3 ms·

What I Learned About Tech Privacy from Jury Duty

23 points by petethomas 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
flocial 8y ago
"Sitting on the jury, I felt willing to give up a little more of my personal privacy to make sure my fellow citizens are safe. Where to draw that line, though, is decidedly not black and white." I suppose this is the exact kind of sentiment lawmakers and law enforcement want to tap into to justify their encroachment on civil rights. What scares me is the access to this personal information combined with the growing judicial mess of regulations, vague/irrational laws, and high legal costs. Makes me grateful for the EFF and people like RMS who continue to fight the good fight against the world.
Brian_K_White 8y ago
This is the most utterly ignorant thing I have read all day, which is remarkable if you knew some of the things I read on facebook. I almost think it was crafted. Oh I'm sure someone was really on jury duty, but that doesn't preclude crafting and opportunistic use of someone who was really on jury duty. I have to assume that unpacking and listing all the plot holes would just be preaching to the choir here. TL,DR: "I originally had one opinion based on no thought at all, just random luck that I felt one way, vaguely, for no actual reason, as a result of no substantial examination or consideration of the problem. Then one day a bunch of important-looking Authority Figures forced me to hear their propaganda in a controlled and impressive setting, and I totally bought it, because having no thoughts of my own, I am effortlessly impressionable."
- _cs2017_ 8y ago
  Other than sharing a view you disagree with, what exactly did the author say to justify labeling them as ignorant? You show utmost disrespect to the author, I feel you should at least go to the trouble of explaining your points.
- flocial 8y ago
  It reads like a sponsored piece from the DoJ. "I took my courtroom musings to the ACLU’s Jennifer Granick, an expert on digital privacy and a former criminal defense attorney. She said even if law enforcement and prosecutors can’t access every morsel of digital information when investigating a crime, there is often more than one way to compile the same evidence or corroborating information." Yet, why not give up our freedoms to make life easier for law enforcement.
  - BLKNSLVR 8y ago
    I was expecting much deeper digression into all the alternative evidence that was mentioned, and how that should prove: 1. Encryption isn't a silver bullet to protect someone from being found guilty of crimes they committed 2. All the angles from which other evidence can be gathered is highly likely to close out any thoughts of reasonable doubt. Relate it all to the case that was used as an example, then pose the question, would you have any reasonable doubt that they were guilty? Requiring the content of the accused's phone is akin to requiring their signed confession before they can be found guilty. The article's conclusion is a little offensive: I felt willing to give up a little more of my personal privacy to make sure my fellow citizens are safe. Where to draw that line, though, is decidedly not black and white. It IS black and white. You don't need to give up any personal privacy to make your fellow citizens feel safe, that's how it's been for a long time... I'd actually feel less safe knowing there's a government spectre hanging over my digital life.
ramblerouser 8y ago
It pleases me that 4/5 hacker news comments here call out this manipulative establishment propaganda for what it is. "We need to keep talking about how secure the technology is, how secure we want it to be, and how tech and telecommunications companies decide when to hand over our personal information. A small number of powerful companies make regular choices about when law enforcement has legitimate demands for personal information and when they may be overreaching." Translation: the "intelligence community" is mad that apple doesnt rubber stamp their data requests and actually makes them go to court for a warrent sometimes and so they want backdoors in everything.
gammateam 8y ago
As the ACLU mentions in this article, there is more than one way to gather evidence and corroborate information than relying on sweeping up digital breadcrumbs, its not reliant on this false dichotomy of a debate regarding a [potential] defendant's privacy.
- gralx 8y ago
  One way that I like is called _having the key to one's own freedom:_ if someone refuses to decrypt data under court order, they go to jail for contempt and stay there until they relent.
  - gammateam 8y ago
    there needs to be an avenue to challenge that as well though, a high burden of cause, and a venue to exercise or expect the constitutional right against self incrimination.

23 points by petethomas 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

"Sitting on the jury, I felt willing to give up a little more of my personal privacy to make sure my fellow citizens are safe. Where to draw that line, though, is decidedly not black and white." I suppose this is the exact kind of sentiment lawmakers and law enforcement want to tap into to justify their encroachment on civil rights. What scares me is the access to this personal information combined with the growing judicial mess of regulations, vague/irrational laws, and high legal costs. Makes me grateful for the EFF and people like RMS who continue to fight the good fight against the world.

Brian_K_White 8y ago

This is the most utterly ignorant thing I have read all day, which is remarkable if you knew some of the things I read on facebook. I almost think it was crafted. Oh I'm sure someone was really on jury duty, but that doesn't preclude crafting and opportunistic use of someone who was really on jury duty. I have to assume that unpacking and listing all the plot holes would just be preaching to the choir here. TL,DR: "I originally had one opinion based on no thought at all, just random luck that I felt one way, vaguely, for no actual reason, as a result of no substantial examination or consideration of the problem. Then one day a bunch of important-looking Authority Figures forced me to hear their propaganda in a controlled and impressive setting, and I totally bought it, because having no thoughts of my own, I am effortlessly impressionable."

_cs2017_ 8y ago
Other than sharing a view you disagree with, what exactly did the author say to justify labeling them as ignorant? You show utmost disrespect to the author, I feel you should at least go to the trouble of explaining your points.
flocial 8y ago
It reads like a sponsored piece from the DoJ. "I took my courtroom musings to the ACLU’s Jennifer Granick, an expert on digital privacy and a former criminal defense attorney. She said even if law enforcement and prosecutors can’t access every morsel of digital information when investigating a crime, there is often more than one way to compile the same evidence or corroborating information." Yet, why not give up our freedoms to make life easier for law enforcement.
- BLKNSLVR 8y ago
  I was expecting much deeper digression into all the alternative evidence that was mentioned, and how that should prove: 1. Encryption isn't a silver bullet to protect someone from being found guilty of crimes they committed 2. All the angles from which other evidence can be gathered is highly likely to close out any thoughts of reasonable doubt. Relate it all to the case that was used as an example, then pose the question, would you have any reasonable doubt that they were guilty? Requiring the content of the accused's phone is akin to requiring their signed confession before they can be found guilty. The article's conclusion is a little offensive: I felt willing to give up a little more of my personal privacy to make sure my fellow citizens are safe. Where to draw that line, though, is decidedly not black and white. It IS black and white. You don't need to give up any personal privacy to make your fellow citizens feel safe, that's how it's been for a long time... I'd actually feel less safe knowing there's a government spectre hanging over my digital life.

ramblerouser 8y ago

It pleases me that 4/5 hacker news comments here call out this manipulative establishment propaganda for what it is. "We need to keep talking about how secure the technology is, how secure we want it to be, and how tech and telecommunications companies decide when to hand over our personal information. A small number of powerful companies make regular choices about when law enforcement has legitimate demands for personal information and when they may be overreaching." Translation: the "intelligence community" is mad that apple doesnt rubber stamp their data requests and actually makes them go to court for a warrent sometimes and so they want backdoors in everything.

gammateam 8y ago

As the ACLU mentions in this article, there is more than one way to gather evidence and corroborate information than relying on sweeping up digital breadcrumbs, its not reliant on this false dichotomy of a debate regarding a [potential] defendant's privacy.

gralx 8y ago
One way that I like is called _having the key to one's own freedom:_ if someone refuses to decrypt data under court order, they go to jail for contempt and stay there until they relent.
- gammateam 8y ago
  there needs to be an avenue to challenge that as well though, a high burden of cause, and a venue to exercise or expect the constitutional right against self incrimination.