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

181–190 of 190 posts

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

#181

Post by ikeboy »

throwaway7767 wrote: post #177
ikeboy wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. From the link I included in my comment, Microsoft deputy general counsel John…

"they were going to pay a lawyer to rubber-stamp things in the future" carries the implication that they hadn't asked a lawyer this time. Asking a "legal team" is asking a lawyer.

They decided to ask even more lawyers, at least one who is outside and a former judge, they didn't decide to ask one lawyer as opposed to zero before.

I'm also not so sure you can draw broad conclusions about the company from this particular policy; "we will only search an email for someone else after a court order, and we may search ourselves if we believe there's enough evidence for a court order (we being lawyers)." I don't see much difference between the old and new policies; the main thing is that someone outside is asked.

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

#182

Post by JupiterMoon »

x0054 wrote: post #179
JupiterMoon wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For instance this is robbery sentence guidelines in UK [1] and CA [2]. As you can see, penalties are very comparable. Robbery in CA is 2, 3, or 5 years or 3-9 years, depending on the degree, while in UK it's 2-7 years or 7 - 12 years, also depending on the degree. The first level of robbery in UK is more attune to Petty or Grand Theft in CA. In CA there is also a GBH enhancement, that will bump you up to the 12 years…

CA is not the whole of the US. It's one relatively liberal state. What about states in the midwest? What about federal crimes? What about three strikes legislation? What about CFAA? What about death sentences? What about felony murder?

The US may be fixing some of these things but for an idea of how the US system is viewed from over here right now check out the documentaries by Louis Theroux and the one entitled "The Farm -- Life on Angola Prison".

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

#183

Post by throwaway7767 »

ikeboy wrote: post #181
throwaway7767 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. From the link I included in my comment, Microsoft deputy general counsel John…

"they were going to pay a lawyer to rubber-stamp things in the future" carries the implication that they hadn't asked a lawyer this time. Asking a "legal team" is asking a lawyer. They decided to ask even more lawyers , at least one who is outside and a former judge, they didn't decide to ask one lawyer as opposed to zero before. I'm also not so sure you can draw broad conclusions about the company from this particul…

Congratulations, you win the nit-picking contest. My point was that the advice of a lawyer changes nothing. Violating users privacy should be reserved for law enforcement with court orders.

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

#184

Post by ikeboy »

throwaway7767 wrote: post #183
ikeboy wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"they were going to pay a lawyer to rubber-stamp things in the future" carries the implication that they hadn't asked a lawyer this time. Asking a "legal team" is asking a lawyer. They decided to ask even more lawyers , at least one who is outside and a former judge, they didn't decide to ask one lawyer as opposed to zero before. I'm also not so sure you can draw broad conclusions about the company from this particul…

Congratulations, you win the nit-picking contest. My point was that the advice of a lawyer changes nothing. Violating users privacy should be reserved for law enforcement with court orders.

How should Microsoft go about asking a court to search their own servers?

Also, you implied you were fine with the new policy and that it was a significant change; claiming your point was the opposite at this point means you were very unclear. How should I have figured out what you meant from your words above?

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

#185

Post by CosmicHorrorSam »

twblalock wrote: post #135
tajen wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we acknowledge contagion by imperfect security, then please acknowledge by law the right of entering false identites on facebook and false information by electronic means, as a means to protect our privacy.

Why should there be a law about this? If you don't like Facebook's rules, you don't have to use it. Nobody is forcing you to get an account.

OH MAN.

No, no, no.

This is like saying, "Nobody is FORCING you to have a mailing address, if you don't like the Postal Service, just don't have an address!"

Sure, you CAN do so, but if you do, you forego significant opportunities and can't make use of critical infrastructure if you do- and indeed in that example, there are places it literally is illegal not to have an address. Facebook is approaching that level of ubiquity and 'expectedness' in the U.S., at least.

Please, please, please don't try to enforce the 'take it or leave it' mentality for ubiquitous software services. It is every person's right, privilege, and DUTY to complain vociferously when companies are stupid and implement stupid rules- hopefully resulting in the clarifying, changing, or removing of said stupid rules.

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

#186

Post by throwaway7767 »

ikeboy wrote: post #184
throwaway7767 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congratulations, you win the nit-picking contest. My point was that the advice of a lawyer changes nothing. Violating users privacy should be reserved for law enforcement with court orders.

How should Microsoft go about asking a court to search their own servers? Also, you implied you were fine with the new policy and that it was a significant change; claiming your point was the opposite at this point means you were very unclear. How should I have figured out what you meant from your words above?

> How should Microsoft go about asking a court to search their own servers?

The people pressing charges do not apply for court orders. The police does so in cases where they believe it is needed for an active investigation. Microsoft should then have a policy of not disclosing information to law enforcement unless provided with a court order.

The fact that microsoft ended up stating that they would do exactly this in the future should indicate that this is not the problem you are making it out to be.

> Also, you implied you were fine with the new policy and that it was a significant change; claiming your point was the opposite at this point means you were very unclear. How should I have figured out what you meant from your words above?

By reading the post with a mind to reading the likely meaning, rather than focusing on finding unlikely meanings. As if you were a human communicating with another human, rather than a tokenizer reading source code. If you did that, you would see that my point has been consistent the entire time.

If you read the totality of the post, the point is quite clear, and I've restated it a few times now.

I assume this is clear now? Because if not, I'm starting to suspect a troll and am not interested in furthering this conversation.

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

#187

Post by ikeboy »

throwaway7767 wrote: post #186
ikeboy wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How should Microsoft go about asking a court to search their own servers? Also, you implied you were fine with the new policy and that it was a significant change; claiming your point was the opposite at this point means you were very unclear. How should I have figured out what you meant from your words above?

> How should Microsoft go about asking a court to search their own servers? The people pressing charges do not apply for court orders. The police does so in cases where they believe it is needed for an active investigation. Microsoft should then have a policy of not disclosing information to law enforcement unless provided with a court order. The fact that microsoft ended up stating that they would do exactly this in…

>Microsoft should then have a policy of not disclosing information to law enforcement unless provided with a court order.

According to the statement, that was their policy.

>The fact that microsoft ended up stating that they would do exactly this in the future should indicate that this is not the problem you are making it out to be.

The steps they said they were adding in the statement don't include going to the police. I'm not sure what you mean by this statement that could be correct.

I went over your comments again, and they contradict each other, let alone the facts.

as I said in the original comment they eventually backtracked on this and said they'd report such future crimes to the police.

Whereas your original comment doesn't mention the police at all.

I get that you feel you've been consistent, but you haven't communicated your actual thoughts very well. The other possibility here is that you don't have a firm grasp on what exactly you think Microsoft did wrong and should be doing instead. It certainly doesn't come across in your writing.

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

#188

Post by dragontamer »

dcohenp wrote: post #169
dragontamer wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

Crap, too late to edit now. Lol. Sorry about that.

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

#189

Post by notahacker »

belorn wrote: post #174
notahacker wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

You assume the false advertisement would be done lawfully. People who hack places to publish list of embarrassing information don't do so legally, so why should we assume that people who abuse data mining services would only be lawful entities? The false advertisement might say something like "save 50% of your next amazon purchase" or "try out our new car service by getting the first trip free" or any other ways of g…

It seems a little unusual to question the merits of data protection law on the basis that sometimes people can circumvent it by committing crimes!

Do you not realise how low response rates to ads and promotional mailshots are? Try as you may, you cannot possibly hope to obtain anything more than a tiny fraction of the data held by a third party by advertising your phishing page on their network, even if the third party actively supports your goals. And even if you get some useful personal information, if you publish it without consent, you've committed a crime.

Banning the sharing/selling of data without consent imposes significant obstacles to legal and illegal hassling of people whose data has been mined.

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

#190

Post by selimthegrim »

harryh wrote: post #143
bad_user wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And which amendment would those privacy protections be located in?
Post reply on HN