields to
| uniquely identify a person.
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| For linking activity back to your person? Without name,
| payment details, photos of face, or IRL social graph the
| easiest path that comes to mind is IP address. But that's
| going to involve additional inquiries and is likely
| ambiguous (unless you live alone, but determining that is
| again more work).
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _Don 't use products from large US tech companies?_
|
| What does large have to do with it? Why do you think smaller
| companies are any more likely to resist? If anything, they
| have even _less_ resources to go to court.
|
| And why do you think other countries are any better? If you
| use a French provider, and they get a French judicial
| requisition or letters rogatory, then do you think the
| outcome is going to be any different?
|
| I mean sure if you're avoiding ICE specifically, then using
| anything non-American is a start. But similarly, in you're in
| France and want to protect yourself, then using products from
| American companies without a presence in France is similarly
| a good strategy.
| PlatoIsADisease wrote:
| Wild guess: You like Apple more than Google.
|
| I only guessed that because that is a strange conclusion to
| draw when Apple was involved in PRISM, they worked with China
| to black pro- democracy hong kong apps, and I believe they
| turned over data to China and Russia.
|
| Apple's PR/marketing is best in class, so I can also see this
| just being a knowledge level error rather than bias.
| frumplestlatz wrote:
| You don't have to _like_ Apple to recognize that they take
| a materially different stance from Google when it comes to
| user privacy.
|
| Take this, for example: https://support.apple.com/en-
| us/102630
|
| You can trivially disable web access to your data; at that
| point, Apple literally _does not have the keys_ to your
| end-to-end encrypted data and _cannot_ read or disclose it.
| dismalaf wrote:
| Be outside the US and/or don't use products from US companies?
|
| Believe it or not, tech companies must comply with the
| authorities of countries they operate in. They're also not
| required to tell you, sometimes they're compelled to not tell
| you.
|
| The idea that a tech company can outright oppose the state is
| pure fantasy... They still must operate within laws.
| AzzyHN wrote:
| As a rule: don't bother with trying to "opt out" of data
| collection. Reject the collection entirely either by forcefully
| blocking it (ublock Origin for instance) or straight up not
| using the service.
| charcircuit wrote:
| Follow the law. As a guest in a country, treat your host with
| respect. Do not support terrorist groups.
| rchaud wrote:
| Do you have any specifics about the law they allegedly broke?
| bigyabai wrote:
| Doubtful, charcircuit deliberately writes inflammatory
| comments just to throw them over the fence and refuse to
| elaborate.
| tastyface wrote:
| Terrorist groups like the Proud Boys and other Jan. 6ers?
| RegW wrote:
| > Follow the law. As a guest in a country, treat your host
| with respect. Do not support terrorist groups.
|
| The article describes Thomas-Johnson as a "student activist
| and journalist" and "whose work has appeared in outlets
| including Al Jazeera and The Guardian".
|
| Are you saying that there is evidence elsewhere that he is
| part of some terrorist organisation? Hey wait a sec, perhaps
| you are confusing "Al Jazeera" with "Al Qaeda". You know
| Google is your friend - oh wait...
| digiown wrote:
| I don't really understand the point in these cases
| specifically. If not Google, the government can always ask a
| bunch of other companies like utilities or stores about your
| details. It's a fool's errand to protect your payment info, ID,
| etc from the government, since it's issued or authorized by
| them in the first place.
|
| With regard to more important info, treat Google and any other
| company's software as government-accessible. Don't put anything
| that could be even suspicious, since even if you can win in
| court, your time gets wasted by government employees getting
| paid for it. People keep forgetting it, but the cloud is just
| someone else's computer.
| solid_fuel wrote:
| Vote for politicians who support checks and bounds, demand
| accountability from those in power, and participate in civics.
| juliusceasar wrote:
| Look how far they'll go to protect Israel. But when it comes to
| Epstein friends and co, they need evidence to proof that water is
| wet..
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Why the hell did Google even have his bank account numbers? I
| wish there was more information on which Google service(s) this
| data was pulled from.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| You can setup ACH for a number of Google services; Cloud,
| Workspace, the Play Store.
| legitster wrote:
| So I don't think I actually have a problem with businesses
| handing over their customer data if there is a _valid_ warrant or
| subpoena. That 's the system working as intended.
|
| The main crux of the problem _here_ is that the DHS has been
| granted a wide berth by congress to issue _administrative_
| subpoenas - i.e. not reviewed by a real judge and not directed at
| criminals. In "good" times this made investigations run
| smoothly. But the reality now is that ICE is doing wide dragnets
| to make arrests without any judicial oversight and often hostile
| to habeas corpus.
|
| (Also, my understanding is that when banking is involved, it may
| also fall under the Banking Secrecy Act and Know Your Customer
| Rules - a whole other privacy nightmare.)
|
| I know we instinctively want to frame this as a privacy problem,
| but the real problem we need congress to act on is abolishing
| these "shadow" justice systems that agencies have been able to
| set up.
| crooked-v wrote:
| "Administrative subpoenas" have always been bullshit that
| mostly rely on there being no penalty for companies that hand
| over user information to anyone with a badge and then justify
| it with a five-hundred-page TOS document.
| linkregister wrote:
| Google, among most other tech companies, deny portions of
| administrative warrants. Here's a story about someone who was
| stressed out about their notification by Google (spoiler,
| Google decided to deny the government's request)
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2026/02/03/hom.
| ..
|
| edit: It appears that this outcome is an outlier and most
| admin warrants are honored. It is unfortunate to see the
| Washington Post decline in reliability like this.
| legitster wrote:
| Hence, why I wonder if this is specific their
| credit/banking products as part of Know Your Customer
| rules.
| tadfisher wrote:
| Google does not provide those products (not in the US, as
| far as I am aware), but they are a money transmitter in
| the same vein as Square/Block, Stripe, and Venmo [0].
| They won't be directly subject to the Bank Secrecy Act,
| but they partner with the major payment networks (who
| have their own rules and their own partner programs with
| banks) as part of Google Pay and customer payment
| profiles.
|
| But I don't think this matters much for this case, as DHS
| is not investigating financial crimes. This is about what
| discretion Google has to comply with administrative
| warrants, which is not settled law and isn't clearly
| spelled out in their own policy.
|
| 0:
| https://support.google.com/googlepay/answer/7160765?hl=en
| legitster wrote:
| I just looked it up, and money transmitters are included
| in the Banking Secrecy Act as "Money Services
| Businesses". So yes, they have KYC obligations in the
| sense that they know where you are moving your money and
| are obligated to tell investigators.
|
| Unfortunately, KYC is used for much more than just
| financial crimes, and the precedent to comply is much
| more firmly established.
| legitster wrote:
| There is a case to be made that administrative subpoenas
| _can_ be good. They save taxpayers money, they speed up
| investigations, and they free up the court for more important
| matters.
|
| As with all things though, these agencies should not be self-
| regulated without civilian and judicial oversight.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| They seem unconstitutional on their face, to me. Speeding
| things up because the Constitution makes it too hard is a
| bad idea.
| b00ty4breakfast wrote:
| There will always be the opportunity for the foibles of humans
| to affect the procedures of the law. Trying to play "guess if
| the shadowy government agency is doing the right thing this
| week" is a losing game. They always take the proverbial mile,
| they are not ever going to be satisfied with the inch.
| LtWorf wrote:
| > In "good" times this made investigations run smoothly.
|
| These times never existed.
| mindslight wrote:
| I'm getting tired of these comments that normalize being in
| the middle of the slippery slope as if it is merely the same
| as being at the top of the slippery slope was. They may not
| have been "good" times, but they were certainly _better_
| times when government agencies at least aimed to carry out
| their roles in good faith rather than minmaxing the rules to
| cause the most damage to enemies of the Party. Applying
| judgement while exercising delegated authority is exactly why
| these agencies were given wide leeway in the first place. And
| while we can say this was naive, it is even more naive to
| normalize the current behavior.
| worik wrote:
| No.
|
| The difference now is the number of people feeling effected
|
| It always been thus for people at the margins
| mindslight wrote:
| So we agree, including that there is a difference.
| shevy-java wrote:
| But did you not disagree before? The "I am getting tired"
| statement kind of implies that.
| mindslight wrote:
| Different commenter and different statement.
| bigbadfeline wrote:
| > So we agree, including that there is a difference.
|
| No, that's a distinction without a difference. I mean, it
| doesn't matter in the slightest if at some point in time
| certain powers _weren 't abused_, if they're being abused
| now the situation cannot be tolerated.
|
| Arguing about how _it 's possible not to abuse the
| system_ is a waste of time at best and a diversion at
| worst.
| mindslight wrote:
| I'm not arguing that it's possible to not abuse the
| system. I've recognized abuses for quite some time,
| regardless of which political team has been in power. The
| point is that we need to avoid normalizing our current
| situation by pointing to previous abuses.
| try_the_bass wrote:
| > It always been thus for people at the margins
|
| It's worth pointing out that "criminals" are generally
| "people at the margins"... If for no other reason than to
| point out that pithy comments like this are often so
| vague as to be worthless, or even counter-productive!
|
| It's also a good thing that antisocial behavior is often
| isolated to "the margins", so your statement can even be
| considered a good thing, by the same metric!
|
| TL;DR: Twitterisms like this are stupid.
| themaninthedark wrote:
| No. Full stop.
|
| Laws are supposed to be crafted to be as applied by anyone,
| anywhere and at any time. This is why lawyers and
| politicians are supposed to have foresight and be prudent.
|
| You look at prior events and see them as justified due to
| the people involved and situations.
|
| If the US government can, for example investigate Richard
| Spencer or some other extremist figure based on a web post,
| then they can do the same for someone else on the other end
| of the spectrum.
|
| But even more terrifying is that they can do the same for
| someone not in the extremes.
|
| When my friends on the left held power and used it to quash
| the speech of my friends on the right, I spoke up.
|
| When my friends on the right are doing the same, I also
| speak up.
|
| The sad irony is that those not in power protest only when
| it is not their side.
| ses1984 wrote:
| From my point of view it looks like the right only
| protests when it's not their side.
|
| That's why Al franken resigned for a dumb photo,
| meanwhile republicans protect pedophile traffickers.
| themaninthedark wrote:
| I would say that both sides have that view.
|
| Most people are in a bubble and are unaware of what their
| tribe is doing.
|
| I may be wrong but I think there have been Republicans
| who have resigned for extra-marital sex.
|
| While we are screaming about the current POTS and his
| relation with Jeffery, we gave Bill Clinton a platform to
| speak during the 2024 Convention. When I bring that up, I
| get told "It's important that we beat Trump."
|
| The Epstein was arrested in 2019, the files have been in
| the hands of both Democrats and Republicans. Neither
| group really looks like they want to prosecute anyone
| further; only use accusations that their opponents are in
| there to galvanize their base.
| roughly wrote:
| > Laws are supposed to be crafted to be as applied by
| anyone, anywhere and at any time. This is why lawyers and
| politicians are supposed to have foresight and be
| prudent.
|
| Except this is both impossible and a bad idea, which is
| why we have judges, juries, elections, and every other
| part of the system intended to constrain the blind
| application of the law.
| mindslight wrote:
| What exactly are you saying "full stop" to?
|
| You have said very little that addresses anything I said,
| except to appeal to some vague sense of "both sidesism"
| which is so far away from our current predicament that
| the only applications I see are (1) to say "I told you
| so", which isn't productive and widely misses the mark
| with me (2) normalize the current situation and/or
| absolve blame by shifting it onto the other side.
|
| Investigative agencies are going to be able to
| investigate people. So supposing that the " _US
| government can ... investigate Richard Spencer ... based
| on a web post_ " isn't a compelling argument unless your
| goal is to completely reject the concept of government.
| This can certainly be a consistent position (I've held it
| in the past), but it's not a common one.
|
| At which point it comes down to accountability for how
| delegated powers are used - both in individual cases, and
| to stop patterns of abuse. For example I've long argued
| we need to neuter the concept of _sovereign immunity_ ,
| and start routinely compensating people who are harmed by
| the government but never convicted of breaking the law -
| one should indeed be able to "beat the ride". So I'm not
| waking up to this in 2025 clutching my pearls gasping "I
| can't believe the government can just do this". I've been
| following how the government operates unaccountably for
| quite some time, and I'm pointing out that the current
| regime is _still a marked escalation_.
|
| This isn't to say I am pushing lame answers like "just
| vote Democrat" (I don't consider myself a Democrat). And
| I do agree that meaningful reform needs to be in general
| terms (eg aforementioned sovereign immunity example). But
| I also think that dismissing our current situation as
| some mere extension of what has been happening for a
| while is a terrible way of framing things.
| chaps wrote:
| And I'm getting tired of these comments that normalize the
| awfulness of the past. We can be pragmatic in recognizing
| that "our guys" also did bad things. Less bad than awful is
| still bad. If we choose not to recognize our own foibles
| then we just fall down our old patterns of "it's someone
| else's problem".
|
| Because otherwise, better than what we have now is an
| _abysmal_ target and we should aim for better.
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| Isn't that why the scare quotes are there?
| sam345 wrote:
| I'm not an expert in fourth amendment but I do know that
| assuming a subpoena without judicial oversight violates the
| fourth amendment is not correct. All the fourth amendment
| guarantees is unreasonable search and seizure. In some
| circumstances a judicial subpoena may be necessary and others
| not. An administrative subpoena implies that there has been a
| legal procedure and the administrative agencies are not exactly
| run like the wild west.
| cyberax wrote:
| DHS/ICE is in a weird constitutional spot. Most immigration
| violations in the US are _civil_ violations. So the Fourth
| Amendment is less applicable. It's also why detained
| immigrants don't automatically get the right to be
| represented by a lawyer.
|
| ICE/DHS technically are just acting as marshals, merely
| ensuring that defendants appear at court proceedings and then
| enforcing court decisions (deportations).
| epiccoleman wrote:
| It's not really that the 4th amendment is less applicable,
| it's that the procedural protections are lower in civil
| proceedings.
|
| I think it's a pretty big undersell to describe ICE as
| "marshals" too - they've got plenty of discretion in how
| they prioritize targeted people and who they detain. They
| are not just a neutral party executing court orders.
| cyberax wrote:
| In theory yes, but in practice it's more unclear. There
| are conflicting Supreme Court precedents, that weaken the
| Fourth Amendment in cases where criminal penalties don't
| apply. Asset foreiture is another example.
|
| > I think it's a pretty big undersell to describe ICE as
| "marshals" too - they've got plenty of discretion in how
| they prioritize targeted people and who they detain. They
| are not just a neutral party executing court orders.
|
| Yep. That's also a difference between theory and
| practice.
| teachrdan wrote:
| > An administrative subpoena implies that there has been a
| legal procedure and the administrative agencies are not
| exactly run like the wild west
|
| Hard disagree. The fact that a government agency "reviewed"
| its own subpoena before enforcing it does not follow the
| spirit of the Fourth Amendment, which is to prevent
| government overreach in taking your belongings and
| information.
|
| In fact, to take your definition of what's not unreasonable
| to its logical conclusion, by definition any process an
| agency came up with would be acceptable, as long as they
| followed it.
|
| I think a better definition of a reasonable search and
| seizure would be one where a subpoena goes before a judge,
| the target of the subpoena is notified and has the
| opportunity to fight it, and where there are significant
| consequences for government agents who lie or otherwise abuse
| the process of getting a subpoena.
| dylan604 wrote:
| > All the fourth amendment guarantees is unreasonable search
| and seizure.
|
| Are you saying that by the existence of the fourth that
| unreasonable search/seizures are guaranteed to happen? It
| can't guarantee protection from them either.
| rolph wrote:
| The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
| houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches
| and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall
| issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
| affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
| searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
|
| >>no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
| by Oath or affirmation<<
|
| that means there must be affirmation of probable cause to an
| overseeing body [i.e. judiciary]
|
| administrative warrants are a process of "i know im right i
| dont need someone else to look things over"
| MikeNotThePope wrote:
| If the party on the receiving end of a search needs to be a
| lawyer to simply understand the legality of a warrant, I'd
| argue the search is unreasonable.
| shevy-java wrote:
| I don't see how what has been described here as "the system
| works as intended".
|
| A free state should not be able to sniff after people for made
| up reasons.
| Curiositiy wrote:
| You obviously don't live in the EU, UK.
| philipallstar wrote:
| In the sense that all reasons are made up, I suppose that
| might be true. But while deporting illegal immigrants for no
| other reason is totally fine, deporting the ones that also
| have a criminal conviction is definitely not made up reasons.
| fakedang wrote:
| Yeah, and your point? ICE has already descended into
| detaining anyone, literally anyone, because they have
| quotas to meet. They seized a white Irishman last October
| who had a valid work permit and was just about to head to
| his green card interview.
|
| This is Gestapo all over again.
| philipallstar wrote:
| We lock up innocent people all the time, as the court
| system is imperfect. That doesn't make something the
| Gestapo. And everything has been called Nazi for the last
| ten years. How can you possibly think it's some sort of
| novel or impactful statement in 2026?
| BugsJustFindMe wrote:
| > _We lock up innocent people all the time, as the court
| system is imperfect. That doesn 't make something the
| Gestapo._
|
| Correct. The methods, the scale, and the targets do.
| Refusing to ever show any identification or proof of
| orders at all when that definitionally makes them a
| secret police does. Repeatedly violating federal court
| orders does
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46965333).
| Repeatedly violating habeas corpus rights does.
| Assaulting people in the streets merely for witnessing
| does. Let us not forget that a woman was violently shoved
| backward to the ground while she was backing up in the
| lead-up to the killing of Alex Pretti, and the
| government's immediate response was repeated shameless
| lies and hiding or destroying evidence, just like they
| did with the killing of Renee Nicole Good, just like they
| did with the killing of Geraldo Lunas Campos, just like
| they did with Alberto Castaneda Mondragon, ... The list
| doesn't end.
|
| It's very weird of you to just ignore all of that.
| reliabilityguy wrote:
| > ICE has already descended into detaining anyone,
| literally anyone,
|
| Do you have a source on this claim? Sounds like fear
| mongering to me.
| reddozen wrote:
| You can't write rules against bad actors. There will always
| be some legal loophole a bad president can invent to exploit.
| if not for administrative warrants we would see some other
| _creative_ (read: illegal) use of executive power.
|
| The only option is to not elect someone that doesn't respect
| rule of law. And since I know some enlightened "centrist"
| will play the both sides game: What's 1 thing any previous
| president has done equivalent to violating posse comitatus.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| I strongly disagree. You should always write rules under
| the assumption it will get in the hands of the worst
| people. If there is a 'become god-emperor' lever in your
| supposedly democratic government system then it is a shitty
| system.
| wombat-man wrote:
| The archive link isn't working for me atm.
|
| But tech companies should be complying with subpoenas from
| governments in countries they would like to operate in. I
| don't like what is happening in the US either, but to me this
| feels like a problem with the electorate. Maybe it's possible
| for Google to provide some of these services without actually
| having access to the data under subpoena, but I don't know
| enough about what services they were using or how they work.
| MetaWhirledPeas wrote:
| Re-read the first few sentences of his post.
|
| > if there is a _valid_ warrant or subpoena
| atoav wrote:
| So what about the Amsterdam government handing over the records
| to the new Nazi government in the past century? Under the back
| then new laws this was legal and lead to the genocide of
| countless people who happened to have the wrong belief listed
| in that data.
|
| Please never make the mistake to confuse something being legal
| for something being fair or ethical.
| godelski wrote:
| > I know we instinctively want to frame this as a privacy
| problem
|
| I think it is, but I think this is a more fundamental level of
| privacy than most people are thinking of when they think of
| privacy > In "good" times this made
| investigations run smoothly.
|
| Privacy people often talk about a concept called "Turnkey
| Tyranny". Really a reference to Jefferson's "elective
| despotism". The concept is that _because_ any democracy can
| vote themselves into an autocracy (elective despotism) that the
| danger is the creation of that power in the first place. That
| you don 't give Mr Rogers (or some other benevolent leader) any
| power that you wouldn't give to Hitler (or any horrifying
| leader).
|
| Or as Jefferson put it The time to guard
| against corruption and tyranny, is before they shall have
| gotten hold of us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the
| fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he
| shall have entered. > but the real problem we need
| congress to act
|
| So no, that is not the "real problem". They should be involved
| but there are more fundamental issues at hand. Power creeps.
| Power creeps with good intention[0]. But there is a strong bias
| for power to increase and not decrease. And just like power
| creep in a movie or videogame it doesn't go away and can ruin
| everything.
|
| Jefferson himself writes a lot about this tbh. It is why we
| have a system of checks and balances. Where the government
| treats itself adversarially. But this is also frustrating and
| makes things slow. So... power creeps.
|
| So the real problem we need to solve is educating the populous.
| They need to understand these complexities and nuances. If they
| do not, they will unknowingly trade their freedom to quench
| their fears.
|
| And this is why it is a privacy problem. Because we the people
| should _always_ treat our government adversarially. Even in the
| "good times". _Especially_ in the "good times". The founders
| of the US constitution wrote extensively about this, much like
| the privacy advocates write today. I think they would be more
| likely to take the position of "why collect this information in
| the first place?" than "under what conditions should this
| information be collected?". Both are important questions, but
| the latter should only come after the former. Both are about
| privacy. Privacy of what is created vs privacy of what is
| accessed.
|
| [0] You mentioned banking, so a recent example might be the
| changes in when transactions of a certain level trigger a bank
| report. The number has changed over time, usually decreasing.
| It's with good intention, to catch people skirting the laws.
| You'll never get 100% of people so if this is the excuse it an
| be a race to reporting all transactions. Maybe you're fine with
| Mr Rogers having that data, but Hitler? You have to balance
| these things and it isn't so easy as the environment moves. You
| solve a major part of the problem with the first move but then
| the Overton window changes as you've now become accustomed to a
| different rate of that kind of fraud (and/or as adversaries
| have adapted to it). A cat and mouse game always presents a
| slippery slope and unless you consider these implicit
| conditions it'll be a race to the bottom.
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| > In "good" times this made investigations run smoothly.
|
| In good times they were still a blatant form of government
| abuse however the majority were completely unaffected and so
| didn't get riled up about it.
|
| Similar to how a vigorous defense of freedom of speech is
| somehow consistently less popular among constituents of
| whichever party happens to be in power, as well as when applied
| to "objectionable" political views.
| h4kunamata wrote:
| >"So I don't think I actually have a problem with businesses
| handing over their customer data if there is a valid warrant or
| subpoena. That's the system working as intended."
|
| This person right here is the problem in our society. Things
| never and will never get isolated to "valid warrant".
|
| Look around us, social after social media in order to "protect
| the kids", you must provide your personal information to them.
| Many people see nothing wrong with that and yet, service after
| service, business after business are being breached left and
| right.
|
| Discord will mandate ID verification, just recently they have
| been breached.
|
| Back to the article, if Google can do that for an immigrant,
| what make you think that Google won't do the same with your
| data as citizen whenever for whatever reason??
|
| Don't agree with things you don't fully understand its
| consequences.
| hodgehog11 wrote:
| Maybe it is to a child or average citizen, but I don't
| believe that "not understanding the consequences" is the case
| here on HN. This is just a difference in philosophy, the old
| "freedom vs. security" tradeoff that everyone falls down on a
| little differently. Giving up your data to a company (and
| therefore the government) in exchange for services is a trust
| exercise, and there are ways to avoid making it, but they
| have significant unavoidable costs. It's an easier decision
| when you don't fear your own government, but where you fall
| on the spectrum rapidly changes when your government makes
| you the target. Of course you can say "the government is
| always going to turn on you, so you should never trust
| them!", but you'll sound like a loon to many native citizens
| of a Western nation that have had little to fear for decades.
|
| The US is just experiencing a little more of what the
| citizens of communist and fascist nations have experienced.
| Over time, that might lead to rapid societal change, or maybe
| it's too late.
| singleshot_ wrote:
| > administrative subpoenas - i.e. not reviewed by a real judge
|
| I have some bad news for you about magistrates.
| monocasa wrote:
| And yet ICE can't be bothered to reach even that low bar.
| xnx wrote:
| Ragebait article. Headline should be "Google complies with court
| order"
| wffurr wrote:
| Not actually a court order. That's the problem. Administrative
| subpoenas don't come from a judge, and the target wasn't given
| notice in order to challenge it in court.
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| No courts were involved
| lasgawe wrote:
| I remember someone saying that there is no privacy in large
| companies because they make money by selling or sharing users'
| personal data :/
| lingrush4 wrote:
| Google ought to rethink its policy of disclosing government
| subpoenas to users. Every time this happens, the media uses it to
| attack Google. They'd be better off leaving users in the dark
| about these legally required data disclosures. Even if most users
| don't go crying to the media when it happens, it's still not
| worth it.
| jajuuka wrote:
| Ultimately it's better for the public and users to be informed
| about this occurring though. If Google wanted to they could
| salvage it and explain their legal duties and how that applies
| to these situations. I don't think Google is worried though.
| They have multiple captive markets and have seen continued
| growth so it's obviously not affecting the bottom line.
|
| It's a good contrast to Apple where any bit of bad news that
| makes headlines becomes priority one to fix. Which just creates
| a privileged class of users and makes the brand look fragile.
| Hizonner wrote:
| Ever occur to you that it's _good_ for Google if there 's some
| public visibility of what Google is being forced to do?
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| Biggest thing to note is that this was a so-called
| "administrative" warrant, not a real judicial warrant. Google did
| this voluntary.
| philipallstar wrote:
| They're both real.
| RickJWagner wrote:
| When I was a student, I could never have gone to such lengths to
| avoid government scrutiny.
|
| He must have plenty of money.
| mike_bob wrote:
| Remember "Don't be evil"? It's crazy anyone would trust a
| corporation with anything these days.
| tjwebbnorfolk wrote:
| It's crazy that "corporations = bad" passes as insightful
| comment on HN these days.
| Upvoter33 wrote:
| I don't think it's as simple as "corps. = bad". It's more
| that naive slogans like "don't be evil" used to be taken
| seriously. Companies exist to make money. This is ok! It
| generally works well in a capitalistic system. But to expect
| more than that people are realizing is a pipe dream... which
| is why you need good rules in place (i.e., regulations, laws)
| to direct companies and their behaviors.
| FrankBooth wrote:
| Not really. HN had its Eternal September moment years ago.
| tunapizza wrote:
| https://archive.ph/e4DY7
| diggyhole wrote:
| "Journalist"
| cvhc wrote:
| Google discloses stats about government requests via FISA /
| National Security Letters:
| https://transparencyreport.google.com/user-data/us-national-...
|
| I was in one of these published NSLs issued by FBI a few years
| ago. I was notified by Google after the nondisclosure period.
| garyfirestorm wrote:
| care to explain how you got added to it? what happened then?
| did you fight it?
| cvhc wrote:
| See the other comment.
|
| > did you fight it?
|
| I talked to university lawyers (and LLMs) regarding another
| issue with DHS. For the sake of national security, they have
| the legal authority. There isn't much I can do. Unless I can
| prove they discriminated against me due to my race, national
| origin, etc. -- which may be the case but how can I prove
| that. I requested FOIA from DOS/DHS. What I got was basically
| no more than the original applications I submitted.
| edm0nd wrote:
| What did you get the NSL for?
|
| Did it result in you being raided?
|
| Were you ever indicted or convicted of anything?
| cvhc wrote:
| I dunno. Maybe because I used to do research at a Chinese lab
| when I was a student? That was my impression when I was once
| questioned for many hours by DHS at the airport. It's
| impossible to get an answer. They are granted broad legal
| authority to screen foreign nationals.
|
| No indictment. Nothing physical. But a lot of headaches like
| delays in visa/immigrant application :shrug:
| shevy-java wrote:
| Big capital is presently running the USA. Democracy no longer
| exists there as a factual entity - whether it is ICE agents
| gunning down US citizens or whether it is corporations run by the
| superrich spying on people and undermining their ability to e. g.
| protest.
|
| There is too much a focus on Trump here - one should focus on the
| whole criminal entity. The whole network. It is true that the
| fish starts to rot from the head (well, not quite, but it is a
| common saying), but in reality there are numerous parts that are
| rotting away.
|
| IMO there has to be a re-distribution of both wealth and power;
| as well as influence.
| FpUser wrote:
| Looking at what ICE does to people I think the only thing they
| should be handed is a noose around their necks. Just read at what
| they do in their concentration camps and on the streets. Even if
| "lawful", governments that approve such treatment in my opinion
| do not belong in decent human world.
| dmix wrote:
| For more context see the Cornell article from last year
|
| > The first email, sent on May 8 from Cornell International
| Services, stated that his immigration status had been terminated
| by the federal government. The second email, sent from Google on
| the same day, notified him that his personal email account had
| been subject to a subpoena by the U.S. Department of Homeland
| Security on March 31.
|
| https://www.cornellsun.com/article/2025/11/immigration-autho...
|
| Basically he was a British national with a student visa who was
| going to be deported for pro-palestian activism (under Trumps
| executive order mandating immigration authorities to do so), so
| he self-deported. Other's mention in the thread it's not clear if
| Google handed over any information.
| fourseventy wrote:
| "Google complies with federal warrant", more news at 11
| philipallstar wrote:
| Well, yes.
| tamimio wrote:
| > on tech companies to resist similar subpoenas in the future
| from DHS without court intervention.
|
| Haha nice one, these tech companies are willing to have a deal
| with devil to get those lucrative Gov contracts, and since it's
| the the wild west now in the US, the only action users can do is
| abandoning all these tech companies and look for alternatives.
| jsrozner wrote:
| "full extent of the information...including any IP masking
| services"
|
| This suggests that Google aggregates _derived_ information based
| on how a user uses Google (i.e. VPN info). The fact that
| _derived_ info was also potentially passed along is particularly
| upsetting to me.
|
| Aside from the fact that I don't think companies should be able
| to collect user data at all (if you disagree, I think there's a
| good chance you're at least a little bit fascist), this amounts
| to Google providing free surveillance services to the government.
|
| If you squint, it's minority-report-esque: eventually Google will
| tell the govt who it thinks is likely to commit crimes based on
| how they interact with its AIs. Almost certainly coming to a
| society near you soon.
| LightBug1 wrote:
| LOL, any of you still using Google? I'm down to 5%.
|
| 2026 will be the year I get to 0%.
|
| edit: "directly using"
| dev_l1x_be wrote:
| Centralised bank system, centralised internet, centralised power.
| What could possibly go wrong?
| urbandw311er wrote:
| The title should be Google handed _over_ these things. Otherwise
| it reads as though they were handed _to_ Google.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-02-10 23:00 UTC)