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

151–160 of 230 posts

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

#151

Post by mpyne »

grecy wrote: post #77
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…

What about people in the USA that are not citizens of the USA?

Normal protections apply (except possibly "near" the border, someone else will have to link to the outraged web sites)

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

#152

Post by mpyne »

contingencies wrote: post #142
mindcrime wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably is.

It's probably also against the UN declaration of human rights.

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.

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

#153

Post by embolism »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #126
embolism wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a laudable and idealistic goal, but we don't live in that world. Furthermore Google itself knows more than we do about how easily governments can access the data it accumulates. If it chose to, Google could protect users by developing services that do not rely on Google itself examining their personal data. Google understands the risks better than its users but chooses to expose them because doing so is align…

Still, you do want to remove that dangerous war zone itself. The problem is, to do that, a few group of people at best needs to stick their neck out for the benefit of everyone else. The way I see it, the problem is that mass cooperation just isn't going to happen. Incentives and benefits must be found at the individual level (altruism counts as a weak incentive), and drawbacks must be dealt with, starting with the g…

My OS does do it by default. It also provides me with a messaging system with end to end encryption by default.

The inconveniences can be removed by engineering - that's what we do. It's a matter of priorities and Google's are conflicted in this area.

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

#154

Post by pbhjpbhj »

tyrion wrote: post #102

Isn'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…

I'm not saying I approve but the key word is "arbitrary". The USG would presumably say this isn't arbitrary interference as it's in the course of a criminal investigation.

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

#155

Post by PavlovsCat »

zenbowman wrote: post #146

"I believe that organisations don’t really have a right to secrecy and I believe that the more open a society, a society where people have more information is a society where we can take more informed decisions and where we perhaps won’t need the gatekeepers that are currently in place as much" -Herbert Snorrason If he doesn't believe organizations have a right to secrecy, then why does he believe that he is entitled…

Privacy and secrecy are the same thing

No, they aren't (e.g. that I want to be alone when going to the bathroom doesn't mean it's a secret what I am doing there). Even if they were, persons and organizations are not the same thing either.

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

#156

Post by mpyne »

jkrems wrote: post #132
B0Z wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't understand how this argument that the constitution of a country (which represents its highest thoughts and ideals) can be applied selectively (i.e., only to citizens). If the thoughts contained therein regarding the rights of human beings are indeed 'True', then surely they should apply to all human beings? You'll get little argument from most 'Mericans for your statement that these rights are human rights.…

I think you are missing the point here: My government (Germany) already grants those rights, maybe even more rights than the US. But this doesn't mean anything when I'm using a service provided by an US company over which my government doesn't have any jurisdiction. What the US government says by its position and in the age of internet and cloud computing is the following: The moment any non-US citizen is using a ser…

That's just it; our Icelandic friend at WikiLeaks didn't lose due process. A valid warrant was issued, that's essentially the end of story; that's all the protections U.S. citizens get, after all.

I do agree that there needs to be a framework for how "data privacy" works in the Cloud Era, but it's important to keep in mind that it's not as if the law was meant to be that uneven toward foreigners, the law is essentially still from a time when there was no such thing as a Cloud, and "search & seizure" actually meant something physically present was found and seized.

The law doesn't (in general) permit taking property in the U.S. belonging foreigners abroad, for instance, so it was not as if the legislators all had their "FUCK U EUROPE" pens out when they were drafting the laws.

What we need are bilateral treaties that cover this situation. Perhaps something like a Most Favored Nation status between nations that specifies what kind of warrant requirements would exist for a given foreign national.

But then again, how do you determine the nationality of the user behind a given IP address in the modern world?? :-/

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

#157

Post by contingencies »

mpyne wrote: post #152
contingencies wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably also against the UN declaration of human rights.

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.

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

#158

Post by mpyne »

tomkarlo wrote: post #95
cube13 wrote: post #42

Earlier 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.

Yes, but almost every provider is going to tell you up front that they will comply with requests from the government. If they then do that, there's no violation of trust.

Even cperciva notes that. He even says he might well turn over information without making it a knock-down/drag-out fight, if he believes the request is reasonable. And its all in his ToS.

FWIW I agree completely with that viewpoint, so this is not a criticism.

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

#159

Post by mpyne »

burntsushi wrote: post #83
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.

Given the advance of Big Data (outside and inside of the government), it sounds to me like a variation of the argument that there's a reason people lock their car doors if they have valuables. Yes, people shouldn't steal from you, but if you really wanted those valuables then a wee amount of due diligence towards risk reduction wouldn't kill you either.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need locks at all, either on our cars or our houses. But when the world is not perfect then sometimes it becomes more reasonable to abate the risk ourselves than to shout at the whole world to stop being imperfect.

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

#160

Post by burntsushi »

mpyne wrote: post #159
burntsushi wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Given the advance of Big Data (outside and inside of the government), it sounds to me like a variation of the argument that there's a reason people lock their car doors if they have valuables. Yes, people shouldn't steal from you, but if you really wanted those valuables then a wee amount of due diligence towards risk reduction wouldn't kill you either. In a perfect world we wouldn't need locks at all, either on our…

I agree with your assessment. But that's my pragmatism at work.

The comment I was responding to was using "shoulds", which I took as an invitation to an ethical comment rather than a pragmatic one.

Post reply on HN