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

On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

anarchism.is

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 230 posts

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#81

Post by jkn »

tptacek wrote: post #28
betterunix wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe engineer a service that is harder to wiretap? It is not easy, but they have some of the best computer scientists on this planet working for them. If I were them, I would start somewhere around here: http://crypto.stanford.edu/adnostic/adnostic.pdf

It's not directly apropos this particular thread, but Google has engineered an email service that is particularly difficult to wiretap. To wit: (a) They're the Internet's foremost adopter and proponent of DHE ciphersuites, which drastically reduce the impact of losing the RSA key that underpins most site's TLS security, and, just as importantly, forces adversaries to actively MITM every connection in order to decrypt…

Am I right that a) applies only to direct communications between the end user and Google's servers?

Actually if someone sends an email to my Gmail account using his ISP SMTP server, is the connection between the two SMTP servers likely to be encrypted?

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#82

Post by leoc »

tptacek wrote: post #24

How, in short, is this shit valid under the U.S. Bill of Rights? I’d really like someone to explain that to me. With a straight face. Preferably without making me want to punch them in the process. Well, he's going to want to punch me, but here's what I think(?) the answer is: (a) He's not a US person, but instead a well-known citizen of Iceland, living abroad, and is thus not protected by the Fourth Amendment, at le…

> He's not a US person, but instead a well-known citizen of Iceland, living abroad, and is thus not protected by the Fourth Amendment

Again, that actually isn't particularly obvious in this kind of situation. The US property of non-resident aliens enjoys constitutional protection against (for example) expropriation. But there's no equivalent protection for their US cloud data? Oh Well.

On the other hand, as far as I can tell (IANAL) the fellow just got served a warrant, or at least a pretty ordinary court order of the kind that isn't related to foreign-intelligence loopholes or restricted to non-USPERSes. That's roughly the kind of thing that will happen to you in any jurisdiction if prosecutors have good evidence that you have information material to a huge criminal investigation. Maybe the secrecy or the breadth of the order was dubious. (I think it's also very likely that his GMail was scoped out with a FAA702 before the government decided to re-request the information using a means that would allow it to be introduced by the prosecution in a US court case.) But fundamentally it seems he just got served ... I'll get my coat.

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#83

Post by burntsushi »

throwaway10001 wrote: post #22

Google shouldn't be trusted with everything you have. Between Analytics, Android, Google Search, Documents and E-mail they know what you are thinking and virtually everything you do, online and offline. Even if the current management are saints--I doubt it--the next team will push the envelope to monetize it even more. And then there is the NSA and FBI and the local divorce lawyer. If it's there they will get it. So…

This just seems like a variation of the argument that you should get out of the way of the bullet instead of demanding that the gunman not shoot you in the first place.

I should be able to give whatever data I want to Google without worrying that the government is going to take it from Google in secret.

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#84

Post by kposehn »

dylangs1030 wrote: post #75
charonn0 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I would prefer your stance to be correct, the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution applies only to persons within the USA. For example, Downes v. Bidwell found that "the Constitution does not apply to foreign countries [...]" [1] and that it doesn't apply to US Citizens if they are outside of the US, "[the] Constitution can have no operation in another country." [2] [1]: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/sc…

While what you say was true, this legal precedent was later overturned by Reid v. Covert in 1957: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

Thank you for providing that link!

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#85

Post by charonn0 »

dylangs1030 wrote: post #75
charonn0 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I would prefer your stance to be correct, the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution applies only to persons within the USA. For example, Downes v. Bidwell found that "the Constitution does not apply to foreign countries [...]" [1] and that it doesn't apply to US Citizens if they are outside of the US, "[the] Constitution can have no operation in another country." [2] [1]: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/sc…

While what you say was true, this legal precedent was later overturned by Reid v. Covert in 1957: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

Ah, good point. IANAL, can you tell? ;)

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#86

Post by coolhandluke »

signed0 wrote: post #3

If Google has records of all emails that have been sent and deleted, presumably even if you don't have a Gmail account the government could ask Google for all emails that had ever been sent to your account. Just as the Syrian government is unlikely to be able to get Google to give them information on particular dissidents, it would be wise for American activists to choose a email provider that is not located in the U…

Indeed. Once I manage to anonymously acquire some Bitcoins, I will be looking for a reputable VPS host based in Europe (that I can pay with Bitcoins) where I can run my own mail system.

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#87

Post by ef4 »

rgbrenner wrote: post #59
ef4 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The legal theory that the bill of rights only applies to US citizens is dangerous and wrong. It applies to actions of the United States government. It is a list of things they may not do.

No, tptacek is right... if you are a foreigner living abroad, the bill of rights does not apply to you: In 1957, the court changed its position, overturning decades of precedent to declare that American citizens are in fact protected against U.S. government misbehavior by the Bill of Rights even outside the country. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, the court limited its ruling to U.S. citizens. Foreigners rem…

I'm aware that the court has interpreted it that way. That doesn't make it any less wrong.

    To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional
    questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would 
    place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. - Thomas Jefferson,1820
I will also note that the data in question was within the United States, where all property, whether owned by foreigners or not, is protected from unlawful search and seizure.

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#88

Post by dylangs1030 »

charonn0 wrote: post #85
dylangs1030 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While what you say was true, this legal precedent was later overturned by Reid v. Covert in 1957: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

Ah, good point. IANAL, can you tell? ;)

It's perfectly alright, what you cited was dated to 1901, but the United States did have a longstanding tradition beyond that (up until 1957) of not upholding constitutional rights for citizens abroad. So, it's very reasonable to think this is still the case due to the abundance of cases which reinforced that precedent.

That's why Reid v. Covert was such a landmark case, it completely overturned the precedent. IANAL either, however :)

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#89

Post by thrownaway2424 »

mtgx wrote: post #13

They keep the deleted e-mails too? So even if you want to escape that 180 days law that says after 180 days it's free for all for authorities to get your e-mails, then deleting them before that time passes won't do you much good. So basically the authorities will have access to your e-mails anyway. It's just that they won't get them in the first 180 days. And of course this just applies to police/FBI, as NSA can get…

Google's chairman has publicly stated that Google deletes things when you ask for them to be deleted. Video here starting at 4:00 mark and relevant discussion ending at around 5:45.

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3899047/google-ceo-recession-...

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#90

Post by coolhandluke »

mtgx wrote: post #13

They keep the deleted e-mails too? So even if you want to escape that 180 days law that says after 180 days it's free for all for authorities to get your e-mails, then deleting them before that time passes won't do you much good. So basically the authorities will have access to your e-mails anyway. It's just that they won't get them in the first 180 days. And of course this just applies to police/FBI, as NSA can get…

> as NSA can get them from the day you sent them.

I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA didn't have the e-mail captured, sorted, and analyzed before it's processed on the receiving end and shows up in the user's mailbox.

Post reply on HN