12 ms·

I (and we should all) act as if this could happen to anyone. Essentially that the state can deputize any company to snitch on the digital ephemera that constitu

I (and we should all) act as if this could happen to anyone. Essentially that the state can deputize any company to snitch on the digital ephemera that constitutes our daily lives, but especially those that we are deeply engaged: Google, Facebook, Lyft, Amazon. As such, we should not self-censor, but instead disengage from these proxy-cops and move to more distributed spaces.

kryogen1c 7y ago
>the state can deputize any company to snitch on the digital ephemera that constitutes our daily lives this is not true, but in the way that makes your point much, much worse. In the US, case precedent is already set that digital data that you don't physically own is not yours. IANAL, but my understanding is that the standards for digital search-and-seizure are lower for cloud services, not equivalent or (god-forbid) higher.
- abbadadda 7y ago
  Right. But I suppose the thing is under it is conveniently (for the prosecution) consolidated under one company's umbrella, so I don't think it totally invalidates OP's point. What about companies such as Proton Mail? Would they just hand over all their data? I don't know. Honestly asking.
  - dole 7y ago
    ProtonMail could, but it looks like just raw IP logging and most everything else is encrypted by design. I dunno if turning over those IP logs killed or maimed their warrant canary in the process. https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtonMail/comments/biusm7/transparency_report_update_questions/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtonMail/comments/biusm7/transpar... Edit: obv PM’s canary is public and has disclosed they’ve released data to the Swiss courts, but it’s pretty much as advertised; ip logging is raw but the rest is encrypted.
abbadadda 7y ago
Queue the Google alternative posts. This is some terrifying stuff. > not just emails but also drafted and deleted messages; any files in their Google Drive cloud storage services; any Google Voice texts, calls and contacts; search and web browsing history; and location data.
- paxys 7y ago
  The scariest part is that this amount of data access can be very effectively weaponized to build a strong case against anyone. All of us are inadvertently breaking some law or the other all the time. If the government doesn't like you for any reason they are one court order away from blackmailing you or putting you away.
  - ars 7y ago
    > they are one court order away The implication being that the courts are corrupt? If that's the case I think you have way worse things to worry about than "data access", the courts have much greater powers than that.
    - harry8 7y ago
      The scale of it is what is of most interest. If the court gave a similar order to retrive similar amounts of physical (eg paper) information from your house, and anyone you happened to correspnd with it would be extremely notable and expensive as well as creating dramatic television pictures. Some of that is a deterrant to its abuse. "Google, fetch" the scale, ease and speed of that is worrying. How is its abuse to be stopped?
    - paxys 7y ago
      Courts may or may not be corrupt, but regardless of that it hasn't historically been very difficult for authorities to find a judge to sign off on a very wide-reaching warrant (like this very case).
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
drevil-v2 7y ago
State has a duty to prosecute law breakers. This is a load bearing wall of civil society. Everywhere. Making sweeping general statements is good for riling up the mobs but I would implore HN readers to be more pragmatic about these things. Look at the context. This person sought to ignite racial tensions for personal gain. He was given a sweetheart deal. The State is going after him and those protected him. They (the State prosecutors) have every right to collect and gather evidence to build the case.
- avs733 7y ago
  yes we have seen you know how to make this comment. Another way to look at that 'duty' is to say [The] state has a responsibility to ensure justice for all. That may seem like the same thing but vagueness is at times valuable given that life rarely satisfies the black and white dichotomies many of us would prefer.
  - drevil-v2 7y ago
    What exactly are you saying? That the State should let this one go?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - avs733 7y ago
      More so that laws are a social construct. We can have a discussion about how the state should behave without using catastrophic examples to shift debates about principles and policies. The post I was responding to sees the role of the state as a absolutist binaric executor of often fuzzy laws and rules. The context of this example doesn't have any affect on whether or not that naive belief is a path to a functional and just society. Whatever happens with Smollett, or the next example, simply doesn't support a belief that every crime should be prosecuted. There was a (hamfisted but entertaining) TNG episode about this for gods sake...
- hnuser123456 7y ago
crocodiletears 7y ago
I disagree on your last point. Whether it's Google, Microsoft, your ISP, a databroker, a webscraper, an unscrupulous app developer, or even your TV, I think it's safe to assume that one day or the next, every piece of content you produce, or topic you discuss will leak its way onto a major adcorp's servers. I can hardly think of anyone I know that can't attest to the experience of discussing something as a non-sequitur, only to receive ads about it shortly thereafter. Even visiting an old friend with vastly different interests, never enabling location services, or connecting to their WiFi, I've noticed vast changes in my ad regime. Decentralising your web activity can only make you less easily monetizable, but you'll never escape the panopticon, and Google can release data it got from third-parties just as easily as the data it collected itself. If you want to say something you don't want Facebook, Amazon, MS, Google, or the state to hear about, do it in the woods or a private room away from anything digital.
- cronix 7y ago
  The other week I was out in a National Forest hiking. I was about 6 miles from the nearest Forest Service road. I took a break and sat there eating a sandwich and looked up to see a camera mounted on a tree about 4 feet from me. I imagine some hunter put it there. I'm just saying that even out in the middle of nowhere, not near any paved roads, there are still cameras watching and recording.
  - crocodiletears 7y ago
    Dishearteningly true.
  - protomyth 7y ago
    If it's for the purpose our wildlife people are going to try to do, it is for animal count and trail tracking.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    Satellite surveillance, or spy-planes/drones also might record you in the wilderness.
- deleted 7y ago
judge2020 7y ago
I imagine that being distributed makes it easier to obtain the data for a person. If a court can't get data on a user from the the main server's owner, they might go after more vulnerable server owners that happened to be federated with the main server (vulnerable, as in less disposable income for lawyers).
- bananocurrency 7y ago
  distributed !== decentralized
ryanmccullagh 7y ago
It’s clear you have no idea what this actor did. He staged a hate crime in Chicago and the main cook county attorney dropped the case after CPD proved it was fake. With your radical views, where do you draw the line? Will you vote to protect criminals, child abusers, rapist? All in an effort for “privacy”?
- harry8 7y ago
  It's clear you have made up your mind without the facts. Note the Tribune's reticence to come to that conclusion based on the actual evidence? I have zero opinion about it. Separate to that this comment has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the parent comment, whether you agree with the parent or not. Rights should exist for everyone, not just everyone you happen to like. Whether this warrant has gone too far as the parent suggests and it is necessary to take countermeasures or not is the argument, not your feelings about someone accused of something which frankly have no baring on anything in such a discussion.
  - himinlomax 7y ago
    Is there anyone, anyone at all, who disputes that he made a false report?
    - harry8 7y ago
      I have little idea and care even less, myself. The source material, ie article published by the Tribune, was completely unwilling to come to that same conclusion in the story. So to me it seems more likely that it is in dispute on that basis rather than that is is indsiputable due to wholly unsupported comments here. But again it doesn't matter at ALL. It has zero relevance to this discussion. None. No really. Rights are especially important when they relate to people you dislike doing things you also dislike. That situation is exactly when you lose your rights. Like maybe think about if that's is what is happening here.
      - himinlomax 7y ago
Y-Bopinator 7y ago
Jussie Smollet isn’t just anyone. Filing a false police report is a crime. Don’t commit crime and you’ll be fine, idiot.
Simulacra 7y ago
It could but it's more than likely not. In this case a crime was committed and possibly covered up. As much as I agree with you to move to distributed spaces and increased privacy, I think Google has an obligation to comply here.
auiya 7y ago
> the [US] state can deputize any [US-incorporated] company to snitch FTFY. I don't believe they have the same legal authorities to compel companies incorporated outside of their country jurisdiction to do the same, correct me if I'm wrong. This isn't the same as a sharing agreement done as a diplomatic quid-pro-quo however, which I'm sure also happens.

kryogen1c 7y ago

>the state can deputize any company to snitch on the digital ephemera that constitutes our daily lives this is not true, but in the way that makes your point much, much worse. In the US, case precedent is already set that digital data that you don't physically own is not yours. IANAL, but my understanding is that the standards for digital search-and-seizure are lower for cloud services, not equivalent or (god-forbid) higher.

abbadadda 7y ago
Right. But I suppose the thing is under it is conveniently (for the prosecution) consolidated under one company's umbrella, so I don't think it totally invalidates OP's point. What about companies such as Proton Mail? Would they just hand over all their data? I don't know. Honestly asking.
- dole 7y ago
  ProtonMail could, but it looks like just raw IP logging and most everything else is encrypted by design. I dunno if turning over those IP logs killed or maimed their warrant canary in the process. https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtonMail/comments/biusm7/transparency_report_update_questions/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtonMail/comments/biusm7/transpar... Edit: obv PM’s canary is public and has disclosed they’ve released data to the Swiss courts, but it’s pretty much as advertised; ip logging is raw but the rest is encrypted.

abbadadda 7y ago

Queue the Google alternative posts. This is some terrifying stuff. > not just emails but also drafted and deleted messages; any files in their Google Drive cloud storage services; any Google Voice texts, calls and contacts; search and web browsing history; and location data.

paxys 7y ago
The scariest part is that this amount of data access can be very effectively weaponized to build a strong case against anyone. All of us are inadvertently breaking some law or the other all the time. If the government doesn't like you for any reason they are one court order away from blackmailing you or putting you away.
- ars 7y ago
  > they are one court order away The implication being that the courts are corrupt? If that's the case I think you have way worse things to worry about than "data access", the courts have much greater powers than that.
  - harry8 7y ago
    The scale of it is what is of most interest. If the court gave a similar order to retrive similar amounts of physical (eg paper) information from your house, and anyone you happened to correspnd with it would be extremely notable and expensive as well as creating dramatic television pictures. Some of that is a deterrant to its abuse. "Google, fetch" the scale, ease and speed of that is worrying. How is its abuse to be stopped?
  - paxys 7y ago
    Courts may or may not be corrupt, but regardless of that it hasn't historically been very difficult for authorities to find a judge to sign off on a very wide-reaching warrant (like this very case).
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago

drevil-v2 7y ago

State has a duty to prosecute law breakers. This is a load bearing wall of civil society. Everywhere. Making sweeping general statements is good for riling up the mobs but I would implore HN readers to be more pragmatic about these things. Look at the context. This person sought to ignite racial tensions for personal gain. He was given a sweetheart deal. The State is going after him and those protected him. They (the State prosecutors) have every right to collect and gather evidence to build the case.

avs733 7y ago
yes we have seen you know how to make this comment. Another way to look at that 'duty' is to say [The] state has a responsibility to ensure justice for all. That may seem like the same thing but vagueness is at times valuable given that life rarely satisfies the black and white dichotomies many of us would prefer.
- drevil-v2 7y ago
  What exactly are you saying? That the State should let this one go?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - avs733 7y ago
    More so that laws are a social construct. We can have a discussion about how the state should behave without using catastrophic examples to shift debates about principles and policies. The post I was responding to sees the role of the state as a absolutist binaric executor of often fuzzy laws and rules. The context of this example doesn't have any affect on whether or not that naive belief is a path to a functional and just society. Whatever happens with Smollett, or the next example, simply doesn't support a belief that every crime should be prosecuted. There was a (hamfisted but entertaining) TNG episode about this for gods sake...
hnuser123456 7y ago

crocodiletears 7y ago

I disagree on your last point. Whether it's Google, Microsoft, your ISP, a databroker, a webscraper, an unscrupulous app developer, or even your TV, I think it's safe to assume that one day or the next, every piece of content you produce, or topic you discuss will leak its way onto a major adcorp's servers. I can hardly think of anyone I know that can't attest to the experience of discussing something as a non-sequitur, only to receive ads about it shortly thereafter. Even visiting an old friend with vastly different interests, never enabling location services, or connecting to their WiFi, I've noticed vast changes in my ad regime. Decentralising your web activity can only make you less easily monetizable, but you'll never escape the panopticon, and Google can release data it got from third-parties just as easily as the data it collected itself. If you want to say something you don't want Facebook, Amazon, MS, Google, or the state to hear about, do it in the woods or a private room away from anything digital.

cronix 7y ago
The other week I was out in a National Forest hiking. I was about 6 miles from the nearest Forest Service road. I took a break and sat there eating a sandwich and looked up to see a camera mounted on a tree about 4 feet from me. I imagine some hunter put it there. I'm just saying that even out in the middle of nowhere, not near any paved roads, there are still cameras watching and recording.
- crocodiletears 7y ago
  Dishearteningly true.
- protomyth 7y ago
  If it's for the purpose our wildlife people are going to try to do, it is for animal count and trail tracking.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Satellite surveillance, or spy-planes/drones also might record you in the wilderness.
deleted 7y ago

judge2020 7y ago

I imagine that being distributed makes it easier to obtain the data for a person. If a court can't get data on a user from the the main server's owner, they might go after more vulnerable server owners that happened to be federated with the main server (vulnerable, as in less disposable income for lawyers).

bananocurrency 7y ago
distributed !== decentralized

ryanmccullagh 7y ago

It’s clear you have no idea what this actor did. He staged a hate crime in Chicago and the main cook county attorney dropped the case after CPD proved it was fake. With your radical views, where do you draw the line? Will you vote to protect criminals, child abusers, rapist? All in an effort for “privacy”?

harry8 7y ago
It's clear you have made up your mind without the facts. Note the Tribune's reticence to come to that conclusion based on the actual evidence? I have zero opinion about it. Separate to that this comment has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the parent comment, whether you agree with the parent or not. Rights should exist for everyone, not just everyone you happen to like. Whether this warrant has gone too far as the parent suggests and it is necessary to take countermeasures or not is the argument, not your feelings about someone accused of something which frankly have no baring on anything in such a discussion.
- himinlomax 7y ago
  Is there anyone, anyone at all, who disputes that he made a false report?
  - harry8 7y ago
    I have little idea and care even less, myself. The source material, ie article published by the Tribune, was completely unwilling to come to that same conclusion in the story. So to me it seems more likely that it is in dispute on that basis rather than that is is indsiputable due to wholly unsupported comments here. But again it doesn't matter at ALL. It has zero relevance to this discussion. None. No really. Rights are especially important when they relate to people you dislike doing things you also dislike. That situation is exactly when you lose your rights. Like maybe think about if that's is what is happening here.
    - himinlomax 7y ago

Y-Bopinator 7y ago

Jussie Smollet isn’t just anyone. Filing a false police report is a crime. Don’t commit crime and you’ll be fine, idiot.

Simulacra 7y ago

It could but it's more than likely not. In this case a crime was committed and possibly covered up. As much as I agree with you to move to distributed spaces and increased privacy, I think Google has an obligation to comply here.

auiya 7y ago

> the [US] state can deputize any [US-incorporated] company to snitch FTFY. I don't believe they have the same legal authorities to compel companies incorporated outside of their country jurisdiction to do the same, correct me if I'm wrong. This isn't the same as a sharing agreement done as a diplomatic quid-pro-quo however, which I'm sure also happens.