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

Edward Snowden’s Email Provider Shuts Down Amid Secret Court Battle

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 90 posts

Re: Edward Snowden’s Email Provider Shuts Down Amid Secret Court Battle

#81

Post by grecy »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #77
grecy wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hey would charge him with violating the terms of the NSL and the jury would acquit him anyway. You're assuming he would have a trial with a jury. I think that's a big assumption.

Assuming he is a US citizen, and doesn't waive his right to a jury trial (which he should not), the only way to try him would be in front of a jury. That doesn't apply if you are an 'enemy combatant' and held at Gitmo. I am not aware of any criminal proceeding in which the prosecution can prevent it from being heard by a jury, but I am also not a lawyer. Do you know of a situation other than military tribunals or cou…

Sure, the American citizens overseas that are purposefully being killed by drones. They didn't get a jury trial.

Also, you don't know about any of the criminal proceedings going on in the FISA court, that's the whole point.

Re: Edward Snowden’s Email Provider Shuts Down Amid Secret Court Battle

#82

Post by jborica »

sillysaurus wrote: post #63
betterunix wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Maybe being superstitious isn't helpful, but in this instance, I'm not so sure Tor is able to be relied on." Tor has been analyzed extensively by cryptographers and security researchers; there is literally a mountain of published research about it. It is operated by an independent organization. I would be more cautious about the Linux kernel, a vastly larger codebase that could and probably does have numerous back d…

Tor has been analyzed extensively by cryptographers and security researchers; there is literally a mountain of published research about it. And that research says that if an entry node and an exit node are both under control of an adversary, then that adversary can deannonymize the target. I don't know enough about it, but I know that deannonymizing someone is a matter of resources, not a matter of ability. And the U…

Much in the same way that communicating insecurely with 90% of your contacts is not going to help PGP keep your emails encrypted, requesting sites from outside of the tor network is not going to help keep your internet usage anonymous. It's a problem of behavior and adoption rate

Re: Edward Snowden’s Email Provider Shuts Down Amid Secret Court Battle

#83

Post by bigiain »

slowriot wrote: post #76
bigiain wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like many "technical solutions", at least most of the answer is easily found - PGP. Also, like many "technical solutions", the answer _isn't_ a technical solution. The bigger problem is people. PGP _will_ secure my email. But out of my almost 1000 contacts I've got only a few dozen with PGP keys. While 95%+ of an email network's users _aren't_ using encryption, the network is fundamentally insecure. That's not an eng…

It's not a people problem, it's a design problem. The technology is there, it just needs to be integrated in a way that makes it 'just work' for everyone.

I'm not so sure - "strong passwords" mostly "just work", but ~25% of passwords in published hash dumps still fall to the RockYou wordlist, and another 10 or 15% with the best64 rules in hashcat.

When given the option between "laziness" and "security", it's abundantly clear which most people choose.

I strongly believe that as well as "easy to use technology", we very much need to educate our friends/family/coworkers on the need for encryption and the risks of not using it.

Re: Edward Snowden’s Email Provider Shuts Down Amid Secret Court Battle

#84

Post by mc32 »

grecy wrote: post #81
ChuckMcM wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming he is a US citizen, and doesn't waive his right to a jury trial (which he should not), the only way to try him would be in front of a jury. That doesn't apply if you are an 'enemy combatant' and held at Gitmo. I am not aware of any criminal proceeding in which the prosecution can prevent it from being heard by a jury, but I am also not a lawyer. Do you know of a situation other than military tribunals or cou…

Sure, the American citizens overseas that are purposefully being killed by drones. They didn't get a jury trial. Also, you don't know about any of the criminal proceedings going on in the FISA court, that's the whole point.

You can say that about anyone engaging in war.

Let's say the US were at war with Mexico and you were an American but fighting for the Mexican Army, you would not get special treatment from the American side for being an American --at that point you're just a foe. That's how they view that.

Re: Edward Snowden’s Email Provider Shuts Down Amid Secret Court Battle

#85

Post by RyanMcGreal »

solistice wrote: post #56
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes the American Constitution exceptional is not its content but the fact that it was written in the late 18th century. In the intervening two centuries, several other industrialized liberal democracies have adopted constitutions that are broader and more inclusive than the Bill of Rights.

But clutter isn't what makes a legal document effective. I'd rather have a concise definition of what is a right and what not than pages upon pages of dancing around that issue.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a little over 2,200 words and is clear and concise.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html

The Bill of Rights, on the other hand, is so terse that debate rages continually about what a given statement actually means (see, e.g. the 2nd Amendment).

Re: Edward Snowden’s Email Provider Shuts Down Amid Secret Court Battle

#86

Post by RyanMcGreal »

smsm42 wrote: post #74
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes the American Constitution exceptional is not its content but the fact that it was written in the late 18th century. In the intervening two centuries, several other industrialized liberal democracies have adopted constitutions that are broader and more inclusive than the Bill of Rights.

Most liberal democracies don't have anything like First Amendment or Second Amendment (at the level of protections they provide) and the rights guaranteed to US people by those are routinely violated in other liberal democracies.

Most liberal democracies do have protections equivalent to the First Amendment. For example, here's the list of Fundamental Freedoms under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

> 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

> (a) freedom of conscience and religion;

> (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

> (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

> (d) freedom of association.

You're right that most other countries don't have anything like the 2nd Amendment, but frankly I don't think the "right to bear arms" belongs in a constitution. It's an 18th century throwback to the discredited notion that the only thing stopping a government from tyranny is fear of uprising.

Re: Edward Snowden’s Email Provider Shuts Down Amid Secret Court Battle

#87

Post by grecy »

mc32 wrote: post #84
grecy wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, the American citizens overseas that are purposefully being killed by drones. They didn't get a jury trial. Also, you don't know about any of the criminal proceedings going on in the FISA court, that's the whole point.

You can say that about anyone engaging in war. Let's say the US were at war with Mexico and you were an American but fighting for the Mexican Army, you would not get special treatment from the American side for being an American --at that point you're just a foe. That's how they view that.

Of course, they are the ones determining if you're fighting for the other side.

Let's say I'm an American living in a foreign country and I read the Koran, or attend a Mosque, or even actually hang out with some known Al Qaeda guys because they are hilarious (not because I in any way want to do anything they do).... I'm labeled guilty and murdered without a court case to determine what I was even doing.

Re: Edward Snowden’s Email Provider Shuts Down Amid Secret Court Battle

#88

Post by smsm42 »

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #86
smsm42 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most liberal democracies don't have anything like First Amendment or Second Amendment (at the level of protections they provide) and the rights guaranteed to US people by those are routinely violated in other liberal democracies.

Most liberal democracies do have protections equivalent to the First Amendment. For example, here's the list of Fundamental Freedoms under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: > 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: > (a) freedom of conscience and religion; > (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; > (c) freedom of…

"freedom of the press" and freedom of speech are very different things. "Press" is regulated and licensed by the government and expression in the press is available to a select few. Speech is available to anybody.

Taking Canada as an example, doesn't Canada have Human Rights Council which prosecutes people for expressing opinions not condoned by the government?

In fact, Canadian Supreme Court considers limiting freedom of speech and defining what can and can not be spoken by the government completely justifiable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commissi...

Existence of such laws and commissions proves that protection available to Canadian citizens in the realm of free speech is nowhere near what First Amendment provides.

Re: Edward Snowden’s Email Provider Shuts Down Amid Secret Court Battle

#89

Post by solistice »

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #85
solistice wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But clutter isn't what makes a legal document effective. I'd rather have a concise definition of what is a right and what not than pages upon pages of dancing around that issue.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a little over 2,200 words and is clear and concise. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html The Bill of Rights, on the other hand, is so terse that debate rages continually about what a given statement actually means (see, e.g. the 2nd Amendment).

So there aren't any people trying to latch onto every nook in order to subvert the original message? That's...intresting.

I'm mostly familar with the American Bill of Rights and the German Grundgesetz, which is much longer and contains more rights, albeit not always more solid definitions. I've been in discussions before, where I'd defend one right, and was contered with another, equally valid right that was somehow conflicting with the other. In that way, the Grundgesetz trips over itself, and it's hard to argue for a given interpretation (so are these rights equal, or is this right of a lower denomination than the other, and how far can you compromise this right so this right can be put into effect, and if everyone has a Recht auf Arbeit (Right to have work), aren't we infringing on that?).

Obviously, I'd rather have a terse, but in itself noncontradicting bill of rights than a long list of irreconcilable demands. But they're both not neccesairily optimal.

Re: Edward Snowden’s Email Provider Shuts Down Amid Secret Court Battle

#90

Post by smsm42 »

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #86
smsm42 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most liberal democracies don't have anything like First Amendment or Second Amendment (at the level of protections they provide) and the rights guaranteed to US people by those are routinely violated in other liberal democracies.

Most liberal democracies do have protections equivalent to the First Amendment. For example, here's the list of Fundamental Freedoms under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: > 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: > (a) freedom of conscience and religion; > (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; > (c) freedom of…

If you need further evidence, check out this one:

http://overlawyered.com/2013/08/canada-man-ordered-pay-panha...

If you think country where such things happen has freedom of speech, your definition of freedom is very different than mine.

Post reply on HN