Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#41

Post by liberte82 » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 2:49 PM UTC

PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #37

sbov wrote: post #34

Why does this sort of thing not require an amendment to the constitution?

Because the current 9 people, who are not at all in touch with either the original writers or the current population, get total say in what the Constitution actually says. It is just like the rulings that allowed obscenity exception to the first amendment, a fully automatic exception to the second amendment, or for the commerce clause to apply to a person growing food for their own animals to eat, Now, maybe in this…

Anyone could make your argument about any Supreme Court that has ever existed or will exist, when they don't agree with the decisions being made. What are you proposing exactly?

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#42

Post by lwf » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 3:11 PM UTC

liberte82 wrote: post #40

tsmarsh wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s edge cases like this that make me wonder about the whole concept of nations. It makes citizens sound like property / cattle. “I believe my cow pooped on your lawn. I demand the right to inspect your lawn for my cows poop to retrieve the poop. Expect further consultation if we decide you illegally benefited from that poop. I don’t care that you are ok with the poop or that the cow came to your lawn and pooped the…

Once corporations start deciding it's cheaper to just provide their own healthcare to its workers rather than going through the broken American system, watch out. Corporate fascism is the new feudalism.

This is literally how Kaiser Permanente was founded — pre-paid healthcare for industrial workers, eventually expanded to cover families of workers, eventually expanded as an integrated managed-care offering for companies to offer their employees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Permanente#Early_years

Kaiser is regarded as one of the highest-quality providers, and the regional health plans it runs are operated as non-profits.

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#43

Post by kerng » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 3:19 PM UTC

In many ways this case isn't settled until the foreign stakeholders agree with it also, or? I mean Ireland can still force Microsoft to not hand over the data because its on their soil? Or because its digital law makers assume the data is already in US. Doesn't this need agreements between countries? Anyone know more, I'm not super savvy on that topic.

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#44

Post by buvanshak » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 3:24 PM UTC

mtreis86 wrote: post #35

buvanshak wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Random stuff isn't what soldiers risk their lives for. I mean orders from higher authorities. Are the soldiers given reason or entitled for one? They are just supposed to obey, right?

Yes they are given reasons, volunteers tend to fight better that way. They are supposed to obey but they, in the USA anyways, swore to protect the constitution. "They suffered and they did their duty so a sheltered homeland can enjoy the peace that was purchased at such a high cost." Eugene Sledge

> They are supposed to obey but they, in the USA anyways, swore to protect the constitution...

Are you seriously saying all the troops deployed in Nam and the middle east was protecting US constitution..

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#45

Post by tootie » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 3:26 PM UTC

sbov wrote: post #34

Why does this sort of thing not require an amendment to the constitution?

International law enforcement cooperation has existed for a long time and has rarely been abused. This new law is just extending current standards to cross-border digital assets. It's no different than extradition. The State Dept is allowed to negotiate treaties recognizing or denying the legitimacy of foreign search requests.

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#46

Post by justinclift » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 3:56 PM UTC

mercer wrote: post #39

justinclift wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Windows 10 is known to upload random end user docs to Microsoft. For example, if a computer with Win10 on it crashes / has some level of fault (etc), it can upload docs it determines are related to MS (to assist diagnosis). To bad if those docs happen to be medical records - or anything else sensitive. :( Note - that's just one example. Win 10 really is a privacy shit show.

Can this functionality be turned off?

Apparently it's possible to temporarily turn it off.

Saying temporarily because there are (apparently) settings which can be used to minimise it (unsure about "complete off"). The setting names and meaning appear to be unstable though. eg the required settings change name, change their meaning, (etc) with subsequent Win 10 updates and releases

Just in case that sounds like it might be "on purpose" by Microsoft in order to make things difficult for their targets/end users to stop this abhorrent behaviour... it does seem that way.

Microsoft is absolutely not operating in good faith. :(

For in depth details, there's plenty of info available by looking online. Using HN's search feature should bring up a wealth of helpful pointers too.

Personally, I can't tell you the settings needed for disabling this stuff, as I've never run Win10 (due to this crap).

Everything possible has been migrated to non-Windows, and the last few pieces (running Win7) are on not-connected-to-the-internet VM's or hardware while non-windows alternatives are being tried out.

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#47

Post by bluGill » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 4:06 PM UTC

liberte82 wrote: post #41

PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the current 9 people, who are not at all in touch with either the original writers or the current population, get total say in what the Constitution actually says. It is just like the rulings that allowed obscenity exception to the first amendment, a fully automatic exception to the second amendment, or for the commerce clause to apply to a person growing food for their own animals to eat, Now, maybe in this…

Anyone could make your argument about any Supreme Court that has ever existed or will exist, when they don't agree with the decisions being made. What are you proposing exactly?

I agree with his assessment of the problem. I have no clue how to fix it. I'm not sure one exists.

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#48

Post by vinceguidry » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 4:09 PM UTC

tsmarsh wrote: post #29

tdhoot wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> warrantless surveillance by foreign governments and law enforcement on any US citizen Source? I only see that it allows foreign governments to get information on their own citizens, even if that information is stored on US soil.

It’s edge cases like this that make me wonder about the whole concept of nations. It makes citizens sound like property / cattle. “I believe my cow pooped on your lawn. I demand the right to inspect your lawn for my cows poop to retrieve the poop. Expect further consultation if we decide you illegally benefited from that poop. I don’t care that you are ok with the poop or that the cow came to your lawn and pooped the…

> It makes citizens sound like property / cattle.

This is, precisely, how polities have always worked. Personal freedom of movement is circumscribed to lawfully prescribed means. It wasn't until after WW2 and airplanes when ordinary people gained the technical capability to move around. Before then, you had to have lots of money and time to travel. Serfs were considered part of the land, they needed permission to leave.

With the Renaissance came the loosening of identification from commoners being a part of the land, to being a part of the city / political region. The concept of people as property never really changed and is intrinsic to the idea of governance, which imposes rules that people must live by, and specifies what kinds of commerce can go on. Citizenship is just the loosening of who owns you from your city to your nation.

Things are changing, quite rapidly, but don't expect the idea of people as belonging to a polity to ever really go away. Governments require tax revenue to operate, and governments that don't have to rely on their citizens for those taxes are governments that don't have to be held accountable to those citizens. (See Russia) Your government is always going to treat you like a belonging, and demand the right to use your efforts for the good of the nation however it sees fit.

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#49

Post by jfoutz » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 4:15 PM UTC

So, if I’m following the cloud act, it sounds like I could find an officer (anywhere in the world) that needs $500 and in exchange get everything stored by Google and Facebook for a specific person.

I have no need for such a thing. However it’s not hard to imagine drug cartels or similar organizations using this right away.

Pretty exciting new feature. Surprised they buried it in the patch notes.

Re: Microsoft calls for dismissal of U.S. Supreme Court privacy fight

#50

Post by AnimalMuppet » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 4:43 PM UTC

buvanshak wrote: post #44

mtreis86 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes they are given reasons, volunteers tend to fight better that way. They are supposed to obey but they, in the USA anyways, swore to protect the constitution. "They suffered and they did their duty so a sheltered homeland can enjoy the peace that was purchased at such a high cost." Eugene Sledge

> They are supposed to obey but they, in the USA anyways, swore to protect the constitution... Are you seriously saying all the troops deployed in Nam and the middle east was protecting US constitution..

No, mtreis86 is saying that, if US troops are given orders to, say, occupy Washington DC and arrest the members of Congress and the Supreme Court, on orders of the President, they're not supposed to do it, even though doing so would be obeying orders.