What do you think of privacy DNS?

ChatGPT recommended it to me


Batshit.

If you're a Google employee and you're asked to comply with a request like this you have a moral obligation to quit. Equally, a future government should imprison the employees who didn't quit and complied with this warrantless request.

petertodd

Bell_curve

The court’s ruling suggests that using the internet now means agreeing to be searched.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has a new definition of “reasonable expectation.” According to the justices, it’s no longer reasonable to assume that what you type into Google is yours to keep.

“It is common knowledge that websites, internet-based applications, and internet service providers collect, and then sell, user data,” the court said, as if mass exploitation of personal information had become a civic tradition."

The case traces back to a rape and home invasion investigation that had gone cold. In a final effort, police asked Google to identify anyone who searched for the victim’s address the week before the crime. Google obliged. The search came from an IP address linked to John Edward Kurtz, later convicted in the case.

It’s hard to argue with the result; no one’s defending a rapist, but the method drew a line through an already fading concept: digital privacy.

Investigators didn’t start with a suspect; they started with everyone. That’s the quiet power of a “reverse keyword search,” a dragnet that scoops up the thoughts of every user who happens to type a particular phrase.

Why not let the cops have access to everything in order to solve all the crimes.

Because that practice is so widely known, the court concluded, users cannot reasonably expect privacy. In other words, if corporations do it first, the government gets a free pass.>

Politics_And_Law

Here's a tagline for you:

> The court’s ruling suggests that using the internet now means agreeing to be searched.


> The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has a new definition of “reasonable expectation.” According to the justices, it’s no longer reasonable to assume that what you type into Google is yours to keep.

You can find the ruling [here](https://docs.reclaimthenet.org/pa-supreme-court-kurtz-google-search-privacy.pdf)

> “It is common knowledge that websites, internet-based applications, and internet service providers collect, and then sell, user data,” the court said, as if mass exploitation of personal information had become a civic tradition."

Well, this is just insane. 


> 
> The case traces back to a rape and home invasion investigation that had gone cold. In a final effort, police asked Google to identify anyone who searched for the victim’s address the week before the crime. Google obliged. The search came from an IP address linked to John Edward Kurtz, later convicted in the case.
> 
> It’s hard to argue with the result; no one’s defending a rapist, but the method drew a line through an already fading concept: digital privacy.
> 
> Investigators didn’t start with a suspect; they started with everyone. That’s the quiet power of a “reverse keyword search,” a dragnet that scoops up the thoughts of every user who happens to type a particular phrase.

Why not let the cops have access to everything in order to solve all the crimes. 
> Because that practice is so widely known, the court concluded, users cannot reasonably expect privacy. In other words, if corporations do it first, the government gets a free pass.> 