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

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

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 79 posts

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

#61

Post by mtreis86 »

buvanshak wrote: post #59
mtreis86 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all, I was specifically responding to "what soldiers risk their lives for" That said, according to the UCMJ, the orders given to slaughter civilians in Vietnam were unlawful and a soldier refusing to obey them would not have been prosecuted. "Obedience to orders. It is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordina…

What I was saying was, when someone sign up to join the Army, their ideal is to protect the country and it's citizens. But when they ordered to go to a different country and fight a war over there. that is not what they originally signed up for, right? So they are putting their lives on line for the whims of someone in administration, and not for a cause they care about. That is all I am saying. So, my original argum…

My response stands, they are typically risking their lives for something close to them - their family and community, and not for some lofty ideals nor for the whims of an administration. Most know the risk going in.

Your end statement describes brainwashing, which has been proven not to work. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TiG8cLkBRW4QgsfrR/notes-on-b...

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

#62

Post by vinceguidry »

vanderZwan wrote: post #51
vinceguidry wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 lea…

> 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. [Citation needed] From what I have been taug…

Sure, if you had the money, time and/or motivation. If you didn't, it was extremely difficult to travel. Nobody would trust you, and staying at inns was expensive. Get caught camping in lands where no one knew you, and you're at their mercy.

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

#63

Post by chimeracoder »

Maybestring wrote: post #60
vanderZwan wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. [Citation needed] From what I have been taug…

What time period is that? I'm not sure what historians consider the first nation state.

> What time period is that? I'm not sure what historians consider the first nation state.

There's disagreement about this, but the contemporary concept of the nation-state is believed to have merged between the 17th and 19th centuries. 1648 is usually given as the earliest date, though that's partly out of a desire to ascribe a specific year to what was actually a slow process.

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

#64

Post by nareiber »

olympus wrote: post #33
gm-conspiracy wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No warrant needed now. That is part of the problem

The article specifically says the Justice department is dripping the case because they have a new warrant and Microsoft is complying.

They want a warrant for Microsofts data. The warrant comment is probably aimed at US citizens data on a third parties servers.

EFF explicitly says the Cloud Act enables: 'Empower U.S. police to grab any data, regardless if it's a U.S. person's or not, no matter where it is stored.'

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

#65

Post by AnimalMuppet »

buvanshak wrote: post #57
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In "A Reply to Professor Haldane", published in "Of Other Worlds", C.S. Lewis said the same thing as golergka. Lewis said that a robber baron may be satisfied with enough money (though I must say that history doesn't supply much hope of that). The robber baron may get lazy. And maybe, since on some level they know that what they do is morally sketchy, they may repent. But an idealist who holds their ideal or politica…

In other words, a fool might end up doing more harm than a really cruel person. Of course. > But an idealist who holds their ideal or political theory with the force of a religion is far worse, because they commit their horrors in the name of doing good, and so their benevolent impulses seem to them to be temptations - something to be resisted in order to do what is "good". We are talking about a benevolent dictator…

"Benevolent" = "wanting to do good". But that applied (I think) even to the Communists. They wanted to free the proletariat from oppression. That was their moral imperative. To do it, they were willing to execute their "oppressors". The temptation to have mercy on some of the oppressors rather than execute them had to be resisted, because it would hinder the cause.

[Edit: reworded for clarity.]

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

#66

Post by KozmoNau7 »

golergka wrote: post #13
buvanshak wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the small problem is they're not benevolent for very long. Would it be possible to appoint a dictator, who has no other incentive other then serve the people. For ex, they ll sever every human relation, cannot own property, will have zero privacy, cannot reproduce and have children etc. But they ll be held to the highest honor and their every needs taken care of... In short, something like the life of a religious s…

The most horrible and bloody dictators had only the best intentions in mind. The most bloody and horrible ideology in the world – communism – was driven by idealists. I'll always take a corrupt politician over a benevolent dictator.

>"The most bloody and horrible ideology in the world – communism"

Please provide some support for that deeply subjective statement.

https://aeon.co/essays/the-merits-of-taking-an-anti-anti-com...

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

#67

Post by AnimalMuppet »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #66
golergka wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most horrible and bloody dictators had only the best intentions in mind. The most bloody and horrible ideology in the world – communism – was driven by idealists. I'll always take a corrupt politician over a benevolent dictator.

>"The most bloody and horrible ideology in the world – communism" Please provide some support for that deeply subjective statement. https://aeon.co/essays/the-merits-of-taking-an-anti-anti-com...

Most bloody? That's objectively true, in terms of total body count, and especially total body count of their own citizens. (Most bloody in terms of deaths per person per year that they had the opportunity to kill is probably the Nazis - although Cambodian Communism, if considered separately from all of communism, probably tops even the Nazis.)

Most horrible? It doesn't seem unreasonable to use body count of a country's own citizens as a proxy for "horror".

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

#68

Post by contextfree »

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?

Yes, it's determined by whether the diagnostic data setting is at Full or at Basic. This is presented as a toggle in the initial OS install setup dialog and can be changed later in Settings->Privacy->Feedback & diagnostics. The only change to this since the initial version of Windows 10 (besides reducing the data collected at Basic level to comply with European law and regulations) was that the third, intermediate Enhanced level can no longer be set through the UI (it still exists as an enterprise configuration option) since the Creators Update release in spring 2017.

There is more detailed information here: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/configuration/confi...

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

#69

Post by buvanshak »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #65
buvanshak wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, a fool might end up doing more harm than a really cruel person. Of course. > But an idealist who holds their ideal or political theory with the force of a religion is far worse, because they commit their horrors in the name of doing good, and so their benevolent impulses seem to them to be temptations - something to be resisted in order to do what is "good". We are talking about a benevolent dictator…

"Benevolent" = "wanting to do good". But that applied (I think) even to the Communists. They wanted to free the proletariat from oppression. That was their moral imperative. To do it, they were willing to execute their "oppressors". The temptation to have mercy on some of the oppressors rather than execute them had to be resisted, because it would hinder the cause. [Edit: reworded for clarity.]

So by that definition, should an ideal dictator stand by and watch if there is an invasion? Because resisting it would be likely be killing the invaders?

So I think there is always an Idea of the subset of people you are meant to serve, and their well being being your highest priority. In your example, the "proletariat" were that subset, so it is only their duty to protect them from oppression.

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

#70

Post by KozmoNau7 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #67
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"The most bloody and horrible ideology in the world – communism" Please provide some support for that deeply subjective statement. https://aeon.co/essays/the-merits-of-taking-an-anti-anti-com...

Most bloody? That's objectively true, in terms of total body count, and especially total body count of their own citizens . (Most bloody in terms of deaths per person per year that they had the opportunity to kill is probably the Nazis - although Cambodian Communism, if considered separately from all of communism, probably tops even the Nazis.) Most horrible? It doesn't seem unreasonable to use body count of a countr…

You're lumping a lot of different ideologies together under one umbrella term, even though 1) they were wildly different in practice and implementation, and 2) most of them only paid the tiniest bit of lip service to what Marx envisioned, and 3) were actually just good old tyrannical dictatorships, falsely using the promise of communistic ideals to pacify the populace.

Did you read the article?

I've found it a very common tendency to lump everything free market capitalists don't like as "communism bad!" and "socialism bad!", which I guess stems from decades and decades of cultural indoctrination, fueled by the military industrial complex.

For instance, an anarcho-communist is very far from whatever haphazard centrally planned mess was in place in the USSR at any given time.

Post reply on HN