Live data from Hacker News

The ACLU wants to know why Facebook beat a 2018 wiretap case

bloomberg.com

31–40 of 58 posts

Re: The ACLU wants to know why Facebook beat a 2018 wiretap case

#31
post #5

Because you live in a lawless oligarchy that has been rubber stamping the rich's laws for 2 straight centuries. See the endless extension of copyright. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act#/...

Blunt, but accurate.

Was there any state governor in the first 100 years of this country that wasn't on somebody's payroll? They didn't even bother to hide it.

Read about the Hawaii coup sometime if you want to see ugliness. Notice how all those tall buildings in downtown Honolulu are named after Westerners?

Is it any different today?

Re: The ACLU wants to know why Facebook beat a 2018 wiretap case

#32
post #10

Why can't these news articles link to the briefs or provide a case number or anything? They didn't even say what freakin' court they were in directly! I know it's the 9th circuit based on the description, but where was the original case heard? Arg! Edit: Fortunatly the 9th circuit is actually pretty good with youtube, which made this easy to find: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6SeGJQjqyA 19-15472 ACLU Foundation v…

It doesnt seize to amaze me why news orgs dont provide sources in addition to claiming another org claimed it first. In the hype about trying to be real news maybe you should take it much more seriously. I can prolly find independent researchers who arent part of huge news orgs who do link to sources.

It's surprising that partisan tabloids (Breitbart, Daily Beast, etc) provide clickable hyperlinks to the original reporting and source documents more often than major media outlets do.

Maybe it's due to their reblog origins, they're less afraid of losing traffic to competitors? Or because of their reputation they have more to prove? Regardless, it should be done by everyone.

Re: The ACLU wants to know why Facebook beat a 2018 wiretap case

#33
post #30
post #29

Do Facebook and others use pre-quantum encryption? Is it reasonable to say that if and when the NSA (presumably doing full take of these comms) has a quantum computer capable of performing Shor’s algorithm, that they will be able to decrypt all of these comms? When would FB and others move to quantum-resistant encryption if they aren’t already? What is the possibility that radically advanced tech including quantum co…

Addressing your second to last question, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility, though the more likely solution for the government is throwing money at compute power to break encryption which is reasonably secure if millions of dollars isn't thrown at it. I love Dave Brubeck/Take Five, check this out: https://soundcloud.com/juanchov182/radiohead-fivestep

The Dave Brubeck comment was tongue in cheek, referencing recent quantum computing developments (not classified)

Re: The ACLU wants to know why Facebook beat a 2018 wiretap case

#34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesnt seize to amaze me why news orgs dont provide sources in addition to claiming another org claimed it first. In the hype about trying to be real news maybe you should take it much more seriously. I can prolly find independent researchers who arent part of huge news orgs who do link to sources.

It's surprising that partisan tabloids (Breitbart, Daily Beast, etc) provide clickable hyperlinks to the original reporting and source documents more often than major media outlets do. Maybe it's due to their reblog origins, they're less afraid of losing traffic to competitors? Or because of their reputation they have more to prove? Regardless, it should be done by everyone.

> partisan tabloids ... major media outlets

Don't buy into the propaganda. Most major media outlets are partisan as well.

Sometimes the party is simply the 'increase state authority and support war' party, they simply color it red or blue for your personal preferences.

Re: The ACLU wants to know why Facebook beat a 2018 wiretap case

#35
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23012844 .

This isn't necessarily an unrelated controversy. Excessive record sealing, secret legal opinions, pay-walled public records, and the fact that Federal courts are only available to large businesses while the rest of us are forced into arbitration, are all closely related issues. There is a good faith argument that copyright term extensions are but another example of the common thread connecting those issues.

It was a generic tangent, though, as your comment makes clear by outlining the genera. Since the rule says "and", I didn't feel the need to edit it.

As for flamebait, flamewar topics, and not having anything genuinely new to say, the comment had all that covered mightily, so this was not a borderline call.

Re: The ACLU wants to know why Facebook beat a 2018 wiretap case

#36
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't necessarily an unrelated controversy. Excessive record sealing, secret legal opinions, pay-walled public records, and the fact that Federal courts are only available to large businesses while the rest of us are forced into arbitration, are all closely related issues. There is a good faith argument that copyright term extensions are but another example of the common thread connecting those issues.

No reasonable person would say som33's comment was an "unrelated controversy," it's a clear response to the question "Why was a case involving a wealthy corporation sealed?" The way HN is moderated does not welcome this line of questioning, though. You're not allowed to suggest that VC-funded tech might be a source of evil or bad ethics. Proof? Here's a similar "flame-baity" comment under this topic that sits on the…

Oh you guys. The GP comment was just the sort of flamebait that we don't want on HN, regardless of flavor. We'd moderate it just the same the other way [1]. Big denunciatory rhetoric is just not what this site is for. Repetition and indignation are the two things that most kill curiosity, so repetition of indignation is the worst. [2]

An arbitrary link doesn't prove anything except that we may not have seen a post. That's the simplest explanation, and the likeliest [3]. HN gets millions of comments a year. We don't come close to reading them all, and we can't moderate what we don't see.

We rely on community members to flag the posts that most require moderator attention. You haven't flagged any, including the one you're complaining about here, so it's not clear to me how much you care about this. It sort of spoils the game of get-the-moderators when the mods finally show up and sweep the floor or whatever. For a while it was a sport on Twitter to pass such links around ("see what horrors the Hacker News moderators approve of!") but I hear that's mostly died out.

[1] By the way, the last time you were upset about moderator bias, I ended up giving you an extremely detailed reply. You may not have seen it, though, because it took me a couple days to get back to the thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22920602. Read those links—"The mods here are radical liberals", "socialist-leaning mods", "far-left social justice agenda" and the rest—and see how much evidentiary value you still think these gotcha games have.

[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

[3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Re: The ACLU wants to know why Facebook beat a 2018 wiretap case

#37
post #33
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Addressing your second to last question, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility, though the more likely solution for the government is throwing money at compute power to break encryption which is reasonably secure if millions of dollars isn't thrown at it. I love Dave Brubeck/Take Five, check this out: https://soundcloud.com/juanchov182/radiohead-fivestep

The Dave Brubeck comment was tongue in cheek, referencing recent quantum computing developments (not classified)

You're losing me - what developments?

Re: The ACLU wants to know why Facebook beat a 2018 wiretap case

#38
post #10

Why can't these news articles link to the briefs or provide a case number or anything? They didn't even say what freakin' court they were in directly! I know it's the 9th circuit based on the description, but where was the original case heard? Arg! Edit: Fortunatly the 9th circuit is actually pretty good with youtube, which made this easy to find: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6SeGJQjqyA 19-15472 ACLU Foundation v…

It doesnt seize to amaze me why news orgs dont provide sources in addition to claiming another org claimed it first. In the hype about trying to be real news maybe you should take it much more seriously. I can prolly find independent researchers who arent part of huge news orgs who do link to sources.

It's almost like they want you to depend on the news orgs for... the thing they're selling you (or, the thing they're giving you for free because you're the product).

Re: The ACLU wants to know why Facebook beat a 2018 wiretap case

#39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesnt seize to amaze me why news orgs dont provide sources in addition to claiming another org claimed it first. In the hype about trying to be real news maybe you should take it much more seriously. I can prolly find independent researchers who arent part of huge news orgs who do link to sources.

It's surprising that partisan tabloids (Breitbart, Daily Beast, etc) provide clickable hyperlinks to the original reporting and source documents more often than major media outlets do. Maybe it's due to their reblog origins, they're less afraid of losing traffic to competitors? Or because of their reputation they have more to prove? Regardless, it should be done by everyone.

I honestly have to wonder if in this case it's because the article is designed to be primarily viewed on Bloomberg Terminals, and the website is secondary.

Re: The ACLU wants to know why Facebook beat a 2018 wiretap case

#40
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that we have proof, at least as far as the US Government is concerned. Snowden provided us with proof in abundance that they will "find a way". How anyone can consider this a gray area in 2020 is beyond me.

This comment thread really is nonsense. So Facebook and the government are secretly working together in a conspiracy to falsify court records while secretly they cooporate the whole time and the case was never actually tried? What planet are you on? And the proof is Snowden, because... ??? Or are you all just agreeing you have your own conspiracy theories, and aren't directly commenting on what each other are saying?

Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN, regardless of how wrong other commenters are or you feel they are. Lashing out like this convinces no one, and only discredits your case—which, if you know more of the truth than others, is a bad thing.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post reply on HN