41–50 of 84 posts
I think by now the situation has come to a point where nobody believes a word of denials coming from any US company when it comes to surveillance and user data. Anybody would just assume they're denying it because NSA tells them to do so and they don't have a choice. Understandably, big companies don't like feeling like ventriloquist's puppets. Maybe they should spend some of those lobbying dollars on putting collar,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything on Youtube is publicly indexed. It's therefore accessible to copyright holders and authorities. Megaupload (and all file lockers) were set-up as if your uploads are personal and private, but to still allow files to be shared by passing around direct URLs. This is why Rapidshare (who were once one of the biggest of them all) ditched their sharing capability and are now left alone. It's the cliques that are…
I don't follow. In what way was megaupload inaccessible? Rapidshare have had to ditch their sharing capability - and yet youtube continues unimpeded. Can you explain what I am misunderstanding?
Probably naive, but what would happen if Google, Facebook, MS just started disclosing everything? What are they going to do shut them down? Seems silly to me that these huge companies can't just give them the middle finger and show them that they're not going to be bullied any longer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything on Youtube is publicly indexed. It's therefore accessible to copyright holders and authorities. Megaupload (and all file lockers) were set-up as if your uploads are personal and private, but to still allow files to be shared by passing around direct URLs. This is why Rapidshare (who were once one of the biggest of them all) ditched their sharing capability and are now left alone. It's the cliques that are…
> Everything on Youtube is publicly indexed. That is not actually the case. Youtube has a concept of both private and unlisted videos. Unlisted videos work similarly to how you describe Megaupload: "Unlisted videos Making a video unlisted means that only people who have the link to the video can view it. To share an unlisted video, just share the link with the people who you’d like to have access to it, and they’ll t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hardly. I'd disclose that I will not carry out immoral or unethical behaviour on behalf of my employer, and will follow all protocol in pursuit of stamping it out, up to and including whistleblowing. That sort of attitude used to be a plus, dare I say something that was implicitly understood between the two parties. It's the sort of thing that you'd think people would want to ensure wound up in the contract all new h…
OK, to me this reads, "No, I'd not disclose anything that jeopardizes my chances to be that whistleblower. I'd just disclose the main thing that jeopardizes my chances to be that whistleblower." I'm not trying to be (overly) confrontational, but I can't spot the difference between what I asked and what you said you'd do. It just seems like you've constructed a scenario where you will never be called upon to do what y…
>"No, I'd not disclose anything that jeopardizes my chances to be that whistleblower. I'd just disclose the main thing that jeopardizes my chances to be that whistleblower."
>It just seems like you've constructed a scenario where you will never be called upon to do what you seem to think is such an obviously good choice...
It seems the nail has met the head. Now, I don't know if you are indeed a software engineer for Google or not --and perhaps I'm torpedoing my own opportunity to join the ranks a year or so from now-- but Hacker News does seem to have quite a number of folks online that are genuinely involved in the thick of the industry. Of course, I understand that you cannot, will not, confirm or deny, comment or speculate. But you've brought about the very point I'm raising: Why on earth would asserting that I would behave ethically, affirming that I would blow the whistle if the protocols in place to address such issues failed, constitute "[disclosing] the main thing that jeopardizes my chances to be that whistleblower"? Why would such a statement constitute "[constructing] a scenario where [I] will never be called upon to do" the right thing? What is it about stating "my loyalty is to the company up until I'm expected to behave immorally, unethically, or illegally" that makes every last employer want to run for the hills?
>...and therefore I have trouble seeing how you came to the conclusion that the choice is easy or obvious.
I didn't come to either conclusion. Whistleblowing is neither easy nor the obvious answer. But when it becomes clear that it is the only viable answer, when every other avenue of objection is exhausted, it most certainly does become the right thing to do. Everyone has their own excuse for staying silent. They can be perfectly valid excuses. I wouldn't expect someone to blow the whistle if their dependents would be ruined by it. I wouldn't expect them to blow the whistle if they genuinely felt that it would make absolutely no difference and leave them forever destitute. But that doesn't make it right. Just excusable. And in the tech industry, a knowledge industry dominated by single, unattached, 20 somethings, I find it hard to believe that every last soul could have a valid excuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't follow. In what way was megaupload inaccessible? Rapidshare have had to ditch their sharing capability - and yet youtube continues unimpeded. Can you explain what I am misunderstanding?
The difference is that Youtube takes advantage of the DMCA safe harbor provision by responding to DMCA takedown requests. Indeed, the Youtube/Viacom litigation was instrumental in the current understanding between media companies and internet companies that sharing sites could operate freely as long as they complied with DMCA requirements. Megaupload in comparison made it a point to bill itself as a facilitator of co…
I wasn't sure how youtube's private videos worked but jlgreco has explained above - further blurring the lines in my view between megaupload et al and youtube.
I think the litigation you mention is evidence of Google's lawyering and lobbying prowess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything on Youtube is publicly indexed. It's therefore accessible to copyright holders and authorities. Megaupload (and all file lockers) were set-up as if your uploads are personal and private, but to still allow files to be shared by passing around direct URLs. This is why Rapidshare (who were once one of the biggest of them all) ditched their sharing capability and are now left alone. It's the cliques that are…
> Everything on Youtube is publicly indexed. That is not actually the case. Youtube has a concept of both private and unlisted videos. Unlisted videos work similarly to how you describe Megaupload: "Unlisted videos Making a video unlisted means that only people who have the link to the video can view it. To share an unlisted video, just share the link with the people who you’d like to have access to it, and they’ll t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is that Youtube takes advantage of the DMCA safe harbor provision by responding to DMCA takedown requests. Indeed, the Youtube/Viacom litigation was instrumental in the current understanding between media companies and internet companies that sharing sites could operate freely as long as they complied with DMCA requirements. Megaupload in comparison made it a point to bill itself as a facilitator of co…
I'm not sure I remember it billing itself as a facilitator of copyright infringment and I do seem to recall megaupload responding to DMCA requests. I remember in response to their indictment megaupload said that the DMCA requests they didn't respond to were on machines that had some other legal instrument demanding they not interfere with the evidence. I wasn't sure how youtube's private videos worked but jlgreco has…
(1) They sought to rate-limit DMCA takedown requests
(2) They operated the service with red-flag knowledge of copyrighted content, such as when a user complained that the video quality of the Showtime show "Dexter" was poor, and Kim Schmitz mailed his team to work on improving the quality of that content.
(3) They themselves used the service to exchange copyright-encumbered material, such as the movie "Taken".
(4) They operated a paid incentive program to get users to upload copyrighted content, and in their itemized performance reports for the program acknowledged repeatedly that the content they were paying for was copyrighted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, to me this reads, "No, I'd not disclose anything that jeopardizes my chances to be that whistleblower. I'd just disclose the main thing that jeopardizes my chances to be that whistleblower." I'm not trying to be (overly) confrontational, but I can't spot the difference between what I asked and what you said you'd do. It just seems like you've constructed a scenario where you will never be called upon to do what y…
You asked me if I would let myself off the hook for blowing the whistle because I told my employer in advance that I would do so. I wouldn't characterize it as letting myself off the hook, because there shouldn't be a "hook" in my clavicle mandating unethical behaviour in the first place. I'd characterize it as doing the right thing if for no other reason than being ethically obligated to do so. Blowing the whistle s…
Let me construct a parallel scenario that might make it obvious to you. Let's suppose you're hiring a nanny to care for your children while you are away at work (not that you or I could necessarily afford such a thing). You tell the candidates your requirements for how the children should be treated while you are away, including what food they may eat, what shows they may watch, the ways, if any, they might be disciplined etc.
One of the candidates, upon hearing these requirements, declares that he will follow them up to the point he feels they violate his ethics or morals.
Do you hire this candidate? If no, why not?
So this week I've been reading Battle of Wits: The Complete Story of Codebreaking in World War II by Stephen Budiansky. The US intelligence community has a long history of going right to the communication source and obtaining raw data from public companies. In the 1920's Herbert Yardley's "American Black Chamber" worked with Western Union and other cable companies who turned over interesting cablegrams and radiograms…
So if anything. What we are seing might be an improvement of the situation rather than a worsening. People can and do speak up and for each generation we will move toward a more liberal approach perhaps.
The big question is how this will affect the intelligence community long-term, who are becoming simultaneously more important, and simultaneously more threatened by technology and the openness of the internet.
Will they be forced to become more transparent or succeed in their fight to keep growing in power/secrecy?
Having an extremely large and powerful government, now even more obsessed with aggressive enforcement of law, is almost always going to be continually at odds with the peoples trends towards social liberalism.
The internet seems to have accelerated liberalization and terrorism seems to have accelerated state totalitarianism. So it seem's we're witnessing an acceleration in the battle between the two (especially if you live in the HN bubble).
The counter argument of course could be, and often is, dismissed by those who see the state as a representation of the people and total secrecy in the intelligence community as necessary for a healthy country/national security.