441–450 of 878 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my understanding the arrest warrant only was created while he was en route; sneaky sneaky..
Fuck around and find out. If he legitimately ignored legal French documents forcing him to share information, as the French have declared, he's got got. You don't step foot on a country with an extradition treaty, even less so the country itself, where you're flouting their warrants for your company's data.
In the meantime French government is promoting Olvid that claims “Your exchanges leave no digital trace. No one will ever know who you’ve discussed with.” How does it make any sense?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This distinction gets lost in these discussions all of the time. A company that makes an effort to comply with laws is in a completely different category than a company that makes the fact that they’ll look the other way one of their core selling points. Years ago there was a case where someone built a business out of making hidden compartments in cars. He did an amazing job of making James Bond style hidden compartm…
> operating in a manner where one of your selling points is that you’ll help anyone out even when their intent is to break the law is it what happened here? in my view Durov is the owner renting his apartment and not caring what people do inside it, which is not illegal, someone could go as fare as say that it is morally reprensible, but it's not illegal in any way. It would be different if Durov knew but did not rep…
Problem is if you know what these people do inside it and you don't do anything about it.
I sometimes wish I could bring a crystal ball back in time and see how people would react to the future... I think they would be horrified at how far we've let corporations and governments into our lives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. If you are directly aiding and abetting without any plausible attempt to minimize bad actors from using your services then absolutely. For example, CP absolutely exists on platforms like FB or IG, but Meta will absolutely try to moderate it away to the best of their ability and cooperate with law enforcement when it is brought to their attention. And like I have mentioned a couple times before, Telegram was only…
> If you are directly aiding and abetting without any plausible attempt to minimize bad actors from using your service isn't this the definition of "criminal lawyer"?
This seems like the Kim Dotcom situation again. Why are these service providers being punished for what their users do? Specifically, these service providers? Because Google, Discord, Reddit, etc. all contain some amount of CSAM (and other illegal content), yet I don't see Pichai, Citron, or Huffman getting indicted for anything. Hell, then there's the actual infrastructure providers too. This seems like a slippery s…
I strongly suspect there's more to it than just running a chat system used by criminals. If that were the issue then tons of services would be under indictment. We'll have to wait and see, but I suspect some kind of more direct participation or explicit provable look-the-other-way at CSAM etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you are directly aiding and abetting without any plausible attempt to minimize bad actors from using your service isn't this the definition of "criminal lawyer"?
If you are a criminal lawyer who is providing defense, that is acceptable because everyone is entitled to to a fair trial and defense. If you are a criminal lawyer who is directly abetting in criminal behavior (eg. a Saul Goodman type) you absolutely will lose your Bar License and open yourself up to criminal penalties. If you are a criminal lawyer who is in a situation where your client wants you to abet their crimi…
Not a lawyer myself but I believe this is not a correct representation of the issue.
A lawyer abetting in criminal behaviour is committing a crime, but the crime is not offering his services to criminals, which is completely legal.
When offering their services to criminals law firm or individual lawyers in most cases are not required to report crimes they have been made aware of under the attorney-client privilege and are not required to ask to minimize bad actors from using their services.
In short: unless they are committing crimes themselves, criminal lawyers are not required to stay clear from criminals, actually, usually the opposite is true.
Again, presumption of innocence do exists.
A lot of really terrible takes in this comment section. Telegram didn't have encrypted groups by default, and telegram possessed a lot of content on their servers that they had been made aware was illegal and didn't cooperate. Nothing more, nothing less. The comparisons to other providers is off base because either other providers are cooperating more when they possess actionable, unencrypted information and taking s…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet here you are posting on HN which does the exact same thing.
Actually, HN has a much better system. Comments from new accounts, like your throwaway, are dead by default, but any user can opt in to seeing dead posts, and any user with a small amount of karma can vouch those posts, reviving them. Like I just did to your post.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
so i should be liable if it is a plain text messaging github side project?
do you really feel this is a good faith analogy? how is a side project in any way similar to a company with billions of users?
i don’t think it makes a ton of sense to me that the encryption or lack thereof is the relevant factor - if we think that proprietors of unencrypted messaging should be required to turn over chat logs, then encrypted messaging should probably be illegal or we have left a massive loophole in.
the scale being the relevant issue is another thing as well. i worry that if you somehow create a protocol for dencentralized messaging, you somehow then become liable for misuse of what could have been an academic project, etc.