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

Twitter discloses national security letters

blog.twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 160 posts

Re: Twitter discloses national security letters

#111

Post by brians »

therein wrote: post #97
wfunction wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you think they'd respond? With SEAL Team 6 while keeping everything quiet? Possibly by taking you to court and convicting you of breaking some law by refusing to provide the information the first time, perhaps even completely independently of whether or not the order was actually constitutional. I can imagine lots of bad outcomes that would land you in jail without giving you the chance to take the actual is…

But when dealing with a corporate entity, who do you go after? Since this sort of coercion seems to only work on an individual level, going after the entire corporate entity won't invoke the same emotional response.

NSLs are addressed to, and claim to compel, an individual.

Re: Twitter discloses national security letters

#112

Post by Domenic_S »

jessespears wrote: post #107
moxious wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be in the minority, but I still think these companies are being cowardly. They disclose as soon as they're permitted to, but the trouble with that is that the permission is coming from the people who are the problem in the first place. An approach that would care about customers and show some more guts would be simple refusal. In essence, civil disobedience in the face of someone who is violating the law. Let t…

The company officers or agents who were served with the letter could be held personally liable for failure to comply with the order. I think it's a little unfair to expect employees to go to prison for contempt of court in defiance of the order.

Howcome?

Re: Twitter discloses national security letters

#113

Post by JoachimSchipper »

moxious wrote: post #47
anw wrote: post #21

This is a welcome message, especially seeing Twitter continue to fight for their freedom of speech in court (Twitter v. Lynch), along with the host of other Internet service companies. While I understand government agencies' desires to investigate persons of interest, the checks and balances of the system were put in place to do just that – check and balance the power of the system. It's outrageous that agencies feel…

I may be in the minority, but I still think these companies are being cowardly. They disclose as soon as they're permitted to, but the trouble with that is that the permission is coming from the people who are the problem in the first place. An approach that would care about customers and show some more guts would be simple refusal. In essence, civil disobedience in the face of someone who is violating the law. Let t…

Twitter isn't outright defying the government, but they did spend millions on lawyers. Don't they deserve more freedom than implied by "cowardly"?

Re: Twitter discloses national security letters

#114

Post by Domenic_S »

orbitingpluto wrote: post #36
thedevil wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Might his lower Twitter engagement have something to do with people getting sick of hearing from him about Trump?" Do you really think the attention he gets on Twitter DROPPED because of him talking about Trump?

I've stopped reading Dilbert let alone Twitter. Seeing him post pictures of himself acting in the role of sugar daddy to a petulant child-woman is well beyond my initial scope of interest in him. My interest was Dilbert. It was all about making fun of the disconnect between management and employees. Ironically, his public persona is now at odds with the general theme of his work. I suspect his original material is ju…

I have this problem with a lot of engineers I follow on twitter. I followed to see tweets about technology not your armchair political views.

Re: Twitter discloses national security letters

#116

Post by oneubauer »

Domenic_S wrote: post #112
jessespears wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The company officers or agents who were served with the letter could be held personally liable for failure to comply with the order. I think it's a little unfair to expect employees to go to prison for contempt of court in defiance of the order.

Howcome?

I think it's unfair to expect that.

Anyone who risks their own wellbeing for the greater good is usually applauded, for good reason: it is not expected.

Edit: if you'll pardon the expression, it takes serious balls to put your entire way of life on the line. Yes, history sometimes venerates the brave...sometimes posthumously....so it all might seem glamorous. But it's a lot harder than that in real time, when you don't know what will come of it.

Re: Twitter discloses national security letters

#117

Post by vkou »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #108
kibwen wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to cite a source? And what sort of transparency, exactly, do you want to see out of Twitter to disprove something that cannot be disproven?

If Twitter outright stated "We did not shadowban Scott Adams or otherwise place any restrictions on him, and do not intend to do so in the future", that would be sufficient for me. Usually corporations and people don't outright lie.

Do they also need to assure you that their board of directors is not composed of reptilians? Do they need to respond to every accusation and conspiracy theory, or just the ones without supporting evidence?

Re: Twitter discloses national security letters

#118

Post by wpietri »

trendia wrote: post #109
wpietri wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does end-to-end encryption mean for a tool with browser-based interfaces and where people often log on from multiple devices? I'm having trouble imagining how I'd do safe and easy key management between my phone, the old phone I stuck to my fridge, my tablet, and then Chrome and Firefox on my work laptop, my personal laptop, and that old laptop that hangs out by the couch for use when I'm watching TV. I also don…

The sender sends it to multiple devices, each with a different key. I know that Signal messages can be sent to mobile and desktop at the same time, and it is seamless to do so. The sender does not even know that they are sending it to two devices

I can't tell if you know you only answered part of the question.

Re: Twitter discloses national security letters

#119

Post by 234dd57d2c8db »

Domenic_S wrote: post #112
jessespears wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The company officers or agents who were served with the letter could be held personally liable for failure to comply with the order. I think it's a little unfair to expect employees to go to prison for contempt of court in defiance of the order.

Howcome?

I'm not going to jail over my job at twitter.

Re: Twitter discloses national security letters

#120

Post by josteink »

phpnode wrote: post #31
teddyh wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would anyone actually prove something like this, short of getting Twitter to admit it? What he has seen is: > my tweets only go out to a subset of my followers. The rest don’t know I tweeted. My followers tell me this is the case. They have to visit my timeline to see my tweets. What other proof could anyone realistically provide?

That is how twitter works - it doesn't show every tweet from everyone you follow in your timeline, it shows a subset based on what it considers most relevant.

> That is how twitter works - it doesn't show every tweet from everyone you follow in your timeline, it shows a subset based on what it considers most relevant.

If this is true, this is the same as Facebook does.

And for this reason I can't bother checking Facebook any more. Can't see what's in that for twitter?

Facebook is not showing me the posts from people I know, but instead advertisement and "reactions" it thinks I may like. Which I give a utter fuck about.

It's just another one of those things which just makes me stop caring.

If twitter knows what best for them, they should definitely not copy this UX anti-pattern of overruling the users explicit choice (about whose posts they want to follow).

Post reply on HN