Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Case That Has Microsoft, Apple and Amazon Agreeing

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 190 posts

Re: A Case That Has Microsoft, Apple and Amazon Agreeing

#121

Post by joesb »

CosmicHorrorSam wrote: post #70
soylentcola wrote: post #31

"There’s irony in any tech company confronting the government on privacy matters, considering how much heat many take for mining their own customer information and using it for advertising and other profitable purposes." See, I don't find this very ironic. In fact, my only real issue with data mining and analysis by these sorts of companies is the way governments can demand this info without my approval. If Microsoft…

Hot dang, that last line is insightful. Some people will argue that whenever you let someone have data about yourself, you're implicitly giving access to practically everyone by virtue of often imperfect security. I believe that those people are full of shit.

That's like saying that, by letting the bank hold your money, you're implicitly giving bank robbers the access to the money, by virtue of imperfect security.

And since your own house's security is also imperfect, you are also giving everyone access to your house and properties.

Re: A Case That Has Microsoft, Apple and Amazon Agreeing

#122

Post by np422 »

soylentcola wrote: post #31

"There’s irony in any tech company confronting the government on privacy matters, considering how much heat many take for mining their own customer information and using it for advertising and other profitable purposes." See, I don't find this very ironic. In fact, my only real issue with data mining and analysis by these sorts of companies is the way governments can demand this info without my approval. If Microsoft…

If google makes a mistake when data-mining my e-mail, I may get an inappropriate ad displayed next to my e-mail.

It the authorities make a mistake when looking at my data, I may end up in jail or on the no fly list.

Re: A Case That Has Microsoft, Apple and Amazon Agreeing

#123

Post by joesb »

dkarapetyan wrote: post #78
CosmicHorrorSam wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hot dang, that last line is insightful. Some people will argue that whenever you let someone have data about yourself, you're implicitly giving access to practically everyone by virtue of often imperfect security. I believe that those people are full of shit.

As long as there is a data silo that is not under your explicit control you have indeed implicitly granted all parties willing to invest enough to break into that silo implicit access. Where exactly is that full of shit? The problem isn't the implicit agreements. The problem is lack of control and centralization. P.S.: I'd also tone down the language. We're having a discussion and calling someone else's opinion "full…

Do you implicitly grant all parties willing to invest enough to break into the bank all the money you deposit in the bank?

Re: A Case That Has Microsoft, Apple and Amazon Agreeing

#124

Post by snowwindwaves »

NoGravitas wrote: post #22
pdkl95 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> push key management to the user There is no other way. Unfortunately, there has been a serious lack of r&d in this area, so we have a lot of catching up to do. I believe it can be made to work, though, because this is not entirely a new idea for most people: they already understand physical keys and the problems associated with losing them. Moving to digital (public-)keys isn't a perfect match, but it is entirely p…

I generally agree with you, but there's one problem with the physical key analogy. The security of physical keys is weak enough that there's always a fallback if you lose all the copies of your key: you pay a locksmith to come pick the lock and rekey it. You can't do this with digital keys because a digital key that is weak enough for this strategy to be usable is also too weak to protect you from the main class of a…

Why not print the key?

Re: A Case That Has Microsoft, Apple and Amazon Agreeing

#125

Post by lrem »

zeveb wrote: post #12

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that an American court has the power to demand that an American citizen produce an item or information under his control, even if it happens to be in another country (e.g., a man getting divorced can't drive his car and all his gold and jewelry into Canada to shield them from his ex-wife). I imagine that most other countries would behave similarly: being within their borders and…

This gets better. See, Microsoft has an entity in Estonia. Now, how about an Estonian court compelling Microsoft Estonia to provide Obama's private email? Would anyone even treat such a thing seriously?

Re: A Case That Has Microsoft, Apple and Amazon Agreeing

#126

Post by rayiner »

soylentcola wrote: post #31

"There’s irony in any tech company confronting the government on privacy matters, considering how much heat many take for mining their own customer information and using it for advertising and other profitable purposes." See, I don't find this very ironic. In fact, my only real issue with data mining and analysis by these sorts of companies is the way governments can demand this info without my approval. If Microsoft…

> But just because I agree to let Google read my location to send me traffic warnings before heading out to work doesn't mean I want the FBI to grab that data without my knowledge so they can determine if I might be a troublemaker

Constitutionally, privacy is a pretty cut-and-dry concept. Information is either private or not. Private information isn't "information I don't want the government to have" it's "information I don't want anyone else to have."

I'm not saying we couldn't restructure the law to express what you're talking about. But it's not just a matter of extending our existing principles to this new situation. You're throwing the concept of "privacy" on its head by saying that you have this information that's "private" but that at the same time some third-party entity (and its employees) actively sifts through to target advertising to you.

Re: A Case That Has Microsoft, Apple and Amazon Agreeing

#128

Post by aluhut »

soylentcola wrote: post #31

"There’s irony in any tech company confronting the government on privacy matters, considering how much heat many take for mining their own customer information and using it for advertising and other profitable purposes." See, I don't find this very ironic. In fact, my only real issue with data mining and analysis by these sorts of companies is the way governments can demand this info without my approval. If Microsoft…

Yeah that opt out theory was nice some years ago. Now it's not that simple anymore. Most of the times you just have no choice.

What right has Amazon to do this? They get their share from the fact that I buy stuff though them. So I pay and still get analyzed. There are many more services that work like that. You can get around some of them by spending much money or acquiring special skills that would allow you to run things on your own but all that will remain a solution for few. The majority is trapped because data mining became natural. The legend of "free for data" now just applies to everyone. It went so far that some advertise with the fact that they DONT data mine.

Privacy as a product.

Also it's not like this majority ever understood what they are saying yes to. You know that long awful text nobody reads.

The government looks very small to me if I consider all the other data mining parties currently active. Even with what Snowden toughed us. This fear that now somebody really connects the dots is a healthy one. Strangely the revelations did not lead to the same conclusions regarding the private sector. Good marketing.

My workaround to this: I teach people how to create and manage useful fake identities.

Re: A Case That Has Microsoft, Apple and Amazon Agreeing

#129

Post by LordKano »

rayiner wrote: post #126
soylentcola wrote: post #31

"There’s irony in any tech company confronting the government on privacy matters, considering how much heat many take for mining their own customer information and using it for advertising and other profitable purposes." See, I don't find this very ironic. In fact, my only real issue with data mining and analysis by these sorts of companies is the way governments can demand this info without my approval. If Microsoft…

> But just because I agree to let Google read my location to send me traffic warnings before heading out to work doesn't mean I want the FBI to grab that data without my knowledge so they can determine if I might be a troublemaker Constitutionally, privacy is a pretty cut-and-dry concept. Information is either private or not. Private information isn't "information I don't want the government to have" it's "informatio…

Constitutionally, privacy is a pretty cut-and-dry concept. Private information isn't "information I don't want the government to have" it's "information I don't want anyone else to have."

You are incorrect. Your line of thinking runs in direct opposition to Roe V. Wade.

You can share information with your doctor that you specifically do not want the government to have. There's nothing special about doctors, in a constitutional sense. They are a third party providing a service and it is most certainly possible to have shared information with a third party that is still private.

Re: A Case That Has Microsoft, Apple and Amazon Agreeing

#130

Post by Lawtonfogle »

Tactic wrote: post #42
soylentcola wrote: post #31

"There’s irony in any tech company confronting the government on privacy matters, considering how much heat many take for mining their own customer information and using it for advertising and other profitable purposes." See, I don't find this very ironic. In fact, my only real issue with data mining and analysis by these sorts of companies is the way governments can demand this info without my approval. If Microsoft…

The government has this ability with near all other relationships you have. So much so that they have codified the few that it doesn't apply to. We put lawyers, doctors, clergy and spouses in a special category but others can be required to divulge any information they have on you with the appropriate order. (What's appropriate is another discussion) Ultimately, realize that any dealing you have is open to the govern…

>doctors

Might want to remove them from your list. Mandated reporting by therapists and doctors does more than most anything else I can think of to stop those most needing therapy from seeking it. From potential offenders who fear being outed to victims who fear their therapy records being made public at trial and used against them.

Post reply on HN