Live data from Hacker News

Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]

ia601707.us.archive.org

401–402 of 402 posts

Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]

#401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that simple at all, especially in combination with automation and computing. What you are saying is that it is not possible to have an off-the-record chat app, because the data of the app will ALWAYS be stored somehow, even if it is just in RAM. Would you agree that this is what you are saying? Maybe the world is just more complicated than you'd like to admit.

> What you are saying is that it is not possible to have an off-the-record chat app No, it’s not at all what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that if you are keeping records of what’s said for a time like most chat apps do then these records are indeed records and no amount of hypothetical distorting regarding RAM or amount of time or what not will change the fact that they are records and you will have to keep them if…

First of all, I think Google deliberately played games and they should get smacked hard for this.

But ... its not that simple any more.

A lot of the time, apps will be hibernated/suspended to disk, and then restored from disk. So talking about ram and storage in context of devices its kind of hard. Even some browsers now "suspend" your tabs to ssd, and then resume when you click back to them. So it's kind of hard to say if something was never on the disk or not.

I guess you could go with intent, that either app intentionally stored something or not, but then again you also design apps with suspend in mind so not sure how this one would play out.

Re: Google CEO: “can we change the setting of this group to history-off” [pdf]

#402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So who wins Someone in this thread mentioned that the financial sector records all history for anything work related. What's wrong with that? > That would represent a huge loss of productivity and efficiency for society. Are you arguing that corporations need to violate laws in order to be productive and efficient? > Because there will always be such channels used in private business. Yes. But look at how much leak…

If everyone’s forced to speak under the fear that anything they say can and will be used against them, a lot of communication won’t happen.

I think you're confusing personal liberties and the right to privacy with the delicate balance of corporate regulation.

> If everyone’s forced to speak under the fear that anything they say can and will be used against them, a lot of communication won’t happen.

There's a very clear difference between our right to privacy as individuals, and how we communicate in our jobs as employees or contractors of a corporation.

The "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" statement is a fallacy when it comes to an individuals right to privacy. In contract, because corporations are not people and do not have the same rights as people, thus "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" applies to corporate email, chat, ect.

Post reply on HN