Does anyone else think this is all just a little too contrived? I mean governments don't require us to all have cameras installed in our houses just in case it might be useful to solve a crime. So why do they think they have a right to spy our on-line "homes"? Obviously, being able to spy one everyone everywhere all the time is going to make solving crimes easier, but such as system is also far too prone to abuse.
Why do you think there's so much interest in the 'internet of things' stuff?
Seriously though, we've got too many power mad authoriarians in politics. People who just want power at all costs, and they find the internet a perfect way to get the sort of control they can only dream of in the real world.
In the U.S., the argument is that, since you are handing your data to a third party, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Your analogy breaks down under that interpretation.
(I think that argument/precedent is a load of bullshit, but that's a different matter...)
Well... The major reason that that argument can be made is because of the terms of service/use/agreement and privacy policies. Pretty much every one agrees without thinking, which is where I believe Apple got into some trouble a few years back IIRC.
No, the assumption is that you are voluntarily handing over your data. It's more like, if you are in a cafeteria and a friend comes by, then you two begin shouting from one end to the room to the other and at the end demand everybody there to forget whatever you said. Not that any decent person wouldn't... but is still poor judgement and lack of common sense on your part.
To follow with your gun analogy, it's like walking into a police station in a trench coat with your hands in your pockets and yielling "Everybody freeze!" Any decent/professional cop there should strive to put you down without resorting to lethal force... but the situation is a little more nuanced than right vs wrong.
Yeah, I am like, hey dude, follow me, I totally want it.
I just came out so that everyone can follow me. No I did not, I just want to buy some milk, all right?
This is just how messed up American mind is about privacy.
(comment to myself, do not comment on hacker news after having few beers and watching LCK)
I gave you a good example - you can not do what ever it is possible to do.
Hey, I have a gun, I can totally shoot you. Boom!
No I can not, every other person gets unhappy (all right, maybe not all of them).
So how hard is it to transfer this knowledge into another situation?
The fact that I am in your range does not mean you can shoot me, right?
The fact that I am visible to you does not mean that you can create a database of all my doings.
There is major difference between, oh, I saw that dude on the street and I have followed that dude 10 years every day, I know every place he have been.
> The fact that I am in your range does not mean you can shoot me, right?
Wrong. The fact that you are in my range does mean that I could shoot you if I wish. It does not mean that I will do so, but you do not get to decide. What is to stop me, your blind faith in the eventual justice of the cosmic balance?
If you want to make less likely that people shoots you, try to step out of the typical ranges of people you don't trust. It is so sad, because it means you cannot go anymore where all the everymen want to go.
> since you are handing your data to a third party, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy
I disagree with that argument. Just because I place information with a third party doesn't mean I shouldn't have an expectation of privacy. People used to have a level of discretion and "minding ones' own business".
> since you are handing your data to a third party, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy
Sure - just like sending a letter, or driving around town...right? We already use third party service providers in the physical world which come with some (legally enforceable) expectations of privacy. Why is the digital domain different?
"American technology companies should be free to comply directly with foreign government requests for data, as long as that access is warranted and meets international standards of due process and human rights."
The NYT really has gone downhill in the last decade or so. I understand this is just an Op-Ed, but for the life of me I don't understand why it is so hard for people to grasp the core issue regarding surveillance and the internet.
The Constitution. The fourth amendment to be precise, is very specific about this: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
So while I do agree there should be some discussion about the details of the fourth, and what it applies to (does data on your ISP rented cable modem deserve the same level of fourth amendment protection as your actual computer, for example), but in general I think we can say that data is a "paper" and/or "effects", and generally deserves such protections at the very least on equipment we own. (I know some will dispute this and I look forward to such discussion.)
That being said, when I see things like the following, I understand that what is being said is that other countries don't want to follow our process of law, which I think is absurd!
"So if a British cop is investigating a murder in London, and he has good reason to believe that Google or Facebook has evidence about the crime, he must satisfy an American judge using an American constitutional standard to obtain the evidence. This cross-border process is notoriously slow. Requests take an average of 10 months — an eon in a criminal investigation — and many languish for years."
"Making it harder for the police to get criminal evidence lawfully may actually incentivize them to seek that data by snooping."
All I have to say is...Get a warrant!!!
It's possible the warrant system for electronic data is too slow, and if that's the case work on changing that system, but that doesn't mean you get to throw out basic law because it's inconvenient. Hell, if we let this kind of logic apply to other areas, what good would the law be in the first place?
Look, the bottom line is that national sovereignty is still important, because when it comes down to it, people from a country operate under that countries laws, and we need to stop pretending otherwise.
"If America fails to allow such access, it will happen anyway in a brute and extralegal manner — and the result will be a less secure, less efficient Internet."
And I fully hope that any police officers or other LEAs/LEOs who participate wilfully in and with full knowledge in violations of their oaths should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and this includes the NSA. I'm getting tired of allowing UK/European style disdain for the rule of law to seep into the American way of doing things. We fought a bloody revolution to form our government, and we shouldn't piss it away so easily with international agreements of a questionable nature.
The SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that even so called "illegal aliens" are protected by the Constitution under the equal protection clause. So I understand that this article focuses on the UK/European citizens data the resides in America, the bottom line is that any passage of laws contrary to this should be challenge-able on Constitutional grounds in higher-courts.
Of course the real danger is not that police will illegally spy... it's that they will find some loophole to legally spy by pushing the rule of law system out of the way and will try to interface directly with corporations and companies. So it would be Company A just giv...
14 comments
[ 61.8 ms ] story [ 128 ms ] threadSeriously though, we've got too many power mad authoriarians in politics. People who just want power at all costs, and they find the internet a perfect way to get the sort of control they can only dream of in the real world.
(I think that argument/precedent is a load of bullshit, but that's a different matter...)
It is like, if I am in public and if you have a gun, you can follow me everywhere and shoot me when ever you like.
No you can not.
So please learn from this analogy.
To follow with your gun analogy, it's like walking into a police station in a trench coat with your hands in your pockets and yielling "Everybody freeze!" Any decent/professional cop there should strive to put you down without resorting to lethal force... but the situation is a little more nuanced than right vs wrong.
I just came out so that everyone can follow me. No I did not, I just want to buy some milk, all right?
This is just how messed up American mind is about privacy.
(comment to myself, do not comment on hacker news after having few beers and watching LCK)
I gave you a good example - you can not do what ever it is possible to do.
Hey, I have a gun, I can totally shoot you. Boom!
No I can not, every other person gets unhappy (all right, maybe not all of them).
So how hard is it to transfer this knowledge into another situation?
The fact that I am in your range does not mean you can shoot me, right?
The fact that I am visible to you does not mean that you can create a database of all my doings.
There is major difference between, oh, I saw that dude on the street and I have followed that dude 10 years every day, I know every place he have been.
Wrong. The fact that you are in my range does mean that I could shoot you if I wish. It does not mean that I will do so, but you do not get to decide. What is to stop me, your blind faith in the eventual justice of the cosmic balance?
If you want to make less likely that people shoots you, try to step out of the typical ranges of people you don't trust. It is so sad, because it means you cannot go anymore where all the everymen want to go.
I disagree with that argument. Just because I place information with a third party doesn't mean I shouldn't have an expectation of privacy. People used to have a level of discretion and "minding ones' own business".
Sure - just like sending a letter, or driving around town...right? We already use third party service providers in the physical world which come with some (legally enforceable) expectations of privacy. Why is the digital domain different?
"American technology companies should be free to comply directly with foreign government requests for data, as long as that access is warranted and meets international standards of due process and human rights."
The NYT really has gone downhill in the last decade or so. I understand this is just an Op-Ed, but for the life of me I don't understand why it is so hard for people to grasp the core issue regarding surveillance and the internet.
The Constitution. The fourth amendment to be precise, is very specific about this: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
So while I do agree there should be some discussion about the details of the fourth, and what it applies to (does data on your ISP rented cable modem deserve the same level of fourth amendment protection as your actual computer, for example), but in general I think we can say that data is a "paper" and/or "effects", and generally deserves such protections at the very least on equipment we own. (I know some will dispute this and I look forward to such discussion.)
That being said, when I see things like the following, I understand that what is being said is that other countries don't want to follow our process of law, which I think is absurd!
"So if a British cop is investigating a murder in London, and he has good reason to believe that Google or Facebook has evidence about the crime, he must satisfy an American judge using an American constitutional standard to obtain the evidence. This cross-border process is notoriously slow. Requests take an average of 10 months — an eon in a criminal investigation — and many languish for years."
"Making it harder for the police to get criminal evidence lawfully may actually incentivize them to seek that data by snooping."
All I have to say is...Get a warrant!!!
It's possible the warrant system for electronic data is too slow, and if that's the case work on changing that system, but that doesn't mean you get to throw out basic law because it's inconvenient. Hell, if we let this kind of logic apply to other areas, what good would the law be in the first place?
Look, the bottom line is that national sovereignty is still important, because when it comes down to it, people from a country operate under that countries laws, and we need to stop pretending otherwise.
"If America fails to allow such access, it will happen anyway in a brute and extralegal manner — and the result will be a less secure, less efficient Internet."
And I fully hope that any police officers or other LEAs/LEOs who participate wilfully in and with full knowledge in violations of their oaths should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and this includes the NSA. I'm getting tired of allowing UK/European style disdain for the rule of law to seep into the American way of doing things. We fought a bloody revolution to form our government, and we shouldn't piss it away so easily with international agreements of a questionable nature.
The SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that even so called "illegal aliens" are protected by the Constitution under the equal protection clause. So I understand that this article focuses on the UK/European citizens data the resides in America, the bottom line is that any passage of laws contrary to this should be challenge-able on Constitutional grounds in higher-courts.
Of course the real danger is not that police will illegally spy... it's that they will find some loophole to legally spy by pushing the rule of law system out of the way and will try to interface directly with corporations and companies. So it would be Company A just giv...