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

DHS is using obscure law to snoop on journalists, non-profits, unions

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 114 posts

Re: DHS is using obscure law to snoop on journalists, non-profits, unions

#61

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

“It’s outrageous conduct on so many levels. It’s hard to know where to begin,”

Do they not get that we live under an authoritarian regime? The regime doesn't care about the law. They have been installing their own people at every level of government for years, taking over parts of the government, and granting themselves new powers. When eventually every powerful person in government is part of the regime, it won't matter what the law says. This isn't hyperbole, this is how they have been operating for 1.5 years.

This is what the beginning looks like. The end looks like Germany 1942.

Re: DHS is using obscure law to snoop on journalists, non-profits, unions

#62

Post by tdeck »

tialaramex wrote: post #39
LtWorf wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They wanted it, but for someone else.

A key Republican insight, many years ago was that their voters prioritize causing harm to those they dislike. You might naively assume that out of "Kick everybody in the head" and "Kick nobody in the head" the latter would be more popular with voters, but Republicans discovered that their voters absolute will pick "Kick everybody in the head" so long as you emphasise that people they don't like get kicked in the head…

This state of affairs benefits the ruling class of both parties. Causing harm is much simpler for the state to follow through on than improving conditions, and it's less likely to require meaningful sacrifices from wealthy elites. Republicans can run on "we'll hurt people you don't like". Democrats can run on "we won't hurt people as much as they will". Both can avoid dealing with spiraling wealth inequality, the sacred cash cow of US militarism, the healthcare system we've all been complaining about for decades and decades, etc...

Re: DHS is using obscure law to snoop on journalists, non-profits, unions

#63

Post by tdeck »

charcircuit wrote: post #53
deathanatos wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My viewpoint is that we should eventually have AI be assisting in determining if a search is reasonable in the moment. That is truly bananas. Whose AI? Trained on what data? We've had numerous studies show how AIs can be biased, and a police dept. is going to choose whatever AI "works best for them" — i.e., keeps most out of their way. You can see Flock for examples here: despite requiring justification for searche…

>Whose AI? Trained on what data? The government. Trained on data to maximize accuracy and minimize constitutional violations. >We've had numerous studies show how AIs can be biased, and a police dept. is going to choose whatever AI "works best for them" Violating the constitution means that evidence gets thrown out in court and the victims get financially rewarded. It is not in the police's interest to violate people…

> Violating the constitution means that evidence gets thrown out in court and the victims get financially rewarded. It is not in the police's interest to violate people's rights.

Victims get financially rewarded by the state and the officers involved receive no kind of punishment at all. It's not hard to see why incentives lead to this already being widespread, and that's just what we know about when it gets thrown out or overturned. There's a whole shady practice of parallel construction going on.

Re: DHS is using obscure law to snoop on journalists, non-profits, unions

#64

Post by ajross »

hackyhacky wrote: post #19
softwaredoug wrote: post #8

> In several cases, the DHS has withdrawn a 1509 summons after it was challenged in court and before a judge could rule on its legality. That may be a deliberate strategy to avoid having a judge rule on the legality of the summons. They have a toy, they’re increasingly abusing it, then trying to dodge from it being taken away. The thing is nobody has to comply with 1509 summons, DHS has to go to court to enforce it.…

> The thing is nobody has to comply with 1509 summons, DHS has to go to court to enforce it. You're not wrong, but companies such as Google make business decisions, not moral decisions. It's far easier and cheaper for them to comply, while there is basically no incentive for them to fight the summons. Especially given the current administration's proven record of taking retaliation against anyone who stands in their…

> You're not wrong, but companies such as Google make business decisions, not moral decisions. It's far easier and cheaper for them to comply

From the space between the lines in the article, it seems pretty clear that Google denied the request, and its employees were the source for the claim being reported at all. Yes, they absolutely could be evil in principle. They appear to have been good in practice.

And in times of extremis like this, maybe it's important to call out those little victories and find allies where you can. Even if you happen to be a HN Apple stan.

Re: DHS is using obscure law to snoop on journalists, non-profits, unions

#65

Post by SR2Z »

hackyhacky wrote: post #51
mmooss wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OP contradicts your theory: "In Fort’s case, Google did not comply with the summons for any of the accounts. The company responded to the DHS by saying it had not offered evidence of how it was related to a customs investigation." > companies such as Google make business decisions, not moral decisions The world is more complicated than that; they make both kinds of decisions and many decisions aren't clearly in o…

> human responsibility Not sure what this means. I think you meant to write "fiduciary duty": the company's board have an affirmative legal obligation to act in the interest of stockholders, regardless of moral impact.

I don't know why people keep repeating this. The board of a company must act in the interests of shareholders but the interests of shareholders go beyond just "make as much money as possible."

It's entirely possible to still satisfy those requirements by building a sustainable and moral company. The shareholders get to vote, if they don't like it they'll make that clear.

Re: DHS is using obscure law to snoop on journalists, non-profits, unions

#67

Post by hackyhacky »

SR2Z wrote: post #65
hackyhacky wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> human responsibility Not sure what this means. I think you meant to write "fiduciary duty": the company's board have an affirmative legal obligation to act in the interest of stockholders, regardless of moral impact.

I don't know why people keep repeating this. The board of a company must act in the interests of shareholders but the interests of shareholders go beyond just "make as much money as possible." It's entirely possible to still satisfy those requirements by building a sustainable and moral company. The shareholders get to vote, if they don't like it they'll make that clear.

> The board of a company must act in the interests of shareholders

I think you don't understand what this phrase means. In a publicly-traded company, "the interest of the shareholders" does not mean "whatever the shareholders want"; it means "whatever is best for the company." That means money.

It may be possible to be both profitable and moral; but if it isn't, the fiduciary duty obligates corporate officers to choose the profitable path rather than the moral one.

The easy way of looking at this is that there beyond complying with the law, there is no general obligation for companies to behave morally, but there is a general obligation to behave profitably. So it's not hard to see why they make they choices they do.

> It's entirely possible to still satisfy those requirements by building a sustainable and moral company.

It is, but it's a lot easier to be not sustainable and not moral.

Re: DHS is using obscure law to snoop on journalists, non-profits, unions

#68

Post by mmooss »

hackyhacky wrote: post #51
mmooss wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OP contradicts your theory: "In Fort’s case, Google did not comply with the summons for any of the accounts. The company responded to the DHS by saying it had not offered evidence of how it was related to a customs investigation." > companies such as Google make business decisions, not moral decisions The world is more complicated than that; they make both kinds of decisions and many decisions aren't clearly in o…

> human responsibility Not sure what this means. I think you meant to write "fiduciary duty": the company's board have an affirmative legal obligation to act in the interest of stockholders, regardless of moral impact.

> Not sure what this means

That's quite a statement.

> I think you meant to write "fiduciary duty"

No, our responsibilities go far beyond fiduciary duties. You can see what Google did in this case, for example, or Apple's extraordinary investment in engineering for privacy a "human right", per Apple - far more than its users grasp or could understand.

> the company's board have an affirmative legal obligation to act in the interest of stockholders, regardless of moral impact.

That's a theory of the ~1980s that people who suffer from its consequences still seem to latch onto - perhaps it's simplicity is appealing, maybe its algorithmic decision-making appeals to the IT world - but not true.

Even now, when such things are at historical extremes, corporations take into account other issues. Not long ago, DEI and ESG were widely accepted and practiced.

Re: DHS is using obscure law to snoop on journalists, non-profits, unions

#69

Post by mmooss »

hackyhacky wrote: post #67
SR2Z wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why people keep repeating this. The board of a company must act in the interests of shareholders but the interests of shareholders go beyond just "make as much money as possible." It's entirely possible to still satisfy those requirements by building a sustainable and moral company. The shareholders get to vote, if they don't like it they'll make that clear.

> The board of a company must act in the interests of shareholders I think you don't understand what this phrase means. In a publicly-traded company, "the interest of the shareholders" does not mean "whatever the shareholders want"; it means "whatever is best for the company." That means money. It may be possible to be both profitable and moral; but if it isn't, the fiduciary duty obligates corporate officers to choo…

> there is no general obligation for companies to behave morally, but there is a general obligation to behave profitably

What is that based on? I'd say there are certainly obligations for both.

The fact that some ignore those obligations - either obligation, for example when corrupt management stuffs its own pockets - doesn't make them less.

Re: DHS is using obscure law to snoop on journalists, non-profits, unions

#70

Post by nativeit »

hackyhacky wrote: post #67
SR2Z wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why people keep repeating this. The board of a company must act in the interests of shareholders but the interests of shareholders go beyond just "make as much money as possible." It's entirely possible to still satisfy those requirements by building a sustainable and moral company. The shareholders get to vote, if they don't like it they'll make that clear.

> The board of a company must act in the interests of shareholders I think you don't understand what this phrase means. In a publicly-traded company, "the interest of the shareholders" does not mean "whatever the shareholders want"; it means "whatever is best for the company." That means money. It may be possible to be both profitable and moral; but if it isn't, the fiduciary duty obligates corporate officers to choo…

How are unsustainable decisions and practices working in the best interests of the shareholders?
Post reply on HN