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

Microsoft Sues Justice Department Over Secret Customer Data Searches

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 68 posts

Re: Microsoft Sues Justice Department Over Secret Customer Data Searches

#41

Post by frandroid »

thegasman wrote: post #38
_delirium wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a variety of anti-Citizens-United positions, but the strongest (and most problematic) one is that corporations are not people, and the Bill of Rights secures rights only to people, therefore the First Amendment is inapplicable to corporations. That would, at the very least, require a revision in important precedents like New York Times Co. v. Sullivan [1], which assume that the First Amendment is applicable…

Corporations are people. They are taxed like people, they break laws like people, and they own property like people. They just can't vote.

Corporations are shells for human people (!!) to commit criminal acts, but shelter these human people from the legal consequences of these acts.

Re: Microsoft Sues Justice Department Over Secret Customer Data Searches

#42

Post by AlexandrB »

thegasman wrote: post #38
_delirium wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a variety of anti-Citizens-United positions, but the strongest (and most problematic) one is that corporations are not people, and the Bill of Rights secures rights only to people, therefore the First Amendment is inapplicable to corporations. That would, at the very least, require a revision in important precedents like New York Times Co. v. Sullivan [1], which assume that the First Amendment is applicable…

Corporations are people. They are taxed like people, they break laws like people, and they own property like people. They just can't vote.

In every other way they are not like people. They are neither mortal nor corporeal (in the sense that a human body can be imprisoned or damaged). They can feel no emotion and are not subject to disease. This is important because humans are limited in myriad ways that corporations aren't and by giving corporations human rights the balance of power between actual humans and corporations tilts to the latter.

For example, while they can break the laws like people, corporations are not punished the same. When was the last time a corporation was "executed" (e.g. corporate charter revoked)?

Re: Microsoft Sues Justice Department Over Secret Customer Data Searches

#43

Post by voxic11 »

AlexandrB wrote: post #42
thegasman wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations are people. They are taxed like people, they break laws like people, and they own property like people. They just can't vote.

In every other way they are not like people. They are neither mortal nor corporeal (in the sense that a human body can be imprisoned or damaged). They can feel no emotion and are not subject to disease. This is important because humans are limited in myriad ways that corporations aren't and by giving corporations human rights the balance of power between actual humans and corporations tilts to the latter. For example…

Last one I could find was in California in 1976.

Re: Microsoft Sues Justice Department Over Secret Customer Data Searches

#44

Post by mikx007 »

wfunction wrote: post #26
tshtf wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon promised bi-annual transparency reports here: https://blogs.aws.amazon.com/security/blog/tag/Transparency+... However only one report (covering a 6-month period) has was issued and posted in the initial blog post on June 2015. None have followed: http://d0.awsstatic.com/certifications/Information_Request_R...

Maybe they meant biennial rather than biannual?

Or Centennial? :)

Re: Microsoft Sues Justice Department Over Secret Customer Data Searches

#45

Post by abiox »

vox_mollis wrote: post #12
dcgudeman wrote: post #2

'Microsoft’s filing zeroes in on a provision of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, written in 1986. The company argues that indefinite gag orders violate the First Amendment right to inform customers about the search of their files “as soon as secrecy is no longer required.” Additionally, the suit claims that the law “flouts” Fourth Amendment requirements that the government give notice to people when their p…

concerned about the fact the Amazon didn't attempt one of these lawsuit earlier. I have no idea why you're bringing up Amazon since the article is about Microsoft. That said, assuming you're asking the question about MSFT: Microsoft has always been a lapdog of the Feds, as evidenced by handing over hotmail data simply from a pleasant LEA request, to centralizing and backdooring skype, to removal of the elephant diffu…

while i'm decidedly unenthused by the amount of pro-MS dialog on HN, the premise of a business being "fundamentally evil" is rather dogmatic and not very conducive to discussion.

Re: Microsoft Sues Justice Department Over Secret Customer Data Searches

#48

Post by comex »

function_seven wrote: post #40
wfunction wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they meant biennial rather than biannual?

I always thought those two terms were equivalent, and that "semiannual" was the every-six-months one. Turns out I as wrong.[1] [1] http://writersrelief.com/blog/2011/05/biannual-biennial-or-s...

Many (most?) sources define "biannual" only as "twice a year". Yet Merriam-Webster says: "Some people prefer to use semiannual to refer to something that occurs twice a year, reserving biannual for things that occur once every two years."

Re: Microsoft Sues Justice Department Over Secret Customer Data Searches

#49

Post by PhantomGremlin »

frandroid wrote: post #41
thegasman wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations are people. They are taxed like people, they break laws like people, and they own property like people. They just can't vote.

Corporations are shells for human people (!!) to commit criminal acts, but shelter these human people from the legal consequences of these acts.

Very true.

But, in all fairness, that's not their primary purpose, it's merely a side effect of their overall utility. Most people in most corporations are decidedly not criminal, and they don't behave as criminals.

Re: Microsoft Sues Justice Department Over Secret Customer Data Searches

#50

Post by simondedalus »

abiox wrote: post #45
vox_mollis wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

concerned about the fact the Amazon didn't attempt one of these lawsuit earlier. I have no idea why you're bringing up Amazon since the article is about Microsoft. That said, assuming you're asking the question about MSFT: Microsoft has always been a lapdog of the Feds, as evidenced by handing over hotmail data simply from a pleasant LEA request, to centralizing and backdooring skype, to removal of the elephant diffu…

while i'm decidedly unenthused by the amount of pro-MS dialog on HN, the premise of a business being "fundamentally evil" is rather dogmatic and not very conducive to discussion.

i'm not saying that microsoft is fundamentally evil, but don't you think it's problematic that the premise "business X is evil" is necessarily "dogmatic" or "not conducive to discussion"? i mean, specifically, what about the case where "business X is evil" happens to be true?

"what's evil? this is so subjective and [insert complaint]"

suppose an organization is committed to tricking the public, ripping off the government, committing crimes, gaining power at the expense of any idea of the public good... don't you think at least some people would be confident in thus concluding "business X is evil"?

again, regardless of microsoft's motives for litigation (which i'm going to go out on a limb and suggest are probably more nuanced and confidential than can be explained in a single article), shouldn't "business X is fundamentally evil; ie they are united in the pursuit of a criminal or publicly hazardous goal," be available for discussion? all the more if the speaker has evidence?

neutrality is great if you want to be level headed and find facts... but it can't be true by stipulation. that's just crazy, and truly "dogmatic and not very conducive to discussion". yeah, "x is evil" statements require more evidence, and more explanation of what you mean (because rando on the internet stating "x is evil" conveys pretty much no information at all), but they have to be admissable.

...unless you think it's somehow impossible for organizations to come together to pursue evil (by most standards) goals?

(and, again, not asserting that microsoft is evil myself, but didn't the karma-bombed author cite reasons that s/he found microsoft taking legal action to protect its customers dubious? if someone provides argument for a conclusion, and you--without even handwaving at a reason to dismiss their argument/evidence--dismiss her conclusion out of hand, aren't you doing some serious violence to intelligent discussion? you're expressly taking a discussion that had progressed to the point of thesis-with-argument back to bald-statements/opinions/theses... that's nothing to endorse)

Post reply on HN