
Google sent users' personal information to a Bay Area counter-terrorist center - throwaway888abc
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/aug/17/google-giving-user-data-authorities-documents-reveal
======
CogentHedgehog
Are they NOT supposed to report credible threats of violence or terrorism? I
believe we all agree that Islamic terrorist groups such as ISIS should not be
allowed to use the platforms to propagate violence. Why are violent members of
the Far Right any different?

From the article:

> On a now-deleted video on the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton by
> Canadian white nationalist, Stefan Molyneux (whose channel YouTube has now
> banned), the user wrote: “Hi guys, i need your help, i cant help but look at
> those shooters and think, that could be me. I watch Stefan, and black pilled
> and many others on the right. I think i should do the same thing they are
> doing.”

> The user then went on to discuss methods of making explosive devices.

> But the same user also discussed making explosives in other comments which
> were still visible on YouTube at the time of reporting, along with the
> user’s account.

> On a video alleging acts of brutality by local police, the user appended
> comments urging others to “kill them, when you go to trial i wouldn’t find
> you guilty for shooting these criminals. Kill them all”.

> According to Google’s reports, the same user appended racial slurs to videos
> reporting crimes which Google has since removed.

These are public comments -- any user could report them to law enforcement.
This seems like EXACTLY the sort of thing that SHOULD be reported to law
enforcement for investigation. Law enforcement takes the tip and decides where
to go from there.

~~~
cheph
> Are they NOT supposed to report credible threats of violence or terrorism?

Absolutely and the title should make it clear that is what is happening here.
If this is the case then data was not shared because user was far-right, it
was shared because the user's comments appear to be incitement and not
protected by the first amendment[1].

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Incitement)

~~~
floatingatoll
The first amendment doesn't apply to user comments on any Google property,
unless that property is exclusively operated for and/or moderated by the US
government or a direct representative thereof.

~~~
throwaway7851
First amendment protections from law enforcement (who these comments were
reported to) absolutely apply to comments made on Google property, and
anywhere else. It's disheartening to see such a stupid take on HN.

~~~
floatingatoll
The first amendment does not provide blanket protection from law enforcement,
however much some US citizens wish otherwise.

------
duxup
You can bet that if someone used one of my rando apps for something like
threatening violence I too would report them.

I don't know how likely I would actually know it, but I've no issue with a
service doing so.

>“Hi guys, i need your help, i cant help but look at those shooters and think,
that could be me. I watch Stefan, and black pilled and many others on the
right. I think i should do the same thing they are doing.”

>The user then went on to discuss methods of making explosive devices.

>But the same user also discussed making explosives in other comments which
were still visible on YouTube at the time of reporting, along with the user’s
account.

Yeah I think that's ok to report.

------
rsa25519
> Google also reported three videos by a third user

Google handles mind-boggling amounts of traffic. Without statistics for how
often these things happen, these specific cases mean very little to me.

Regarding the article as a whole, what is Google supposed to do?

Tech giants are pressured to increase regulation (e.g. Facebook and the 2016
US election stuff). They're also pressured to be places for free speech.

~~~
sukilot
Threatening and conspiring to commit violence had never been part of protected
free speech

~~~
opwieurposiu
The US government threatens and conspires to commit violence all the time.
Clearly this is allowed if all men are equal. Otherwise agents of the state
would have rights that others do not.

------
Chris2048
How does this differ from "Google giving extremist users' data to law
enforcement"?

The article says:

> The users were often threatening violence or otherwise expressing extremist
> views, often associated with the far right.

Ok, so so since "extrem[ism]" is "often associated" with "the far right",
therefore it makes it into the headline?

I'd like to see how they objectively decided that, or what they mean by "often
associated" \- associated by who? and why? Also; is this a causal association?
i.e. extremists are often far right does not imply the far right are often
extremist.

------
sukilot
Misleading headline.

Google gave law enforcement user data of users repeatedly publicly violating
Google TOS and possibly the law.

~~~
jakelazaroff
Where does it say that in the article? I see concern from privacy advocates,
but no allegation that it’s against their TOC or the law.

To me, the headline is misleading because it sounds as if users were reported
merely for their political views — when in fact they were _threatening
violence_.

------
mtnGoat
Misleading title posted by a throwaway? Hmm.

