the gmail network effect pulls in people who would rather not be grokked.
Right. This is why we need encryption.
We have encryption. We need to use it.
On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea
161–170 of 230 posts
Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea
#162Isn't all "this shit" in violation of the International Bill of Human Rights? "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." -- International Bill of Human Rights, article 12. I also found interesting to read the "CCPR General…
How, exactly, is it a violation of that? They have a warrant. It's due process.
Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
What warrant did Jefferson serve on the Barbary Pirates?
The First Barbary War was a declared war -- declared first by the Pasha of Tripoli against the US and explicitly recognized as a state of war in several acts of Congress subsequently -- so its hardly relevant.
Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
What warrant did Jefferson serve on the Barbary Pirates?
This is misdirection and you know it. By that same token, if we were around at the time, I could also point to the slaves.
The reckless interpretation of the U.S. bill of rights is already precariously close to violating the Geneva Conventions (on many cases, it probably has already been violated. I.E. Guantanamo Bay). The idea that you're somehow exempt from what is commonly regarded as decent and fair treatment of another human being based on a narrow (and arguable) technicality is appalling.
Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that spying drastically shortened the war against Japan and appreciably shortened the war against Nazi Germany (both of which are definitely not on the Christmas list of UN human rights proponents), I'd be careful about how emotionally attached one gets to the issue of spying. Like many other things, it is a tool... it can be used for good or for bad, but in the end it's a tool nonetheless.
"Because , you should really accept the removal of " Hah. Yeah, sure.
Well, how about this one? I would argue that controlling what substances are injected into your own body is pretty fundamental human right.
So why do we allow societies to impose a vaccination regimen on people, by even minor coercion?
Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Hold on.... If a foreigner is protected while in the US, is accountable to the US if he/she breaks US law from abroad, and accountable if he/she breaks US law while visiting the US in the form of visiting a US web-server, (we foreigners are said to have visited US jurisdiction if we use US based services, there for we can be extradited) why then, if a foreigner's data is on US servers or systems, is his/her data and…
You're right, it's hypocrisy in action.
I wonder if a panel of lawmakers were given all of this to make recommendations on, without secrecy, gag orders or political prejudice, if we'd have very different situation today.
Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
What warrant did Jefferson serve on the Barbary Pirates?
The First Barbary War was a declared war -- declared first by the Pasha of Tripoli against the US and explicitly recognized as a state of war in several acts of Congress subsequently -- so its hardly relevant.
Well, "recognized as" hardly amounts to a declaration of war. Congress did authorize use of military force though, but technically only against Tripoli, not Algiers or Tunis. So the question remains open in general.
Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
>(With the exception of things like tarsnap). The chain of trust still extends to them. You're trusting that they're actually doing everything they say they're doing. If you don't own the hardware and the building where the hardware is, you have to trust that they're doing everything you want them to be doing.
> The chain of trust still extends to them. You're > trusting that they're actually doing everything > they say they're doing. Tarsnap performs encryption in the client, which is distributed only as source code. If you audit the client sufficiently to believe it is properly encrypting your data, then there is no need to trust the server or the hosting provider.
Sure, if you are willing to do all of the computation on the client, and only use the server as a place to store an encrypted bag of bits.
If you have a sufficiently fast network connection (or enough local disk cache and the ability to predict what you will need before you drop off your high speed network access), that can work. But there will be a lot of things that you may have gotten accustomed to if you operate in such a paradigm.
Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
What warrant did Jefferson serve on the Barbary Pirates?
This is misdirection and you know it. By that same token, if we were around at the time, I could also point to the slaves. The reckless interpretation of the U.S. bill of rights is already precariously close to violating the Geneva Conventions (on many cases, it probably has already been violated. I.E. Guantanamo Bay). The idea that you're somehow exempt from what is commonly regarded as decent and fair treatment of…
Jefferson would have had each state be its own absolute arbiter of the Constitution, and free to ignore the Constitution if the state felt like doing so.
Ron Paul arguably holds the same views now (with his various attempts to make state actions immune from federal judicial review).
For both of them, history furnishes examples of why -- even if we hold that the Supreme Court and federal judicial review was a bad idea -- this is also a bad idea.
Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
people lawfully present in the US, not just citizens.
My understanding as well; noncitizens on US soil are protected by the Fourth Amendment; outside of actual border crossings, the USG cannot search them without a warrant or probable cause.
AFAIK "outside fo actual border crossings" also extends 100 miles into the US (including the coastlines). This covers the vast majority of people in the US. I've heard stories of people being searched and harassed by police because they happened to have a foreign visitor with them: