Sometimes I choose to not respond to people who reply to me in bad faith or if it is a tired argument. This comment thread is about how to avoid having law enforcement query Google for your data. My suggestion was to avoid getting in trouble in the first place to remove the need for law enforcement to care about you in the first place.
I am not part of the law enforcement operation. I don't have all of the details about what the person in the article did or did not do. Regardless of lacking that knowledge I can provide advice to avoid law enforcement.
> I don't have all of the details about what the person in the article did or did not do.
How is your advice supposed to actually pertain to insulating against federal mistreatment, then? Contextually it reads like a series of accusations, which the parent is calling you out on.
Because being proactive in preventing and adversarial relationship between law enforcement and yourself is an easier position to avoid it in than when you are in an adversarial one.
>We don't know this is mistreatment. It's not wrong for the government to subpoena data to investigate a crime.
To which specific "crime" are you referring?
From TFA[0]:
Amandla Thomas-Johnson had attended a protest targeting companies that
supplied weapons to Israel at a Cornell University job fair in 2024 for all
of five minutes, but the action got him banned from campus.
I didn't realize that attending a protest was now a crime. When, exactly, did that happen?
Does that mean you’re retracting your earlier claim? The people who are familiar with the details are saying it’s mistreatment, do you have any evidence contradicting them or is it simply a reflex to contradict criticism of your preferred team?
