321–330 of 618 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bonus points for sending the Unix timestamps in millis ... I hope the lawyer who got this response has to hire a consultant too translate it for the court!
(Non-practicing) Lawyer here. We aren't universally technologically illiterate. Many of us are former programmers, and still are in our spare time. And those people who help you draft patents for your computer-related inventions? Also lawyers.
Anybody concerned about these issues should consider donating to their favourite non profit that can have an impact that works in the area. Most HN users can afford $20/year pretty easily (others could afford $200/month and not even notice it) As they say, “Put your money where your mouth is.”
Would you name some please? Do you mean like ACLU (BCCLA in Canada)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my understanding the ACLU used to stand for the civil rights of everybody and even defended KKK members. But now they have taken sides on various social justice movements and targeted groups that oppose these sides. Instead of fighting for civil rights like they used to, they pick and choose which rights they think are okay to violate if it's for the "right cause". It goes completely against their old motto.
Except that's not exactly true; here is a counterexample. https://lawandcrime.com/first-amendment/aclu-backs-n-j-woman...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many crimes have been prevented in the last 20 years thanks to the surveillance powers of the USA PATRIOT Act? Last I’d heard the answer was zero. The privacy/security trade-off is vastly overstated.
Be curious where you've heard that from, because the results will largely be kept secret. Regardless, there are far more ordinary crimes being committed than terrorism.
Would YOU be happy spending trillions of dollars with no way to see if it was accomplishing anything, while clear negative effects were also occurring?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The widespread abuse of power in government agencies makes this argument a little naive imo. The vast majority of what they do has very little effect on anyone's safety. I'd rather be able to communicate privately and let people keep selling drugs if they want to.
> the widespread abuse of power[...] The vast majority of what they do has very little effect* doing a lot of work here. To what degree is that simply anti-governmental sentiment rather than an honest evaluation of the agencies in question? Say you'd be living in a narco neighborhood in Mexico were cartels regularly shoot civilians up in private wars, have you considered how badly institutions could do in comparison?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bonus points for sending the Unix timestamps in millis ... I hope the lawyer who got this response has to hire a consultant too translate it for the court!
(Non-practicing) Lawyer here. We aren't universally technologically illiterate. Many of us are former programmers, and still are in our spare time. And those people who help you draft patents for your computer-related inventions? Also lawyers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean I do. EFF, Wikimedia, ACLU (Only EFF is really for this particular issue though)
I stopped supporting the ACLU when they started doing this: Fighting against due process: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/see-you-court-aclu-sues... claiming there's no men: https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1196877415810813955 and this: https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1199725066302308354 Telling families to discuss pronouns: https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1250795126584217602 and this: https://twitter.com/ACLU/st…
Why do you have a problem with people identifying as what feels right to them? Who cares? It doesn't harm anyone. Oh no, that person identifies as "she/her"?! I'm _offended_!! Come on, that's just embarrassing. If it's not relevant to you and you're not going to bother trying to understand it or empathize with it, scroll past. The fight for everyone to live their life without prejudice and discrimination is a just one.
While I applaud Signal's response I expect this entire event (subpoena and response) will be provided as one of the exhibits to congress by the Department of Justice to justify their request that it be unlawful to provide such services. The DoJ will say, "See, here is this horrible crime we are investigating and because this company chose to make it impossible for law enforcement, with a warrant and a subpoena to get…
"Do you have no other way of investigating these criminals?" "Could you not put an officer out to surveille them?", Your argument kind of falls on itself there --> We can surveil them in person, but not digitally? Why? I think the tech crowd has this wrong. The issue - as you have indicated - is not 'By What Means To Surveil'. The issues are: Legitimacy, Proportionality, Oversight. Messages, tech, sign language, in p…
> Likely yes. Or at le[a]st, most people would agree with it both in the pragmatic sense, and also the Constitutional sense.
Sure, but that is not the question. The question is: should Signal be forced to implement its software in a way that allows the police to access its messages?
Likewise, everyone also agrees that in person surveillance is in general legitimate, but that doesn't mean that we all agree that the government should be able dictate burdensome measures on third parties to make it easier to perform this surveillance: say require that the friends of the suspect keep notes on his whereabouts. Changing its architecture would cost Signal a lot of money and good will, and the suspect would probably not be very happy that his friends ratted him out as well.