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

Harvard College dean steps down (in wake of authorizing e-mail searches)

boston.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 49 posts

Re: Harvard College dean steps down (in wake of authorizing e-mail searches)

#21

Post by gridmaths »

rayiner wrote: post #7
dripton wrote: post #2

Glad to see that she's being forced to step down after such an egregious invasion of privacy. But that's just a school. The much more important case is whether anyone in the federal government gets punished when they do the same thing without a warrant. So far, it doesn't look like it.

The Dean of Harvard is stepping down not because there is anything illegal about her searching through the e-mails of faculty (your employer has every right to search your work e-mail), but because it was in bad taste in an academic institution which made the Dean ineffective as a figurehead. Similarly, there is nothing definitively illegal about the federal government asking Google to voluntarily hand over your e-ma…

I wonder what one has to do to engage in a private discussion over the internet [ with some legal recourse to that privacy being protected ]

As you suggest, we rely on 'good taste' from both our employers and our governments.

Is there some way to define good taste, which can be applied in court.. do I have some legal recourse if my government acts in bad taste ?

It seems that the legal system has evolved over the years to be our best attempt to scale and codify the idea of 'good taste'.

Re: Harvard College dean steps down (in wake of authorizing e-mail searches)

#23

Post by wnight »

aioprisan wrote: post #20
rayiner wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Dean of Harvard is stepping down not because there is anything illegal about her searching through the e-mails of faculty (your employer has every right to search your work e-mail), but because it was in bad taste in an academic institution which made the Dean ineffective as a figurehead. Similarly, there is nothing definitively illegal about the federal government asking Google to voluntarily hand over your e-ma…

Harvard College, not all schools at Harvard. And simply handing over emails is illegal without a warrant. The issue here was with blanket access to all emails (read: all students) without probable cause.

It should be, but is not illegal for the government to ask for private data, or lean on companies to provide it, (see the NSA Warrantless Wiretapping affair, specifically Qwest - the only telco that refused the illegal orders.)

You can be essentially compelled to break the law - and you gain no immunity for being forced. Damned if you don't, convicted if you do.

Re: Harvard College dean steps down (in wake of authorizing e-mail searches)

#24

Post by mdwelsh »

As a former professor at Harvard, this is a welcome move. However, I don't think it goes far enough, and it should have happened much sooner. One thing I will say: The fact that the administration felt the need to snoop on employee e-mail to "track down" a press leak underscores how backwards and insecure Harvard can feel at times. It's just shocking that anyone thought that this was a good idea, and that they continued to defend the practice once it came to light. Very sad.

Re: Harvard College dean steps down (in wake of authorizing e-mail searches)

#25

Post by tptacek »

aioprisan wrote: post #20
rayiner wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Dean of Harvard is stepping down not because there is anything illegal about her searching through the e-mails of faculty (your employer has every right to search your work e-mail), but because it was in bad taste in an academic institution which made the Dean ineffective as a figurehead. Similarly, there is nothing definitively illegal about the federal government asking Google to voluntarily hand over your e-ma…

Harvard College, not all schools at Harvard. And simply handing over emails is illegal without a warrant. The issue here was with blanket access to all emails (read: all students) without probable cause.

In most situations it is probably not illegal to hand over your emails without a warrant; it depends entirely on the terms of your access to your email service.

Re: Harvard College dean steps down (in wake of authorizing e-mail searches)

#26

Post by rayiner »

gridmaths wrote: post #21
rayiner wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Dean of Harvard is stepping down not because there is anything illegal about her searching through the e-mails of faculty (your employer has every right to search your work e-mail), but because it was in bad taste in an academic institution which made the Dean ineffective as a figurehead. Similarly, there is nothing definitively illegal about the federal government asking Google to voluntarily hand over your e-ma…

I wonder what one has to do to engage in a private discussion over the internet [ with some legal recourse to that privacy being protected ] As you suggest, we rely on 'good taste' from both our employers and our governments. Is there some way to define good taste, which can be applied in court.. do I have some legal recourse if my government acts in bad taste ? It seems that the legal system has evolved over the yea…

The legal system does not codify good taste, it codifies minimum standards. The Constitution even less so--it only interdicts those actions that are deemed to be outside the power of even the elected legislatures.

As for what one has to do to engage in a private discussion over the internet, any answer involves encryption. Otherwise the question is ridiculous on its face--how can you have a "private discussion" where dozens of intermediaries have access to the plain text of your communication?

Re: Harvard College dean steps down (in wake of authorizing e-mail searches)

#27

Post by jholman »

rayiner wrote: post #7
dripton wrote: post #2

Glad to see that she's being forced to step down after such an egregious invasion of privacy. But that's just a school. The much more important case is whether anyone in the federal government gets punished when they do the same thing without a warrant. So far, it doesn't look like it.

The Dean of Harvard is stepping down not because there is anything illegal about her searching through the e-mails of faculty (your employer has every right to search your work e-mail), but because it was in bad taste in an academic institution which made the Dean ineffective as a figurehead. Similarly, there is nothing definitively illegal about the federal government asking Google to voluntarily hand over your e-ma…

My apologies for changing the subject, but do you have any evidence at all that Google has ever "voluntarily hand[ed] over [anyone's] e-mails", or was that just a random slur?

Google's stated policy is to fight government requisition of data, but ultimately to comply with the law. That is to say, Google claims to be as anti-government-surveillance as it is possible for a corporation to be. I am aware of no evidence whatsoever that this claim is false. Admittedly, I also have no strong evidence that it's true[0].

Note that I'm not quibbling with the literal truth of your statement, since your statement deals only in hypotheticals. But it'd be pretty crass of me to say something like "I've never seen rape a child without offering the kid some heroin to ease the pain", even though it's technically true for every name including yours.

Also note that I'm not entirely sunshine-and-roses positive about Google's record on privacy. I think it's not as bad as the fear-mongers state, but not without any concerns whatsoever. Google management, it seems to me, pretends to believe that when users say "we want privacy" they always-and-only mean "we want privacy from the government and criminals". Which is... disingenuous. But I think that Google appears to be a relatively pro-privacy [1] organization, especially with regard to the particular slur you raised, and I've never seen a credible argument that this appearance is false.

[0] I do see some evidence that Google is truly anti-surveillance. However, all the evidence I have is also consistent with the theory that Google is willing to spend a lot of money to convince its employees that it's anti-surveillance... if Google were an NSA shell corp, maybe this is how it would behave.

[1] By "relatively pro-privacy", I mean I have to think pretty hard to think of organizations MORE pro-privacy, although eventually I remembered that mozilla exists.

Re: Harvard College dean steps down (in wake of authorizing e-mail searches)

#28

Post by driverdan »

dripton wrote: post #2

Glad to see that she's being forced to step down after such an egregious invasion of privacy. But that's just a school. The much more important case is whether anyone in the federal government gets punished when they do the same thing without a warrant. So far, it doesn't look like it.

What makes you think the government is required to get a warrant to read your email? Anything older than 180 days is considered fair game.

Re: Harvard College dean steps down (in wake of authorizing e-mail searches)

#29

Post by declan »

rayiner wrote: post #7
dripton wrote: post #2

Glad to see that she's being forced to step down after such an egregious invasion of privacy. But that's just a school. The much more important case is whether anyone in the federal government gets punished when they do the same thing without a warrant. So far, it doesn't look like it.

The Dean of Harvard is stepping down not because there is anything illegal about her searching through the e-mails of faculty (your employer has every right to search your work e-mail), but because it was in bad taste in an academic institution which made the Dean ineffective as a figurehead. Similarly, there is nothing definitively illegal about the federal government asking Google to voluntarily hand over your e-ma…

Saying "there is nothing definitely illegal" about FedGov asking an email provider to let it snoop on emails without due process is like saying "there is nothing definitely wrong in saying bubble sort is the most efficient sorting algorithm." It sounds reasonable only if you're unfamiliar with the topic.

Under the Wiretap Act, an FBI agent who "procures any other person to intercept" or "endeavors to intercept" e-mail without a court order is guilty of a federal felony.

In addition, an email provider may not "knowingly divulge" the contents of email "to any governmental entity" without a court order or emergency situation involving "serious physical injury." Violations are punishable by "imprisonment for not more than 1 year."

These criminal sanctions are one reason why AT&T and other companies that opened their networks to the NSA were so desperate for retroactive legal immunity (especially after the EFF et al. lawsuit). Which Congress dutifully provided.

Re: Harvard College dean steps down (in wake of authorizing e-mail searches)

#30

Post by declan »

jholman wrote: post #27
rayiner wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Dean of Harvard is stepping down not because there is anything illegal about her searching through the e-mails of faculty (your employer has every right to search your work e-mail), but because it was in bad taste in an academic institution which made the Dean ineffective as a figurehead. Similarly, there is nothing definitively illegal about the federal government asking Google to voluntarily hand over your e-ma…

My apologies for changing the subject, but do you have any evidence at all that Google has ever "voluntarily hand[ed] over [anyone's] e-mails", or was that just a random slur? Google's stated policy is to fight government requisition of data, but ultimately to comply with the law. That is to say, Google claims to be as anti-government-surveillance as it is possible for a corporation to be. I am aware of no evidence w…

Random slur.

Google fought a DOJ subpoena for search terms in court (while Yahoo, AOL, and Microsoft did not), which I wrote about here: http://news.cnet.com/FAQ-What-does-the-Google-subpoena-mean/...

It also nationalized Warshak by requiring a search warrant for the contents of archived email (anyone think Verizon/AT&T/etc. have been doing that?). More importantly, Google is currently challenging a secret NSL it received from the FBI in federal court in San Francisco, making it the first large Internet company to do so. It also became the first large Internet company to divulge summary statistics about receiving NSLs.

Twitter and Amazon.com have similarly good records. And Facebook fought a subpoena from the state of Virginia.

Post reply on HN