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

U.S. lawmakers call for privacy legislation after Reuters report on Amazon

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 81 posts

Re: U.S. lawmakers call for privacy legislation after Reuters report on Amazon

#71

Post by emptycan »

nitrogen wrote: post #60
emptycan wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's quite a leap from "scan SSID" to knowing "all about your home network" and sounds like hyperbole. What can I gather from just passively scanning SSID and possibly putting out some probes on a properly configured WiFi network? I imagine some things like number of hosts, MAC addresses, traffic stats - which is not ideal, but hardly what I would call knowing "all about it". I'm quite the privacy nut, but I always…

broadcast over the airwaves Intent matters a great deal. Very few people intend for their wifi to reach their neighbors or the street. There is already an expectation of privacy for visible and IR wavelengths of the EM spectrum.

I don't agree intent has any relevance here vs the other issues at hand, and it is news to me that there is some actual distinct expectation of privacy with regards to wavelength as you state.

Visible and IR wavelengths don't reach outside through non-windows, because of physics - but I don't think there is any inherent expectation of privacy - quite the opposite. If you leave your front bay window open and people outside can see in, and you call the police for privacy invasion they will laugh in your face in most places - in fact if you are doing something deemed obscene or distasteful you may be the one arrested - and for good reason. They'll tell you to get something to block the light like a curtain.

Whether or not people intend it - wifi signals easily will make it to the street - and they're on shared spectrum. Especially if you're going to pollute the public ISM band - it's sort of on you to take whatever precautions you need to stay safe whether that is better encryption, a faraday cage or just abstaining and finding alternative means.

If you start blasting loud noises 24/7 constantly in your neighborhood and someone complains, is your response going to be well, "I don't intend for this garbage to reach my neighbors"?

Re: U.S. lawmakers call for privacy legislation after Reuters report on Amazon

#72

Post by Brendinooo »

diveanon wrote: post #70
Brendinooo wrote: post #13

A reminder that no one's making you use Amazon, especially the Alexa stuff. I invested in Mycroft to try and kickstart a privacy-focused alternative; the hardware isn't there yet but they've made good strides on the software side. You can invest too! https://www.startengine.com/mycroftai Make the world we want to live in.

Or just leave the US and stop participating in this failed experiment. You can’t make things better when half the people around you are making it worse.

No thanks! I like my country just fine, and would prefer to make it better if I can.

Re: U.S. lawmakers call for privacy legislation after Reuters report on Amazon

#73

Post by AnthonyMouse »

LogonType10 wrote: post #64
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rest of the people work for the government, not the corporation? All they need is someone inside the company whose job it is to keep other people inside the company from finding out. It's the same model as police use for informants and intelligence services use for espionage. It's also kind of pointless to talk about how to falsify a class of thing we have affirmative evidence is happening. When we found out abou…

>It's also kind of pointless to talk about how to falsify a class of thing we have affirmative evidence is happening. Can you elaborate on the logic behind this a bit more and perhaps explain how it wouldn't justify McCarthyism as well? (e.g. we know that there was a Soviet spy in one office, so every office that acts displeasingly is filled with Soviet spies)

Sure.

The problem with McCarthyism is that you're accusing people of being spies without any real evidence. They are, in all likelihood, innocent people being punished for no reason. It becomes a witch hunt and a pretext for punishing anyone you don't like but have no legitimate reason to punish.

By contrast, "spies exist" is a thing that we know is true. There have been documented instances. We don't need to know that there is there is a spy in a particular company at a particular time to know that we should take rational countermeasures against them. Encrypt everything. Eliminate centralization to avoid a single point of compromise for millions of people.

This can't be used for a witch hunt because it's defensive rather than offensive and isn't singling out any particular entity for special scrutiny. If we don't know which particular company or technology is targeted at which time, if we don't know if the adversary is Russia or China or organized crime or corrupt law enforcement, the course of action is still the same. Make mass surveillance as difficult as possible for everybody everywhere.

Re: U.S. lawmakers call for privacy legislation after Reuters report on Amazon

#74

Post by encryptluks2 »

criddell wrote: post #26
encryptluks2 wrote: post #6

US lawmakers can't even take on robocallers and spammers, so I don't have much faith in their ability. When they are willing to actually impose harsh criminal liability on companies and employees like they do for citizens, then things like this won't be an issue.

I had great hope when I heard about the STIR/SHAKEN protocol [1]. It's been in effect for five months now and I think I get more spam calls than ever before. [1]: https://www.fcc.gov/call-authentication

Same here. I feel like of they'd just label robocallers terrorist and treat them as such, it would be a lot harder to find people willing to take that risk even in foreign countries. Sanctions would go a long way as well in other countries taking it more seriously.

Re: U.S. lawmakers call for privacy legislation after Reuters report on Amazon

#75

Post by nitrogen »

emptycan wrote: post #71
nitrogen wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

broadcast over the airwaves Intent matters a great deal. Very few people intend for their wifi to reach their neighbors or the street. There is already an expectation of privacy for visible and IR wavelengths of the EM spectrum.

I don't agree intent has any relevance here vs the other issues at hand, and it is news to me that there is some actual distinct expectation of privacy with regards to wavelength as you state. Visible and IR wavelengths don't reach outside through non-windows, because of physics - but I don't think there is any inherent expectation of privacy - quite the opposite. If you leave your front bay window open and people ou…

distinct expectation of privacy with regards to wavelength

AIUI police aren't permitted to use anything that lets them see through walls without a warrant, and the same should apply to corporations and individuals.

it's sort of on you to take whatever precautions you need to stay safe

In other words, "I'm going to take what I can because you didn't know you didn't lock your door," is that it?

No reasonable non-tech person would look at a wifi router in their closet and think, "I expect waves radiating from this device to pass through the walls of my house and be used by large corporations for tracking purposes." They think, "I plug this in and I can use the Internet on my phone inside my house."

Re: U.S. lawmakers call for privacy legislation after Reuters report on Amazon

#76

Post by whimsicalism »

mschuster91 wrote: post #58
rileyphone wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In May 2017, Wyden co-sponsored the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, Senate Bill 720, which made it a federal crime, punishable by a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment,[55] for Americans to encourage or participate in boycotts against Israel and Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories if protesting actions by the Israeli government. The bill would make it legal for U.S. states to refuse to do bus…

> The bill would make it legal for U.S. states to refuse to do business with contractors that engage in boycotts against Israel. I fail to see the problem in the government not indirectly funding entities supporting agitation against a close military and political ally of the US.

I do not think the government should police my views on Israel just so I can be allowed to be a teacher or a municipal worker. I shouldn't be required to sign a pledge supporting Israel.

Doing that is a problem. Contractors are a lot more broad than you think.

Re: U.S. lawmakers call for privacy legislation after Reuters report on Amazon

#77

Post by mschuster91 »

whimsicalism wrote: post #76
mschuster91 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The bill would make it legal for U.S. states to refuse to do business with contractors that engage in boycotts against Israel. I fail to see the problem in the government not indirectly funding entities supporting agitation against a close military and political ally of the US.

I do not think the government should police my views on Israel just so I can be allowed to be a teacher or a municipal worker. I shouldn't be required to sign a pledge supporting Israel. Doing that is a problem. Contractors are a lot more broad than you think.

> Contractors are a lot more broad than you think.

If you are a teacher or municipal worker, you should not be a contractor in the first place, but an actual employee of the government.

Re: U.S. lawmakers call for privacy legislation after Reuters report on Amazon

#78

Post by whimsicalism »

mschuster91 wrote: post #77
whimsicalism wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not think the government should police my views on Israel just so I can be allowed to be a teacher or a municipal worker. I shouldn't be required to sign a pledge supporting Israel. Doing that is a problem. Contractors are a lot more broad than you think.

> Contractors are a lot more broad than you think. If you are a teacher or municipal worker, you should not be a contractor in the first place, but an actual employee of the government.

https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-la...

Re: U.S. lawmakers call for privacy legislation after Reuters report on Amazon

#79

Post by gopher_space »

r00fus wrote: post #57
gopher_space wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voting with your wallet isn't a situation where you're concerned about the results. The point isn't so much to change bad behavior as it is to disassociate yourself from it. If enough people become aware of the option and follow suit, change might occur that you'd like. That isn't what motivates you.

> Voting with your wallet isn't a situation where you're concerned about the results. Unclear what you are trying to say but honestly it's a pain I have to do this everywhere. That's why we have regulation & legislation: so corporations don't have to get "market signals" they're free to ignore, vs laws they must actually follow or get fined/held liable.

> Unclear what you are trying to say

It's like removing a jerk from your life who happens to make amazing tacos. I'm going to miss those tacos but life is too short. The 2nd best taco truck is a block away in this scenario.

> but honestly it's a pain I have to do this everywhere.

Right???

Re: U.S. lawmakers call for privacy legislation after Reuters report on Amazon

#80

Post by tatersolid »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #74
criddell wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had great hope when I heard about the STIR/SHAKEN protocol [1]. It's been in effect for five months now and I think I get more spam calls than ever before. [1]: https://www.fcc.gov/call-authentication

Same here. I feel like of they'd just label robocallers terrorist and treat them as such, it would be a lot harder to find people willing to take that risk even in foreign countries. Sanctions would go a long way as well in other countries taking it more seriously.

Further watering down the definition of “terrorist” is the last thing anyone sane should suggest.

Not unless you really want the governments of 1984 or V for Vendetta to come quickly.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism

Post reply on HN