
Judge orders Google to turn over a full year of actor’s data - nkurz
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/criminal-justice/ct-jussie-smollett-special-prosecutor-investigation-20200108-j3j3p2dypvf5vbbo5jpxrvcjsq-story.html
======
keiferski
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:

[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/embodied-
cognition/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/embodied-cognition/)

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
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.

~~~
ksdale
I think you are spot on with your reasons for why these things actually _do_
exist, but I think there is definitely an argument to be made for why they
should actually protect privacy instead of merely inhibiting the government.

My version of the argument goes something like this: It's often said that
drivers (in the US anyway) are constantly violating minor traffic laws, and
that if the police want to pull someone over, all they have to do is follow
them for long enough and they will find a legitimate reason to do so.

I believe that this extends far beyond the sphere of traffic. I think we all
accidentally break minor laws way more often than we think we do. We all way
overestimate how "good" we are.

If it was possible to automatically punish everyone for every violation of the
law, we would quickly realize that many laws aren't actually that important,
that they can be broken a little bit, constantly, by basically everyone, and
society still functions just fine, and that privacy is more important than
perfect enforcement of law.

Of course this might lead to a new equilibrium where we perfectly enforce a
smaller set of laws.

All this is to say that I think people _think_ they value law enforcement more
than privacy, but if they had the full force of the law brought down on them
for every minor violation, they would quickly change their mind. In that way,
privacy (in the form of the government not having perfect information) is
actually quite valuable.

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
All of what you said is perfectly valid. That being said, I think it's
probable that if we perfectly enforced traffic laws, two things would happen:

1\. People would start to build in tolerances instead. The speed limit is 35?
Ok, I'll drive between 25 and 30. People would not just say, "Welp, I guess
I'm gonna get $200 tickets constantly!" There would be a (very) short
adjustment period, and then people would just treat limits as the actual
limits.

2\. The limits would be changed to actually reflect the unsafe limit.

I don't think either of these are bad outcomes. In fact, I think the world
where we perfectly enforce the law and also adjust the law to reflect the
actual needs of the citizens is far better than the one we live in today. It
is a much better world than the one in which certain real crimes go unpunished
due to privacy, all other things being equal.

------
nullc
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.

~~~
throwGuardian
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

~~~
skrowl
The 4th Amendment SPECIFICALLY stops unreasonable searches stating the
exception is with a warrant asking for specific things. They had such a
warrant in this case.

Just because you hate Google doesn't mean that the warrant is invalid or the
search is unreasonable here.

Jussie may have committed a crime. They have the right to investigate.

~~~
salawat
It also specifies that the warrant must be specific in describing the list of
things to be turned over, and specifically prohibits overly broad warrants
without cause.

Never mind that that Amendment technically has nada to do with this, because
technically speaking, 4th Amendment for the person in question stopped
applying due to Third Party Doctrine.

This is purely a procedural issue between Google and the government.

Read that and take it in for a minute. You're only as secure in information
about yourself as you can say that you alone are the chief facilitator of your
day-to-day activity, and that where you aren't, those who are hold government
to the proper standard of access.

Furthermore, I"m fairly sure that Google has far more detailed information
hoovered up with regards to everyday people than they wish to go on the public
record as having. If this were a fishing expedition, and they handed over
replication tracks for 2 months for instance. That would become verified
public knowledge that they collect that information, and store it in queryable
form.

Google is acting very shrewdly to disclose as little about their true data
collection capabilities as possible. Likely because of the backlash that would
occur if people were aware of just what they were sitting on.

There was a Jeffrey Deaver book that somewhat touched on the dangers of
sitting on reams of correlable data, even if measures were in place to ensure
none could be written down or physically exfiltrated from the building. The
Broken Window I believe it was.

Either way, it should disturb everyone that the government has essentially got
a one-stop-shop for just about all the detail about what you're thinking
about, all enabled thanks to the requisite tracking for ad targeting.

Heck, If I had more spare time, I'd start building my own search indexer. The
balance between personal privacy and government access to reams of metadata
about your every day life can't be reconciled with Third Party Doctrine.
Period.

------
ComodoHacker
From linked article[0]:

>— 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...](https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-met-cb-jussie-
smollett-20190215-story.html#nt=interstitial-manual)

~~~
jasonlotito
> 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.

~~~
ComodoHacker
I mean bail not returned.

------
zadokshi
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.)

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
> 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.

~~~
ip26
Of course, all that stuff could _still_ have been recorded with a warrant
20-30 years ago. Though it's true it would have required foresight & more
effort.

------
0xADADA
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.

~~~
drevil-v2
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.

~~~
nilkn
He allegedly did something quite bad, and if guilty I’d like him to face
justice. But if the cost of convicting him is setting a precedent that
effectively strips hundreds of millions of people of their privacy and
subjects us all to an unofficial form of state surveillance, then let him
walk.

~~~
drevil-v2
The State has always been able to look up phone records, bank records, land
records, criminal records, medical records etc etc as in order to pursue
justice and prosecute.

This is a necessary "evil". We give up some freedoms so that we have a
civilisation and an orderly society.

And this isn't setting up any precedent that is egregious. This is on the
front page of Chicago Tribune newspaper and on the front page of HN. This is
not some shady in the shadows invasion of privacy.

Those things do happen and I think we should preserve our outrage for those
moments. Otherwise it just becomes background noise to be constantly and
without context offended.

~~~
bilbo0s
> _Those things do happen and I think we should preserve our outrage for those
> moments_

That creates an almost arbitrary, "this fits my worldview so I'll support
rights this time" thought process. Like, "Well, this guy's a Nazi so we should
trample his rights. But this woman's an abortion activist, so we should be
sure to protect hers."

How do you propose we prevent ideological blindness in the protection of
rights? Should we take the government's word that, "this time, it's really
worth trampling rights"? Or would you create an unbiased oversight board that
tells us when protecting rights is appropriate? Or should each person look at
a case and decide for themselves whether or not they should take a stand
against rights infringement?

~~~
ip26
There's a big difference between dragnet surveillance & executing a warrant.
This was the latter.

 _This is not some shady in the shadows invasion of privacy._

------
throwGuardian
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

~~~
onetimemanytime
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.

~~~
throwGuardian
I have no problems with search and seizure that is backed by irrefutable
"probable cause". But one year?!! Why not his entire life? The courts are
stretching common sense definitions of "cause", and simply fishing for
anything to nail him

As for Google, while I agree with you, the reality is that their business
model relies on personal data, and we're none the wiser continuing to use them
despite this knowledge. How many, even within the HN community, will bother
transitioning away from Google, after reading this?

~~~
onetimemanytime
They said one year because its better to have more than less. Court /lawyers
should've or should push back.

~~~
throwGuardian
The entire premise of our Justice/legal system is not to nail someone at all
costs, but to do it within the bounds of the law. More is obviously _good_ for
the state, but not the legal, ethical, moral way to go.

------
robocat
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).

~~~
frandroid
It should be up to the falsely-accused to allow their siphoned data to be
release to create an alibi.

------
bryanrasmussen
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.

~~~
unishark
I can't read it from the US either due to having an adblocker. And even if you
allow ads the paywall appears after viewing one story per day.

Google the title. Others news sites have it.

~~~
globuous
I'm in the same case, it this the story ?

[https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/jussie-smollett-
chicag...](https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/jussie-smollett-chicago-
google-search-warrant/index.html)

~~~
unishark
Yeah that's it. The OP removed the name from the headline for some reason.

------
vuln
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?

~~~
deadmutex
From what I can tell in the news, Apple will share data if ordered to -- “WE
GAVE THEM ALL OF THE DATA IN OUR POSSESSION,” SAYS APPLE from
([https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/7/21054836/fbi-iphone-
unlock...](https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/7/21054836/fbi-iphone-unlock-apple-
encryption-debate-pensacola-ios-security))

The iPhone unlocking for the mass shooter was slightly different -- FBI wanted
them to create a new tool (that did not exist) to unlock an existing phone.

------
gundmc
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.

[1] -
[https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/7380434...](https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/7380434?hl=en)

------
sjcsjc
"Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European
countries"

Does anyone have an alternative source for this story please?

~~~
mathemancer
Archive link:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20200109053829/https://www.chica...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200109053829/https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/criminal-
justice/ct-jussie-smollett-special-prosecutor-
investigation-20200108-j3j3p2dypvf5vbbo5jpxrvcjsq-story.html)

~~~
sjcsjc
Thanks very much.

------
novaleaf
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.

------
hiram112
> 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.

------
munk-a
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.

------
thrower123
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.

------
andrei_says_
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.

------
Johnny555
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.

~~~
collyw
I was wondering about this. If I switch to Proton, but 90% of my outgoing
emails go to gmail accounts, google still has 90% of my email data.

------
aledalgrande
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?

------
mellosouls
Alternative article for readers in the EU:

[https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/judge-orders-
google-h...](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/judge-orders-google-hand-
jussie-smollett-data_n_5e16a633c5b61f7019491dd4)

------
lucb1e
As I understand it, in summary: someone filed a police report, the police
suspect the person staged the incident being reported (so now they're a
suspect themselves) and subpoenas their data.

Okay? This is news, how? Should I know the person that allegedly staged it, or
is it new that a judge approves a search warrant that allows time-limited
access to a suspect's data? Does it matter that they're an actor? (An
overloaded term that makes the title quite unclear)

And a little meta: should we change the link to something everyone can
actually read or do we want to keep this discussion limited to people from
certain continents?

------
greedo
“If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I
will find something in them which will hang him.”

~~~
huntermeyer
"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime."

\- Lavrentiy Beria

(Most influential of Stalin’s secret police chiefs)

------
MatthewWilkes
Interesting that commenters are talking about overreach with data collection.
I'm not sure if that's in the article because the paper in question blocks
people in the EU out of a desire not to comply with privacy laws. A little
ironic.

------
milesward
That dude better get another garage for the tape library they're gonna have to
send...

------
buboard
at what point does this projection of judicial power against individuals in
the name of safety (whose safety? whats really at stake here even?) become
terrorism?

~~~
guelo
A bit of an aside. Terrorism is a useless word now besides its propaganda
value. The USA just declares whoever they don't like to be a terrorist, like
how they just did to Iran's army, and now apparently they can legally
assassinate any Iranian soldier. What's funny is Iran wants in on this
propaganda game now, they designated the US army as terrorists.

~~~
perl4ever
I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to talk about "assassinating"
soldiers any more than "terrorist attacks" on them. Those are things done to
civilians by definition. We certainly don't want to promote the idea that
"collateral damage" is necessary for a military operation to be ethical.

I think terrorism has a perfectly good definition - political
lobbying/influence "by other means" than conventional politics, i.e. attacking
and terrorizing civilians. Doesn't matter who does it or how exactly.

Maybe the US government doesn't exactly use that definition, but that doesn't
mean there is no such thing as terrorism.

~~~
guelo
If we killed some European general that was visiting some European country you
would say that we had assassinated him.

~~~
perl4ever
"Visiting...some European country"

So, that's who this general was, an Iranian visiting some Iranian country? Was
he there to see the fjords?

Anyway, telling me what I would think or say is unacceptable in a civil
conversation. If I write something, you can assume I mean it, or you can
disengage if you think I'm trolling.

If you're going to take my comments as justifying US actions, perhaps they can
be taken that way, but they may apply to retaliation as well, no? Is there
much of a gray area with military personnel in Iraq right now, who aren't
Iraqis?

------
buboard
What was that company that is no longer allowed to add google to their phones?
Huh, sounds like they can use it as a selling point

------
foob4r
degoogle as much as you can

------
dangerface
If you are in the EU:

[https://archive.li/LjNKy](https://archive.li/LjNKy)

------
sabujp
this is why many companies have no record of their own internal
emails/conversations over a year or two. This is to cover their own tracks in
case they get sued. I wonder if there are any email services where you can
actually delete your data if it's older than some period?

------
justaguyhere
What a horrible site - popups/ads all over, you close one another springs
up...

------
quirkafleeg3
I'd be far more concerned about Google having my data in the first place...

------
guelo
Use duckduckgo people!

------
alexfromapex
Highly disturbing that the court is allowed to request that much data without
any legal restrictions [on privacy].

~~~
doodliego
This is a court-authorized search warrant authorized by a aitting judge. It
doesn't get any more legal than that, and it's Google or any other company's
legal duty to comply.

~~~
greglindahl
It certainly can get more legal than that -- Google (or the target, if they
somehow found out) could appeal against the warrant, which would result in
another round in the courts.

~~~
munk-a
More optimally Google could decline to collect this information and would
thereby be immune to any such requests.

When it comes to Gmail they _could_ take an approach like password managers
where the user's password is instrumental to decrypt the data and Google lacks
any manner to circumvent the encryption - they just _choose not to_.

~~~
greglindahl
I would be all for Google not collecting this info -- that's what I've always
done in my startups. Privacy by design is a great thing.

However, my point was that the comment I replied to was factually wrong --
there is legal action Google could choose to take instead of immediately
complying.

~~~
munk-a
I agree and didn't mean to directly go against what you said - but I wanted to
make sure it's highlighted and known that Google exposed themselves to this
risk voluntarily.

------
throwawaysea
Although it is scary to have things like location data turned over, the one I
worry about is 23andme.

------
CalRobert
Of course, the GDPR may help to prevent the very issues outlined in this
article with regards to privacy and overreach.

------
self_awareness
Article is unavailable in EU due to GDPR.

~~~
aepiepaey
[https://outline.com/SysByE](https://outline.com/SysByE)

------
DarkWiiPlayer
"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."

It's 2020 and american websites still go the "We'd rather block you
alltogether than tell you what we do with your data" route.

~~~
ben174
I’m in Europe on vacation, and while GDPR seems to be a good thing, there is
nothing more annoying than a cookie policy pop up for every single site you
visit. I know what cookies are. I know how they are used. I don’t need a
reminder every time I visit a site. I think they way over shot their goal
there.

~~~
DarkWiiPlayer
You don't need cookie banners; they're only mandatory when you want to track
your users, so when you see one of those on every website, it just means every
website wants to track you.

Also, if people are trained to just click them away, that's not really that
bad, since tracking has to be opt-in, so if you click the banner away, you
don't get tracked by default (that is, in theory; the reality is, many
websites disregard this completely and have tracking cookies enabled by
default)

~~~
deith
>You don't need cookie banners; they're only mandatory when you want to track
your users

So they are mandatory, since all websites NEED advertising revenue and
analytics to function.

~~~
smolder
No, some websites can just sell a product or serve some business function, and
don't need tracking at all, yet usually have it anyway.

------
webboynews
ITT: people feeling bad for jussie but can't say it outright because then
theyd be revealed as hypocrites

------
gfody
If Google complies would they deliver the data to the defendant so that he has
the option to plead the 5th if there’s anything incriminating?

