Colorado Supreme Court Upholds Keyword Search Warrant
www.eff.orgToday, the Colorado Supreme Court became the first state supreme court in the country to address the constitutionality of a keyword warrant—a digital dragnet tool that allows law enforcement to identify everyone who searched the internet for a specific term or phrase. In a weak and ultimately...
You must log in or register to comment.
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn’t great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don’t promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
- 0 users online
- 57 users / day
- 383 users / week
- 1.5K users / month
- 5.7K users / 6 months
- 1 subscriber
- 2.45K Posts
- 57.9K Comments
- Modlog
Duck duck go protects you from this, correct?
Why would anyone use Google after this precedent?
They don’t know any better.
Or they just don’t care. Most people I know don’t think twice about their online privacy and security. “Why should I care? I don’t have anything to hide.”
That is another reason.
I think all search engines have this issue since law enforcement can step in any time.
The one exception might be proxy searches
In addition to being based in the US, DDG has had some issues with allowing Microsoft tracking on their DDG Browser. Their search does not have the same issues, but it might be wise to use TorBrowser to search anything you’d rather not explain in front of a judge.
And remember there’s a Duck Duck Go onion service: https://duckduckgogg42xjoc72x3sjasowoarfbgcmvfimaftt6twagswzczad.onion Proof: search on duckduckgo for “duckduckgo onion” and a widget appears in the search results.
Alternatively, set your tor browser to always prioritize onion addresses in the settings.
Headquartered in the US so I wouldn’t guarantee it.
This was against Google specifically but I would imagine it would hold up against any US based search engine they felt someone was using.
Right, they must respond to a subpoena. But they don’t retain search records, do they?
In some cases they must retain the information. Like your ISP in the USA had to retain data for le purposes.
Your statement contradicts their stated policy, and I’m not aware of any such requirement in the US.
https://duckduckgo.com/privacy
IP retention is addressed in the first paragraph under “privacy policy”, and it stated they don’t save or log it.
How do you know? You don’t control their servers
Your point is not unique: all websites require your trust.
So if that’s your threat model you can’t use any search engine.
But if we want to put that aside and discuss their stated policy, then the link I provided addressed the parent statement that
Which directly refutes that there is any such requirement.
You shouldn’t trust any search engine. That’s my point.