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

161–170 of 190 posts

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

#161

Post by pdkl95 »

snowwindwaves wrote: post #124
NoGravitas wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This may actually be a very good idea for some cases.

If the stuff being protected by the key is, for example, the type of data that someone would otherwise keep in a personal fire-safe, then simply printing out the keys and keeping them in that fire-safe wouldn't change the type of security being provided.

It might be nice if we had some type of highly-reliable (like the redundancy in QR codes[1]), so the process of printing out a key and re-scanning it was easy and trustworthy.

[1] http://datagenetics.com/blog/november12013/index.html

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

#162

Post by SilasX »

dragontamer wrote: post #158
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…

> Constitutionally, privacy is a pretty cut-and-dry concept. That's true. Privacy is anything you kept on your own person or in your own property. Emails however, are stored on another person's computer and therefore have no expectation of privacy. (some 1980s case IIRC). Constitutionally, privacy is a cut-and-dry concept for the 1800s when the Bill of Rights were written. The fact of the matter is, the people who wr…

Mails are stored in another person's truck, and yet privacy applies.

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

#163

Post by amalcon »

ddlatham wrote: post #52
rayiner wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no reason that stuff can't be done on the client side. Outlook works just peachy searching my GB's of emails and attachments from its local replica, using the internet only to sync.

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.

This is one of the reasons that web email clients (as your primary means of access, rather than a backup) were a bad idea.

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

#164

Post by ikeboy »

throwaway7767 wrote: post #33

Microsoft has shown that they are quite willing to access induviduals private data if they have a financial stake in it [0]. Yes, they eventually backtracked under public pressure (after trying very hard to justify how it's totally okay because they were going to pay a lawyer to rubber-stamp things in the future), but it's rather hard to listen to their general council talking about how they value privacy on principl…

Their statement says

In this case, there was a thorough review by a legal team separate from the investigating team and strong evidence of a criminal act that met a standard comparable to that required to obtain a legal order to search other sites.

I don't think that supports your claim that they would only ask a lawyer in the future.

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

#165

Post by [deleted] »

rayiner wrote: post #132
LordKano wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cons…

I'm talking about "privacy" in the 4th amendment sense. The Griswold "privacy" line of cases is pretty much totally inapplicable outside the reproduction/sexual activity/family planning context, largely because they conjure up a "right to privacy" that doesn't really exist in the Constitution.

[deleted]

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

#166

Post by thephyber »

wtbob wrote: post #136
LordKano wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cons…

> You can share information with your doctor that you specifically do not want the government to have. Sure, you can—and your doctor will reveal that information to the government if required to do so by mandatory-reporting laws.

Confirmed, (although there may be state law protections, depending on the state). There are similar issues with attorney, accountant, priest, psychotherapist, etc.[1]

Spousal privilege is US federal common law and is complicated because many states have laws that either support or override the federal version.[2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_%28evidence%29 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_privilege#Communicatio...

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

#167

Post by rayiner »

guelo wrote: post #69
wvenable wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Fourth Amendment seems to be pretty merky when it comes to data about you belonging to and stored with other entities.

The "3rd party doctrine" is a bullshit interpretation and it needs to die. When I go through the trouble of coming up with a long complicated password and setup two factor authentication it's pretty obvious that I have "an expectation of privacy". Maybe what the tech companies need to do is have a checkmark on sign up that says "I expect my data to be private".

My take: The third party doctrine is a natural consequence of the use of "their" in the 4th amendment. People have a fourth amendment right to "their" persons, houses, papers, and effects. Bits on Google's hard drives aren't "theirs" they're Google's. You have no property right in those bits. If Google loses them, you can't sue them for negligence. If they change their TOS and monetize those bits, you have no recourse.[1]

It wouldn't even be a hard issue of the Supreme Court hadn't injected this "expectation of privacy" concept that appears nowhere in the text of the amendment.

[1] From Google's TOS: "When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content."

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

#168

Post by dragontamer »

SilasX wrote: post #162
dragontamer wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Constitutionally, privacy is a pretty cut-and-dry concept. That's true. Privacy is anything you kept on your own person or in your own property. Emails however, are stored on another person's computer and therefore have no expectation of privacy. (some 1980s case IIRC). Constitutionally, privacy is a cut-and-dry concept for the 1800s when the Bill of Rights were written. The fact of the matter is, the people who wr…

Mails are stored in another person's truck, and yet privacy applies.

Unfortunately, when in 1980s when the last Federal Cast happened, Emails were stored on your personal computer inside of your house.

POP was the primary protocol back then, not IMAP. IMAP wasn't invented yet. Therefore, the law lags and even today in 2015, the laws are being used as if emails are stored on personal computers.

Which means Emails are considered "abandoned property" if left on an external computer for more than 6 months. Abandoned Property is not subject to privacy.

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

#169

Post by dcohenp »

dragontamer wrote: post #168
SilasX wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mails are stored in another person's truck, and yet privacy applies.

Unfortunately, when in 1980s when the last Federal Cast happened, Emails were stored on your personal computer inside of your house. POP was the primary protocol back then, not IMAP. IMAP wasn't invented yet. Therefore, the law lags and even today in 2015, the laws are being used as if emails are stored on personal computers. Which means Emails are considered "abandoned property" if left on an external computer for m…

Man, I just spent like 5 minutes looking up "Federal Cast", since it sounded fascinating. Then I just realized, maybe you meant "Federal Case"?

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

#170

Post by nevdka »

pdkl95 wrote: post #161
snowwindwaves wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not print the key?

This may actually be a very good idea for some cases. If the stuff being protected by the key is, for example, the type of data that someone would otherwise keep in a personal fire-safe, then simply printing out the keys and keeping them in that fire-safe wouldn't change the type of security being provided. It might be nice if we had some type of highly-reliable (like the redundancy in QR codes[1]), so the process of…

You could just use a QR code. There's no real reason they need to be URLs.
Post reply on HN