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

141–150 of 190 posts

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

#141

Post by ddlatham »

xj9 wrote: post #91
ddlatham wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true - there are reasons not to do it on the client instead. Consider a web email client instead. It's not feasible to login to the site, download a full archive of your email, decrypt it, and index it before being able to do a search.

IndexedDB[1] sort of makes that a non-issue, doesn't it? [1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/IndexedDB_A...

No, it doesn't. This issue is not technology to store and search data from the client. The point is not wanting to download everything to every client in the first place.

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

#142

Post by notahacker »

belorn wrote: post #133
notahacker wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I've opted out of having my details passed on to third parties, I only have to opt out of receiving communications once . And since they're also not allowed to give the data away and can get into trouble for allowing it to be stolen or accidentally shared, my name and personal details are also somewhat less likely to crop up in an embarrassing public "people who subscribe to this service" list...

Do you mean like Ashley Madison hack? Nothing in the ad-backed company model prevent someone sending a fake advertisement to the demographic who are likely involved in adultery. After that you publish a "people who subscribe to this service are ..." list based on who clicked on it. The only question if someone could do this with Facebook/Google is if they provides targeted advertisement to that demographic or if you…

There is no way whatsoever that you're getting my name or email address by some third party serving your ad to me, unless I happen to end up voluntarily filling those details in on your web property. Which I probably won't do, unless you have something I actually want, and I trust you. That's the difference. That and the fact that if you publish your "the small fraction of people on $EMBARRASSINGTHIRDPARTYSERVICE's mailing list which clicked through to my landing page and filled out my webform" list without me having opted to allow you to share the information you'll find yourself in a courtroom.

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

#143

Post by harryh »

bad_user wrote: post #137
rayiner wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You're talking about secrecy, privacy is not secrecy and I don't think you understand what privacy is. Are you a homosexual or a transgender? Did you ever have an extramarital affair? Do you have HIV, or diabetes? Do you have a criminal record? Are you a muslim or a jew? Have you been abused as a child? Do you have a history of drug usage? Are you in a lower caste? Are you a war veteran? Have you ever spoken against…

All of the things you said are interesting but have little to do with the privacy protections in the US Constitution.

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

#144

Post by harrumph »

alyx wrote: post #97
harrumph wrote: post #47

Agreeing "for once"? Hardly. Apple and Microsoft are already on record as agreeing to fix wages, creating a cartel affecting a million tech workers. https://pando.com/2014/03/22/revealed-apple-and-googles-wage...

You mean Apple and Google.

I mean Apple, Microsoft, Google, et al.

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

#145

Post by revelation »

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.

Actually, my problem with giving someone else data is that apparently US law considers data given to a third-party to be essentially a free for all for law enforcement agencies. There is zero protection for anything you have at one point shared with a third-party company, even if a device did the sharing.

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

#146

Post by soylentcola »

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…

I admit my post was more a personal complaint/rant than a legal argument. I guess my concern isn't so much about privacy as it is about the ability (or inability) to decide on at least a general level where to send information.

Put way-too-simplisticly, if someone said to me:

"Would you let my widget track where you drive in exchange for a discount on fuel based on mileage?" Maybe I would say yes. Maybe I would say no.

How about if the offer also said that "the way we pay for this is by scanning the data we collect. That way we can sell ad space to businesses near your common driving areas. They never get your actual data but a shop on your morning commute will pay us to show their ads to people that may pass by." Maybe I would still agree. Or maybe I'd think, "eh....I dunno. Raw data for discounts is one thing but analyzing it for third parties seems sketchy." Again, my choice in general even if I don't ever know the exact workings of the software and transactions or any of the third party businesses buying ad space.

I think of it more like contract law and knowing (at least broadly) what you're agreeing to before you sign.

To continue this ludicrously oversimplified example, let's say I agree to the terms because on one hand, all this targeted advertising seems a little tacky or creepy but on the other hand, it really does beat getting blasted with ads for stores in other towns or items I'd never buy. Plus hey...the discounts on gas mean I'm spending $50 less every month!

Well, without my knowledge, the local Drug Enforcement Agency has decided that the best way to stop trafficking is to either secretly demand all the data collected by this ads-for-fuel service or just install some dodgy new data collection towers that connect to the tracking widget and intercept it all without anyone's knowledge.

That is the point where I have a problem. It's not that I expect complete privacy in public. If law enforcement wants to get a warrant to track my car because they think I'm a criminal suspect, that's something that can happen. But to demand (or just take) mass amounts of data that was only volunteered for other uses is just not cool.

Maybe my animosity comes from thinking that if the state wants all of this info, they ought to develop their own ways of getting it, rather than just taking advantage of legit services that people choose to use. Or maybe if they just came out and said "we're putting a tracker on everyone's car" people would go apeshit.

It's like if you can't convince everyone to submit to tracking by the state/law enforcement, just wait until someone else develops a service everyone wants to sign up for, then demand or steal their data.

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

#147

Post by downandout »

Of course this appeal will fail. The US believes that it has jurisdiction essentially everywhere. One need only look at the FCPA (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) to see this firmly held belief in action. The US Government is increasingly using it [1] to prosecute people and companies it simply doesn't like by punishing conduct that occurs outside the US that in many cases has no effect on any US citizen or company.

That said, if you're a high level drug trafficker, and you're not at least using PGP, you deserve whatever you get. This is Darwinism at work. Even normal, non-criminals should be using the strongest encryption they can get their hands on, because no one knows what kind of conduct the government will seek to punish going forward. Prosecutors get more creative every day in applying our extremely broad laws to increasingly wide swaths of behavior.

[1] http://www.fcpaprofessor.com/a-focus-on-doj-fcpa-individual-...

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

#148

Post by skaushik92 »

Interesting side note... the author must have originally called this something along the lines of: "As Microsoft takes on the feds, Apple and Amazon watch nervously" or something like that, since the link to the article is "as-microsoft-takes-on-the-feds-apple-and-amazon-watch-nervously".

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

#149

Post by thomasahle »

compactmani wrote: post #116
SilasX wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's like signing a contract where someone else has the ability to change the fine print after I've signed it. I don't disagree with your points about government access to this cloud information ... but this point would carry a lot more weight if these services didn't routinely get away with unilaterally changing their privacy terms. I also really doubt people have well-formed beliefs about exactly which privacy rig…

Last I checked, the government gets in zero trouble when misleading you about which rights you are waiving. I thought that was quite clear by now?

Maybe they just forgot? http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com

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

#150

Post by JupiterMoon »

x0054 wrote: post #115
JupiterMoon wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By European standards prison sentences in the US are very very long. There is also a perception that in the US the system is loaded against people who don't have enough money to pay for a good lawyer.

I am not very familiar with penalties in EU, but I thought that on all the basics, like fraud, robbery, burglary, assault, murder, etc the penalties were comparable to US. Where US does go insane is when it comes to drug and gun crimes. The NRA lobbied for very stiff penalties for anyone who uses a gun in a crime, at least in CA. The drugs on the other hand are just a national obsession for people here in US, so I ge…

According to the prison documentaries I've seen EU penalties in general are much lower (like half to one third) than US ones for the named crimes. And we don't have death sentences over here so that changes perception a lot.
Post reply on HN